PDA

View Full Version : alignment is bad and you should feel bad



Pages : [1] 2

FabulousFizban
2018-01-07, 12:41 PM
alignment is, without a doubt, the dumbest mechanic in the game. it does nothing except generate arguments and make someone exclaim, "you're character wouldn't do that, it's against your alignment!"

biitch don't tell me what my character would do - in this open ended sandbox game where the limit is supposed to be my imagination.

alignment serves no useful purpose. i say junk the whole mechanic for the trash it is and let players determine who their character is and how and why they act on their own terms.

who is this person that is saying, "yeah, alignment, that's why i game! d&d wouldnt be d&d without alignment." really?

and if a character has a moment of divinely (player) driven insanity, who cares? people go crazy in real life too - sometimes without warning.

and if becomes a game disrupting problem; if the gods (players) prove too mercurial in their temperments, then
zeus (the dm) needs to make olympus fall in line (rocks fall).

Arbane
2018-01-07, 12:48 PM
Without alignment, how are we supposed to make the paladin fall arbitrarily?

Semi-seriously, I'm fine with crossing out 'alignment' on the character sheet. Plenty of RPGs made since 1974 have done so, and it works fine for them. (IIRC, alignment got started due to a DM needing a way to get his players to stop backstabbing each other. "Not playing with jerks" hadn't been discovered yet, apparently.)

I forget the name of it, but there's at least one Fantasy Heartbreaker game out there which has alignment, but uses it soley as an indication of which Elder God/Cosmic Force your character has the most affinity to, not a Morality Meter (So, no 'good' or 'evil' on it). I liked that.

Aliquid
2018-01-07, 01:02 PM
alignment is, without a doubt, the dumbest mechanic in the game. it does nothing except generate arguments and make someone exclaim, "you're character wouldn't do that, it's against your alignment!"

biitch don't tell me what my character would do - in this open ended sandbox game where the limit is supposed to be my imagination.I agree alignment is highly problematic, but even with alignment, I don't think someone can say that. The "alignment" on your character sheet doesn't determine your behavior. Your behavior determines your alignment. So at best, the DM would say "If you keep behaving like that, your alignment will change", and unless you have specific abilities that depend on alignment (paladin etc), then your response would be "OK, my alignment changes... so what?"


and if a character has a moment of divinely (player) driven insanity, who cares? people go crazy in real life too - sometimes without warning.Again, it only matters if you have alignment driven abilities. If you play in a game where Clerics get their abilities from their god... their god could easily decide "I'm not giving powers to that guy any more... I don't need a lunatic like that going around and claiming he is doing things in my name"

Pull out spells like "detect evil" or "protection from evil", and you can quite easily remove alignment. Alignment really isn't important to the game at all. And as you say, it just causes arguments... nobody agrees on what qualifies as one alignment vs the next.

Geddy2112
2018-01-07, 01:24 PM
It makes sense in any world or system where there is objective morality and ethics. Where good and evil are literal forces that fight against one another, and beings can be made out of or at least part of these things. That said, I am fine throwing it out or limiting it to deities and their agents, where mortal beings simply cannot be good or evil lawful or chaotic etc.

I also don't like it for clerics and divine classes-they should not fall for breaking their alignment, they should fall or lose powers for violating whatever it is their deity upholds. This of course breaks down to good and evil for good and evil deities, but even if you worship an ideal or nature or whatever, you would lose powers for going against that ideal.

As a player and a DM, I don't care what you write down on your character sheet, only what you do. The world and characters respond according to action and belief, not some 2 letters you write on a piece of paper. I don't mind players using that to help flesh out their character concept and to help them get into the mindset of what their character would do in a given situation. That said, alignment should be descriptive, not prescriptive, indicating what a character generally has thought and done, not how they must respond to a situation.

tensai_oni
2018-01-07, 01:25 PM
Yeah, there's a reason non-DnD systems very rarely use the alignments as understood by DnD. Some of them have mechanical ways to describe a character's personality, values or loyalties, but not in the way DnD does it.

Even Dungeons and Dragons are starting to lose the focus on alignment. In the newest edition, abilities that work on characters with a specific alignment are very few - there are some effects here and there, but they're small niche things for the most part. The Paladin's detect evil ability, or spells like protection from evil/good have been changed to affect supernatural creature types (aberrants, undead, fey, etc) instead of people of a specific alignment. Almost all alignment requirements are gone too. Paladins pick a specific code to follow, and fall not for performing an evil deed but for serious breaches against the code.

I suspect at ths rate, 5e has alignments only because DnD had them from (almost) the very beginning, so they're grandfathered in.

Tanarii
2018-01-07, 01:41 PM
I agree alignment is highly problematic, but even with alignment, I don't think someone can say that. The "alignment" on your character sheet doesn't determine your behavior. Your behavior determines your alignment. So at best, the DM would say "If you keep behaving like that, your alignment will change", and unless you have specific abilities that depend on alignment (paladin etc), then your response would be "OK, my alignment changes... so what?"
Questionable. It's entirely possible in D&D 5e to primarily use Alignment as an additional character motivation, along with Personality trait, Ideal, Bond and Flaw.

In that regard, used primairly as a roleplaying aid to get in character for in-character decision making, it's not something required for the system to work. But a typical, but not required nor consistent, behavioral motivation based on social and moral attitudes, used by the player along with other personality motivations, can be useful.

But used that way, when there's a potential problem is when other players or the DM insist the player is playing out of Alignment. Especially if they're trying to judge Alignment based on a single given action, when it's about typical, but not required nor consistent, behavior. And only one facet of personality.

Aneurin
2018-01-07, 01:52 PM
Semi-seriously, I'm fine with crossing out 'alignment' on the character sheet. Plenty of RPGs made since 1974 have done so, and it works fine for them. (IIRC, alignment got started due to a DM needing a way to get his players to stop backstabbing each other. "Not playing with jerks" hadn't been discovered yet, apparently.)

...That sounds remarkably petty if that's how alignment got started. Also, I don't actually understand how giving players an actual reason to kill each other ("You're playing an Evil character - my Good character must kill you and take your stuff!") stops the backstabbing happening.

I'd have thought requiring characters to be described in terms of personality would be a more useful tool (and more descriptive). So, Ordered/Neutral/Chaotic and Altruistic/Neutral/Selfish. You could even keep the various Detect (and even Protection, probably) spells by claiming that personality types attract or generate certain energy types (Positive energy for, say, Altruistic individuals.


On the other hand, I'd just as soon do without alignment at all. And do, since I don't touch anything that has it. Alignment (at least D&D's alignment, and I'm unaware of any others) tends to be an incoherent internally inconsistent mess since it makes the mistake of claiming to be objective without enough depth and complexity for that to be workable - and subjective morality renders most alignment-based abilities moot, particularly in the anecdotally adversarial early days of D&D where the DM was allegedly out to kill all the PCs.

Alignment tends to be arbitrarily limiting, too, since it - or, at least, many players and DMs - enforce their own ideas of how an alignment should (or more often shouldn't) act, while not actually giving a useable and informative personality sketch for the player to work with.


And most of all? It terrifies me when people try and claim (or, worse, justify) their blood-thirty tomb robbers' genocidal campaigns against 'evil' species as being in any way, shape or form 'good'. If you think trying to exterminate sapient beings just because a spell tells you they're evil is a 'good' act, then I'm sorry but I want nothing to do with you.

BWR
2018-01-07, 02:11 PM
I'm fine with alignment and think it belongs in D&D. I don't play D&D because of it, as the OP so facetiously puts it, but I do think it should be there. Most D&D settings have objective morality and these are forces with tangible effects in the worlds, and in this respect it's perfectly understandable to see how well a character aligns with the various axes.

Sensible players don't quibble over every little diverse interpretation of an action. Sensible people know there is more to a character than alignment. Sensible people understand that PCs are not locked into a single mode of behavior and sometimes do stuff they shouldn't or normally wouldn't. Sensible people use alignment primarily descriptively (and prescriptive alignment hasn't been a thing for years). It's a quick note to see how your character fits in with the multiverse at large and can help indicate what sort of choices your PC would make it you are unsure (and some people actually do struggle to have fully fleshed characters right from the start).


As for moral genocide, if that's OK by the setting, then it's OK. Personally I find Dragonlance's gods dropping a mountain on people for being too good and calling it just and good abhorrant, but that's how that setting works and that's how I play in that setting. Game morality =/= real world morality.

Faily
2018-01-07, 02:17 PM
In general, for me, I find alignment to be more in line with other game systems' Nature, Motivation, Virtue/Vice, Personality trait, etc... it's something to give guide in what sort of person your character is. In the case of Clerics and Paladins, well, they are people completely dedicated to a religion's dogma or philosophical values, so yes, it makes sense to me that it is a bit different for them... especially considering that Gods and the like actually do have power to grant and take away if they are displeased with how their followers are using their divinely granted abilities. And I say this as a player who has had a Paladin who needed Atonement 3 times (and no, it was not done because my GM is a ****).

Setting-wise, in the D&D-settings I know, Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are all actual cosmic forces vying for dominance on the planes. Not only through the conflict between outsiders bound to their planes of dominance, but also through the actions of living beings on the Material Plane (or whatever it is called, depending on the setting). It is why certain spells have alignment descriptors, because they are actively channeling the power of that cosmic force into that magic, thus bringing it more into their realm... so it makes sense to me that the more Evil-aligned magic a person cast, they too become more touched by that force as they bring more of Evil's power into their world. Same for the other three alignments.

So for me, yeah, D&D wouldn't quite be D&D if you did away with alignments. When I play D&D, I do like the meta of Good vs Evil (with capital G and E)... I do like playing heroes who fight in these battles.

When I don't want to play that, I can play other games that deal with different things. Simple as that. Different games and systems for different preferences and flavours.

D+1
2018-01-07, 03:03 PM
alignment is, without a doubt, the dumbest mechanic in the game. it does nothing except generate arguments and make someone exclaim, "you're character wouldn't do that, it's against your alignment!"Actions dictate alignment. Alignment doesn't dictate actions. "You CAN'T do that!" is absolutely INcorrect. The CORRECT response is, "IF you do that then your alignment could/will change! If it changes then that can/will have in-game consequences."


biitch don't tell me what my character would do - in this open ended sandbox game where the limit is supposed to be my imagination.Again, alignment - when understood and used correctly - does not tell you what you can/can't do, only what happens if your PC does things they shouldn't IF they do them. The game is not as open-ended as you claim and never was. Alignment was there in the original 1974 rules serving as a means to limit what your character could do without repercussions. That is, you could still choose to have your character do wildly inappropriate or contrary things from one moment to the next - but it would come at some cost or at least give the DM some official basis for saying that you can't just do anything you want without some SENSIBLE motivation for your character to do it.

Why CAN'T you just have your PC do anything you want at any moment? Simply put: It's disruptive.


alignment serves no useful purpose. i say junk the whole mechanic for the trash it is and let players determine who their character is and how and why they act on their own terms.It does have a very useful purpose. Not everybody needs it for that purpose, but in my personal experience it's the players who want to completely eliminate it who are most likely to have their PC's act like complete random, disruptive-to-the-game, nutburgers. More than anything else, that is what alignment is intended to keep under control.


who is this person that is saying, "yeah, alignment, that's why i game! d&d wouldnt be d&d without alignment." really?Who are you to say the opposite? When you are DM of your own game you have no game police telling you that you have to use alignment. If you want to convince others that they should not use it either AND that the game shouldn't even include it at all, then you have to come up with reasons that have some real weight and, "Because _I_ simply don't like it," isn't too persuasive especially when you demonstrate that you've fallen into the most common misunderstanding about alignment - that it DICTATES your actions.


and if a character has a moment of divinely (player) driven insanity, who cares? people go crazy in real life too - sometimes without warning.Alignment doesn't prevent that - IF you're using it correctly. It simply establishes that there are game-mechanical consequences for that.


and if becomes a game disrupting problem; if the gods (players) prove too mercurial in their temperments, then
zeus (the dm) needs to make olympus fall in line (rocks fall).Alignment avoids the DM having to resort to such objectionable, heavy-handed steps.

johnbragg
2018-01-07, 04:06 PM
Alignment does some useful things.

It helps complete newbie roleplayers decide what they want their guy to be. Is he fighting for justice and to be a big hero (Luke Skywalker), or is he trying to make his fortune (Han Solo)? Good vs Neutral. Does he value honor and upholding the rules, or is he inclined to "break the rules" to get things done? Law vs Chaos.

It also helps DMs (especially new DMs) decide how their various enemy humanoids differ from each other. Hobgoblins have orange skin and form hierarchical societies, (LE) orcs have green skin and have difficultly organizing anything larger than a small band without breaking into a riot over something or other (CE), while gnolls are just violent, sadistic jerks (NE). So forged papers from the Dark Lord will get you nowhere with the orc guards, will get you a conversation with the gnoll guards, will get you ushered anywhere you want to go by the hobgoblin guards.

But I haven't put my alignment or had my players put their alignments on character sheets in a long, long time. I think the last time I picked an alignment was in the early 2000s, where I decided my first 3rd edition character would be "lawful neutral", with the provision that he had a strong bias towards anything that society accepted as normal and an aversion to anything bizarre or aberrant. So he was just peachy-keen with the party's Death Priest doing necromancer stuff--(he's a Death Priest, whaddaya expect?) or the magitech kingdom having crews of zombies pulling carriages--while being pretty freaked out for a half a level by the Monk's unarmed damage ability (monks were not native to the setting).

Pleh
2018-01-07, 04:11 PM
Meh. I've never seen it taken that seriously. My tables treat it more like a suggestion than a rule. Worst case is making some deity take a particular disliking to you.

johnbragg
2018-01-07, 04:19 PM
Meh. I've never seen it taken that seriously. My tables treat it more like a suggestion than a rule. Worst case is making some deity take a particular disliking to you.

I think it's the tarragon of RPG features. It has some ocassional utility, no one would really miss it if it were gone, too much of it ruins things.

digiman619
2018-01-07, 04:44 PM
Well, Pathfinder had rules for removing it (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules/#Removing_Alignment). You could borrow from there.

Berenger
2018-01-07, 05:18 PM
Use Allegiance (http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/basics/allegiances.php) rules. End of trouble.

Sajiri
2018-01-07, 08:38 PM
Actions dictate alignment. Alignment doesn't dictate actions. "You CAN'T do that!" is absolutely INcorrect. The CORRECT response is, "IF you do that then your alignment could/will change! If it changes then that can/will have in-game consequences."

This is how my group handles it. We use alignment to describe our character's actions but not to define it. Although we tend to keep alignment mechanics out of the game, except for when it comes to clerics and who they worship (but we tend to be looser with that too). I don't like the idea of penalising someone for changing alignments

It's not uncommon that my own characters have had their alignments change over time based on their experiences. I think it's a fun thing to play with, but maybe not strictly as the D&D rules define it.

Psikerlord
2018-01-08, 05:49 AM
I agree that alignment is, at least as of 5e, of no practical utility. Just remove it. We havent used it for years, and most other RPGs dont use anything like it. Game is more engaging without it, imo. If you want a hard "credo" or "code" for a faction or particular individual, go for it. But alignment as a vague label is best removed/forgotten.

Eldan
2018-01-08, 06:06 AM
I use it as a "which plane is your character ('s soul) most aligned to mechanic. Which has rather a lot of mechanical effects, as it happens.

dagfari
2018-01-08, 06:32 AM
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Alignment describes how your character thinks about the world on a moral level. It describes how your character justifies their actions. In the case of overtly religious characters, it reflects an important part of their relationship with their deity (who also has an alignment that describes their way of thinking about the world)

It's all about the moral justification for your character's actions.

Can a Lawful Good religion oppress nonbelievers?
"Unbelief, and evil belief especially, are inherently corrupting. Better to stamp it out at the root, than let it grow and fester. We protect the good people of our country by removing the evil from among them."

Can a Lawful Good cleric animate the dead?
"All true believers know that the soul departs from the body and proceeds to their eternal reward. What is left behind is merely a shell. Why should the shell of the departed soul not serve for the good of all? An animated skeleton makes a farmhand that will never tire, growing food that will feed the poor."

Can a Chaotic Evil goblin show mercy to his enemy?
"Bonebreaker show you mercy today, yes, you remember. You remember mercy from goblin and give good thing to bonebreaker later!"

Can a Lawful Neutral cleric prepare illusion spells?
NO, probably not. All a cleric's spells come from the power of their deity - and if the deity is one of law, he will likely not grant the power to confuse, cloud the mind or charm anyone.
"Why would I grant you the power to do something I despise? Do not ask a second time."

Seto
2018-01-08, 06:53 AM
I like alignment, it's part of the D&D experience for me, because it's indicative of cosmic morality. Knowing that my character's actions are not restricted to their own tiny life but aligned to mysterious cosmic forces, and in some characters aligned strongly enough that they have an actual aura - is something I appreciate in the fantasy genre. It's a big part of the appeal of Tolkien for me: incarnations of Good and Evil, corruption to Evil, etc. It's black-and-white, sure, but it's also kinda awesome when Shelob reeks of Evil so much that the hobbits can feel upon entering her lair, without ever seeing her, that something terrible lives here.

Now I also like (indeed, prefer) nuanced and grey morality more akin to real life. But when I want that experience, I don't play D&D.

Mordaedil
2018-01-08, 06:58 AM
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

This.

Every version of D&D since oD&D specifically states this. It confuses me how many people seem to get it wrong, even today.

And then people just go "wow, it's way better to play the game without alignment", even though nothing really changed from how the rules say it should work.

Eldan
2018-01-08, 10:01 AM
In the right game and setting, I'm actually fine with alignment being at least partially prescriptive. There is a cosmic semi-sapient force of law or chaos or goodness or evil, and it decides whether you belong in its club or not. I'm absolutely fine with neutral or evil moral crusaders who still consider themselves good and absolutely see the cosmic definition of good as wrong.

Arbane
2018-01-08, 12:47 PM
Without alignment, we wouldn't have Chaotic Neutral.

denthor
2018-01-08, 01:09 PM
A character can do anything. I am lawful good. I will go and murder every child in this town because one may someday be evil. So kill them why they are still good.

It is up to the DM to decide if a shift in alignment and when.

Jay R
2018-01-08, 01:31 PM
The biggest problem with D&D alignment hasn't even been mentioned yet.

It is inconsistent with every real-world morality, ethics, or philosophy ever created.

There is no nine-way division of human actions as described in D&D. It's just not how people behave.

People aren't "good" until they perform enough immoral or amoral actions to flip the switch to "neutral".

The original D&D was unambiguously trying to simulate fantasy literature. So a morality system was put in the simulation because the challenge of good vs. evil is a crucial aspect of many fantasies. The extremes were called "Law" and "Chaos" from Moorcock and Dunsany because it sounded cool, but they were clearly intended to represent good and evil. High level clerics were Patriarchs if Lawful and Evil High Priests if Chaotic, etc.

Eventually, enough people noticed the discrepancy that they had to fix it. They could:
1. change the words to "Good" and "Evil",
2. make the rules clear by explaining the gaming jargon, or
3. try to hide the mistake by inventing an unrealistic and overly complicated game mechanic.

For Gygax, this was always an easy choice

Tanarii
2018-01-08, 02:08 PM
Without alignment, we wouldn't have Chaotic Neutral.You just won ever Alignment discussion ever. :smallbiggrin:


People aren't "good" until they perform enough immoral or amoral actions to flip the switch to "neutral".That's an edition specific interpretation of Alignment. For example, in 5e immoral or amoral or other Alignment "value" isn't tied to individual specific actions, with one specific exception*. It's about typical, but not constant nor required, behavior.

For that matter, it's a sub-edition interpretation for some editions. For example, 1e Dragonlance has Alignment charts for tracking micro-Alignment changes due to individual specific actions. Of course, Dragonlance was all about individual actions carrying moral weight and enough evil ones (or one big enough one) causing a Fall from Grace.


*creating undead is not a good action

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(general comment)

Ultimately the biggest flaws in Alignment stem from certain beliefs that people bring to the table:
- that you are a good or bad person (ie category) based on some few individual actions, not your overall behavior.
- individual actions carry 'Cosmic Alignment' moral weight.
- Evil actions or behavior carry more moral weight than lawful, good or chaotic ones. (Sometimes same logic applies to Chaotic carrying more than Lawful.)
- Fall from Grace, a bad enough Evil action damns you to be Evil despite a long history of Good behavior before and after.

(Edit: note that some of these are actually how Alignment is supposed to "work" in some editions. :smallyuk:)

Tinkerer
2018-01-08, 02:26 PM
The biggest problem with D&D alignment hasn't even been mentioned yet.

It is inconsistent with every real-world morality, ethics, or philosophy ever created.


Yep. And that is because the D&D world itself is inconsistent with every real world system of morality, ethics, or philosophy ever created. This is a world where the stars aren't some burning gas giants light years away, where dragons exist, and where the world itself is literally judging every action you take resulting in actual measurable consequences as a result.

Which is neat and fairly unique.

Myself I normally dislike removing alignments from D&D because it is one of the very few notable mechanics within the game and removing it is just a step towards making D&D a generic fantasy setting. That is why I spent some time working on exactly how alignments work in my worlds because how they are presented in the books is pretty fundamentally flawed generally.

However if one isn't going to address exactly how they work then I reluctantly agree that removing them is probably the best strategy. Which is a shame because I do think that there are some strong possibilities for good topics there.

Davrix
2018-01-08, 02:27 PM
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Alignment describes how your character thinks about the world on a moral level. It describes how your character justifies their actions. In the case of overtly religious characters, it reflects an important part of their relationship with their deity (who also has an alignment that describes their way of thinking about the world)

It's all about the moral justification for your character's actions.

Can a Lawful Good religion oppress nonbelievers?
"Unbelief, and evil belief especially, are inherently corrupting. Better to stamp it out at the root, than let it grow and fester. We protect the good people of our country by removing the evil from among them."

Can a Lawful Good cleric animate the dead?
"All true believers know that the soul departs from the body and proceeds to their eternal reward. What is left behind is merely a shell. Why should the shell of the departed soul not serve for the good of all? An animated skeleton makes a farmhand that will never tire, growing food that will feed the poor."



Can a Chaotic Evil goblin show mercy to his enemy?
"Bonebreaker show you mercy today, yes, you remember. You remember mercy from goblin and give good thing to bonebreaker later!"

Can a Lawful Neutral cleric prepare illusion spells?
NO, probably not. All a cleric's spells come from the power of their deity - and if the deity is one of law, he will likely not grant the power to confuse, cloud the mind or charm anyone.
"Why would I grant you the power to do something I despise? Do not ask a second time."

This guy gets it

Makes me wonder if this post is related to the one I made a few days ago, my good is your evil. And this demonstrates the points I was trying to make in it. Though I think the crux comes from the simple fact a lot of people who play dnd deal with moral ambiguity in Real life so much that they want the hard definitive line that DND can offer of what is right or wrong and don't want to gray that line ever so they can feel good about themselves crushing he bad guy or doing well... naughty things :)

SimonMoon6
2018-01-08, 04:22 PM
Alignment has been a stupid thing to have in a game, ever since 1st edition. Even back then, the people I gamed with would try to figure out some house rules to avoid having to use such an artificial and strange game element. But it was even dumber back then because there were *alignment languages*! Any two lawful good characters could communicate because they shared a language, the language of "lawful good"... but if you were neutral good, you would have no idea what they were saying!

Scripten
2018-01-08, 05:08 PM
I've always run it as "Alignment is a cosmic power and is also subjective", which, while not a straight RAW interpretation, has served me fairly well. My players would consider their actions based on alignment if they wanted to, and I would have their actions considered by each god in the pantheon based on that god's own personality and judgement. Then, if there's ever a disagreement (I've never actually had one), then the argument I would put forth is that the god sees it that way and considers the PC's interpretation of their alignment to be just that, an interpretation.

Man on Fire
2018-01-08, 05:13 PM
alignment is, without a doubt, the dumbest mechanic in the game. it does nothing except generate arguments and make someone exclaim, "you're character wouldn't do that, it's against your alignment!"

biitch don't tell me what my character would do - in this open ended sandbox game where the limit is supposed to be my imagination.

alignment serves no useful purpose. i say junk the whole mechanic for the trash it is and let players determine who their character is and how and why they act on their own terms.

who is this person that is saying, "yeah, alignment, that's why i game! d&d wouldnt be d&d without alignment." really?

and if a character has a moment of divinely (player) driven insanity, who cares? people go crazy in real life too - sometimes without warning.

and if becomes a game disrupting problem; if the gods (players) prove too mercurial in their temperments, then
zeus (the dm) needs to make olympus fall in line (rocks fall).

The aligment is a good tool to use to avoid what is a way too common problem I've seen - players forgetting their characters personalities and letting them slowly fall into playing themselves. It sets concrete but open to intepretation limits where character fails in a cosmic conflict of good, evil, order and chaos and serves as fundamentals to build your character on, nothing more.

Also, stop being mad the DM doesn't let you play lol!random backstabber/kender and try a character with a different personality. And stop treating the game as your open sandbox, the DM probably has a plot they try to run and you keep doing everything to throw a wrench and ruin other's fun.

Squiddish
2018-01-08, 09:51 PM
Alignment is a character trait. I'm opposed to the idea of removing alignment, but I do think it should go with the other personality traits rather than at the top of the sheet.

If your character is infrequently acting against their alignment, that's okay, so long as there's some reason for that: alignment and another personality trait (ideal, bond, and flaw immediately coming to mind) conflict, and alignment loses.

If your character is frequently acting against their alignment, then they have the wrong alignment.

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 01:27 AM
The biggest problem with D&D alignment hasn't even been mentioned yet.

It is inconsistent with every real-world morality, ethics, or philosophy ever created.

There is no nine-way division of human actions as described in D&D. It's just not how people behave.

People aren't "good" until they perform enough immoral or amoral actions to flip the switch to "neutral".

The original D&D was unambiguously trying to simulate fantasy literature. So a morality system was put in the simulation because the challenge of good vs. evil is a crucial aspect of many fantasies. The extremes were called "Law" and "Chaos" from Moorcock and Dunsany because it sounded cool, but they were clearly intended to represent good and evil. High level clerics were Patriarchs if Lawful and Evil High Priests if Chaotic, etc.

Eventually, enough people noticed the discrepancy that they had to fix it. They could:
1. change the words to "Good" and "Evil",
2. make the rules clear by explaining the gaming jargon, or
3. try to hide the mistake by inventing an unrealistic and overly complicated game mechanic.

For Gygax, this was always an easy choice


Oh I found this out when I started reading about moral philosophy. I thought "why isn't the alignment system the next big thing within ethics or moral philosphy?" And I got the explanation that the alignment system was rubbish. Go to 10 different DMs and you might get 10 different definition of lawful good, no wonder we have so many fallen Paladins.

Some people say that alignment is a good guidelines for new players to help them roleplay but the only thing I have found out is the new players I have NOT introduced to the alignment system seem to argue less among themselves, get along better, are better at teamwork and seem to come up with valid excuses when their characters do something stupid instead just saying that their character is evil or chaotic stupid.

Tanarii
2018-01-09, 12:26 PM
Some people say that alignment is a good guidelines for new players to help them roleplay but the only thing I have found out is the new players I have NOT introduced to the alignment system seem to argue less among themselves, get along better, are better at teamwork and seem to come up with valid excuses when their characters do something stupid instead just saying that their character is evil or chaotic stupid.How do you tell them it works?

For 5e, I tell them, roughly:
- it is a motivation (think actors).
- it's descibes general, but not required or consistent, behavior. Not specific actions.
- It's used in conjunction with the other 4 motivating other motivations. They work together or can come into conflict, either is fine.
- use your motivations when thinking about what your character wants to do, if you feel they are applicable.

Also, rule of my house:
- please don't play characters that consistently and regularly behave in line with any of the evil alignment's behavior descriptions, in my judgement. If you do I'll tell you to knock it off.

That all seems to work out pretty well at getting new players into character a little bit more.

That said, many players, both new and veteran, absolutely suck as playing characters as anything other that avatars of their own personality. Which is fine. If players want to play themself with special abilities and funny voices and a tragically dark or chosen one backhistory more power to them. Nobody ever said roleplaying required in-depth method acting, even if it's my personal preference. Or if they said it, they'd be wrong. :smallamused:

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 12:44 PM
How do you tell them it works?

Doesn't matter what I tell them they can read by themselves.

They can see that 3 of 9 options allow them to behave like a jerk, 1 of 9 options allows them to behave like an idiot and 1 of 9 allows them to ram a stick up their ass.

Tanarii
2018-01-09, 12:55 PM
Doesn't matter what I tell them they can read by themselves.

They can see that 3 of 9 options allow them to behave like a jerk, 1 of 9 options allows them to behave like an idiot and 1 of 9 allows them to ram a stick up their ass.If that's the conclusion they came to, then clearly they read some old edition version of Alignment, or they can't read.

Edit: actually, I take that back. 'Behave like a jerk' is a pretty good summary of the acceptably watered down version of "Evil" allowed for PCs by most DMs in pretty much any RPG ever. Even if they don't officially have Alignments. :smallbiggrin:

Aliquid
2018-01-09, 02:00 PM
Doesn't matter what I tell them they can read by themselves.

They can see that 3 of 9 options allow them to behave like a jerk, 1 of 9 options allows them to behave like an idiot and 1 of 9 allows them to ram a stick up their ass.Now I'm curious as to which alignments align to those descriptions. Would LN be the stick?

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 02:32 PM
Now I'm curious as to which alignments align to those descriptions. Would LN be the stick?

The evil alignments are the jerk alignments.......explained with "But I'm evil" and pointing at the evil alignment on the character sheet, usully in a jerk move when betraying the party. This is Darth Ultrons jerk player in action.

I have never seen as many stupid things done in the name of chaotic neutral

And nobody has as big a stick up his ass as the Lawful Good character....and most of the time it tends to be the parties Paladins as well.

Tanarii
2018-01-09, 02:43 PM
Yeah, that's a fair enough summary of common (IMO bad) interpretations of those Alignments.

Now that I'm not knee jerk rejecting the people often come up with bad interpretations of alignments. They definitely do that.

Lemmy
2018-01-09, 03:04 PM
A character's alignment should just be an indicator of said character's general approach to ethics and morality. It should always be descriptive and have absolutely zero mechanical effects or restrictions.

The only thing I like about alignment are the creature subtypes. I like the idea of a demon being literally made of Evil.

RazorChain
2018-01-09, 03:25 PM
Yeah, that's a fair enough summary of common (IMO bad) interpretations of those Alignments.

Now that I'm not knee jerk rejecting the people often come up with bad interpretations of alignments. They definitely do that.

This is with the caveat that it's a tounge in cheek interpretation but not far off when I started playing AD&D 2nd ed. almost 30 years ago. The group maturity was a good deal less and alignment conflicts did happen just as they happen today.

jk7275
2018-01-09, 11:24 PM
...That sounds remarkably petty if that's how alignment got started. Also, I don't actually understand how giving players an actual reason to kill each other ("You're playing an Evil character - my Good character must kill you and take your stuff!") stops the backstabbing happening.



And most of all? It terrifies me when people try and claim (or, worse, justify) their blood-thirty tomb robbers' genocidal campaigns against 'evil' species as being in any way, shape or form 'good'. If you think trying to exterminate sapient beings just because a spell tells you they're evil is a 'good' act, then I'm sorry but I want nothing to do with you.

Based on personal experience there is more backstabbing in games without alignments then if d&d as alignments gave players a reason not to backstab. Can anyone backstab the party and get away with if their alignment is good?


Certain races such as Orcs are objective evil so how is genocide against them be viewed as wrong? Unlike our world humans in d&d are at war more or less with species that are objectively evil

Satinavian
2018-01-10, 04:18 AM
Based on personal experience there is more backstabbing in games without alignments then if d&d as alignments gave players a reason not to backstab. Can anyone backstab the party and get away with if their alignment is good?That is just the opposite of my experience. I have seen far less backstabbing in games without alignments.

Certain races such as Orcs are objective evil so how is genocide against them be viewed as wrong? Being evil is not a crime. Killing things for being evil is evil.

RedMage125
2018-01-10, 04:38 AM
alignment is, without a doubt, the dumbest mechanic in the game. it does nothing except generate arguments and make someone exclaim, "you're character wouldn't do that, it's against your alignment!"

biitch don't tell me what my character would do - in this open ended sandbox game where the limit is supposed to be my imagination.

alignment serves no useful purpose. i say junk the whole mechanic for the trash it is and let players determine who their character is and how and why they act on their own terms.

who is this person that is saying, "yeah, alignment, that's why i game! d&d wouldnt be d&d without alignment." really?

and if a character has a moment of divinely (player) driven insanity, who cares? people go crazy in real life too - sometimes without warning.

and if becomes a game disrupting problem; if the gods (players) prove too mercurial in their temperments, then
zeus (the dm) needs to make olympus fall in line (rocks fall).
Alignment is none of this. You either have an incredibly faulty reading comprehension yourself, or you have played with WAY too many people that do. My money's on the latter, for the record. Someone you played with when you were getting their start in D&D told you something to the effect of "alignment tell you what your character can and can't do", or made you play D&D like that was the case, and it colored your perceptions of alignment since. And now when you read rules that say "Lawful Good means X" you read it as "Lawful Good people only do x", which is not the same thing at all, but you're already predisposed to view it the way that you were introduced to it.

100% of all "this is why I hate alignment" stories I have ever heard on this or any other forums, are a result of people deviating from the rules. DMs who try to enforce "Your alignment is X, you can't do Y"-which is not supported by the rules. Players who say "My alignment is X, so this jerkbag action I'm taking is totally what my character would do"-are just being jerkbags. Alignment does not excuse people's actions. The problems are with those DMs and Players. Controlling jerkbag DMs are going to be controlling even if they don't use alignment as a hammer, they'll use a different hammer. Jerkbag Players are going to be jerkbags, no matter what-if anything-is written on their sheet under "alignment". You claiming that alignment is the problem is only excusing the behavior of individuals like that. If problems arise when people misuse a thing, that is not a valid indictment of the thing itself, that's basic logic.

The thing is, NOTHING in the rules says that alignment is prescriptive of behavior. So any kind of claim that alignment "prevents you from doing x action" is provably false, and anyone who believes that to be true is defective. If alignment ACTUALLY prohibited behavior outside the confines of itself, then it would not be possible to change alignments, paladins would never fall, etc. Over the years, the rules have even been explicit about how alignment is very broad and general. If you look at 3.5e, the last system to have widespread alignment mechanics, the introduction to alignments in the PHB (Chapter 6, for the record) explicitly says that no one is perfectly consistent all the time, and some people may have character traits or flaws that seem contradictory with their alignment, but does not affect their overall alignment (they use the example of a Lawful Good person with a greedy streak that occasionally tempts them to take things). And yes, sometimes characters (just like real people) have a "crazy" moment, as you put it, and act in a manner outside their typical behavior.

Alignment mechanics serve many useful purposes. One of which is to give mechanical voice to classic fantasy tropes in a fair, objective, and quantifiable manner. A Holy Sword that is more effective against the forces of Evil, for example. Or a Paladin (or other champion of Good) being able to detect the taint of evil. Such as, say, entering the recently-abandoned HQ of a demon cult where many evil rituals were performed. Or exactly HOW an Evil plane might negatively affect people who are, themselves, Good. Without alignment mechanics, all of this is arbitrary in the hands of a fickle DM.

And your closing statement is absolutely awful. Alignments are not for the DM "to jerk mercurial players back into line". Alignments are simply a tool. They are an oversimplification of your character's general outlook, attitudes, and beliefs. They are NOT an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. Furthermore, they are descriptive, not [/I]prescriptive[/I]. That means that your alignment stems from your actions, and that your actions are not inhibited by your alignment. Because they are general, they do not preclude complex personalities, or "gray areas". But just because an individual has an outlook that is morally complex, does not preclude him or her being judged by an objective, dispassionate force. In the default world of D&D Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are cosmic forces, utterly objective, and even the gods are beholden to them. Your alignment-determined by your actions-may change how certain things in the game world affect you.

Aliquid
2018-01-10, 10:40 AM
Being evil is not a crime. Killing things for being evil is evil.Depends on how you define how alignment works... if you say that a creature has to commit evil acts to get an "evil" alignment, then being evil is a crime.

On the other hand, if you have a gaming world where something gets the "evil" alignment even if it has evil thoughts, and an evil disposition, but hasn't actually done anything evil, then you are right. It would be immoral to kill the creature simply because it pinged as "evil"

Red Fel
2018-01-10, 10:51 AM
100% of all "this is why I hate alignment" stories I have ever heard on this or any other forums, are a result of people deviating from the rules.

Disagree.

Sure, a lot of the arguments against alignment result from misreadings or disagreements on alignment, but not all.

Want to know why I dislike alignment? It's simple.

No, really, that's my answer. Alignment is simple. As in, a gross oversimplification. Certain actions are arbitrarily, inherently Evil (or non-Evil); certain beings - being which we are otherwise supposed to treat as thinking creatures with something resembling free will - have an inherent racial tendency towards some alignment.

That latter point, by the way? That actually is a a RAW example of alignment being prescriptive, not just descriptive. If you have a race of 100% Evil beings, that's basically mandating alignment and actions. Less so for a PC - they get to decide just how Evil they want to be - but a mandate nonetheless.

Think of how many debates there are over stupid, stupid alignment things, things that could create all sorts of nuance and conflict. The classic Paladin auto-fall scenarios. The idea of killing one person to save thousands. These things could create amazing scenarios, plots, and moments of turmoil and challenge. But instead, arbitrary alignment rears its ugly head and says, "Nope, Good is Good and Evil is Evil."

People debate this stuff, and that's fair, because it should be debatable. But in a system with arbitrary alignment, it isn't. In the "sacrifice one to save thousands" scenario, your options are either (1) kill an innocent, an Evil act; (2) take no action to save thousands, which may be Neutral, but definitely isn't Good; or (3) find that magical "third option" that lets you save the day by doing Good. I'm a big proponent of number three, but I still recognize how impossibly challenging it can be to come up with it.

Arguments like this one aren't about people deviating from the rules. They're about the rules oversimplifying concepts that should be complex and nuanced, ideas that should make for a great narrative and character arc. Instead, you can literally equip an item that tells you, "No, this is bad, that is good, do that." (Phylactery of Faithfulness, for the record.)

That's my issue with alignment. Sure, I'll readily advocate for LE within a pre-existing alignment system, but given the choice, I'd rather go without alignment, all together.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-10, 11:02 AM
Alignment is none of this. You either have an incredibly faulty reading comprehension yourself, or you have played with WAY too many people that do. My money's on the latter, for the record. Someone you played with when you were getting their start in D&D told you something to the effect of "alignment tell you what your character can and can't do", or made you play D&D like that was the case, and it colored your perceptions of alignment since. And now when you read rules that say "Lawful Good means X" you read it as "Lawful Good people only do x", which is not the same thing at all, but you're already predisposed to view it the way that you were introduced to it.

100% of all "this is why I hate alignment" stories I have ever heard on this or any other forums, are a result of people deviating from the rules. DMs who try to enforce "Your alignment is X, you can't do Y"-which is not supported by the rules. Players who say "My alignment is X, so this jerkbag action I'm taking is totally what my character would do"-are just being jerkbags. Alignment does not excuse people's actions. The problems are with those DMs and Players. Controlling jerkbag DMs are going to be controlling even if they don't use alignment as a hammer, they'll use a different hammer. Jerkbag Players are going to be jerkbags, no matter what-if anything-is written on their sheet under "alignment". You claiming that alignment is the problem is only excusing the behavior of individuals like that. If problems arise when people misuse a thing, that is not a valid indictment of the thing itself, that's basic logic.

The thing is, NOTHING in the rules says that alignment is prescriptive of behavior. So any kind of claim that alignment "prevents you from doing x action" is provably false, and anyone who believes that to be true is defective. If alignment ACTUALLY prohibited behavior outside the confines of itself, then it would not be possible to change alignments, paladins would never fall, etc. Over the years, the rules have even been explicit about how alignment is very broad and general. If you look at 3.5e, the last system to have widespread alignment mechanics, the introduction to alignments in the PHB (Chapter 6, for the record) explicitly says that no one is perfectly consistent all the time, and some people may have character traits or flaws that seem contradictory with their alignment, but does not affect their overall alignment (they use the example of a Lawful Good person with a greedy streak that occasionally tempts them to take things). And yes, sometimes characters (just like real people) have a "crazy" moment, as you put it, and act in a manner outside their typical behavior.

Alignment mechanics serve many useful purposes. One of which is to give mechanical voice to classic fantasy tropes in a fair, objective, and quantifiable manner. A Holy Sword that is more effective against the forces of Evil, for example. Or a Paladin (or other champion of Good) being able to detect the taint of evil. Such as, say, entering the recently-abandoned HQ of a demon cult where many evil rituals were performed. Or exactly HOW an Evil plane might negatively affect people who are, themselves, Good. Without alignment mechanics, all of this is arbitrary in the hands of a fickle DM.

And your closing statement is absolutely awful. Alignments are not for the DM "to jerk mercurial players back into line". Alignments are simply a tool. They are an oversimplification of your character's general outlook, attitudes, and beliefs. They are NOT an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. Furthermore, they are descriptive, not [/I]prescriptive[/I]. That means that your alignment stems from your actions, and that your actions are not inhibited by your alignment. Because they are general, they do not preclude complex personalities, or "gray areas". But just because an individual has an outlook that is morally complex, does not preclude him or her being judged by an objective, dispassionate force. In the default world of D&D Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are cosmic forces, utterly objective, and even the gods are beholden to them. Your alignment-determined by your actions-may change how certain things in the game world affect you.



Back when I played D&D (D&D, AD&D, and "2nd ed" days), it was my experience that a far greater percentage of the players I was exposed to viewed alignment in the way you're saying is absolutely wrong, than viewed it in the way you're saying is "RAW". Even if they were all wrong, that "prescriptive" view of alignment was very widely held.

Part of why this view was (is?) widely held, and something that ties into something that more broadly irks me in fiction and in real life: the vile notion that "the good guys" and "the bad guys" are two actual sides or teams, that they're almost wearing "good guy" and "bad guy" jerseys, and that anything "good guys do" is good and anything "the bad guys do" is bad. I mean, really, what are the "Forces of Evil!" ???

I have little patience, personally, for the concept of "good" and "evil" as cosmic forces, even if there are objective moral standards to go by.





Disagree.

Sure, a lot of the arguments against alignment result from misreadings or disagreements on alignment, but not all.

Want to know why I dislike alignment? It's simple.

No, really, that's my answer. Alignment is simple. As in, a gross oversimplification. Certain actions are arbitrarily, inherently Evil (or non-Evil); certain beings - being which we are otherwise supposed to treat as thinking creatures with something resembling free will - have an inherent racial tendency towards some alignment.

That latter point, by the way? That actually is a a RAW example of alignment being prescriptive, not just descriptive. If you have a race of 100% Evil beings, that's basically mandating alignment and actions. Less so for a PC - they get to decide just how Evil they want to be - but a mandate nonetheless.

Think of how many debates there are over stupid, stupid alignment things, things that could create all sorts of nuance and conflict. The classic Paladin auto-fall scenarios. The idea of killing one person to save thousands. These things could create amazing scenarios, plots, and moments of turmoil and challenge. But instead, arbitrary alignment rears its ugly head and says, "Nope, Good is Good and Evil is Evil."

People debate this stuff, and that's fair, because it should be debatable. But in a system with arbitrary alignment, it isn't. In the "sacrifice one to save thousands" scenario, your options are either (1) kill an innocent, an Evil act; (2) take no action to save thousands, which may be Neutral, but definitely isn't Good; or (3) find that magical "third option" that lets you save the day by doing Good. I'm a big proponent of number three, but I still recognize how impossibly challenging it can be to come up with it.

Arguments like this one aren't about people deviating from the rules. They're about the rules oversimplifying concepts that should be complex and nuanced, ideas that should make for a great narrative and character arc. Instead, you can literally equip an item that tells you, "No, this is bad, that is good, do that." (Phylactery of Faithfulness, for the record.)



That covers a lot of my other objections to Alignment.

kyoryu
2018-01-10, 11:42 AM
Alignment is fine, and I feel perfectly okay, thank you.

Edit: Some peoples' interpretations of alignments are often bad and should make people feel bad, and the GM should make it clear how they are handling alignment so there is no confusion.

Aliquid
2018-01-10, 12:01 PM
No, really, that's my answer. Alignment is simple. As in, a gross oversimplification. Certain actions are arbitrarily, inherently Evil (or non-Evil); certain beings - being which we are otherwise supposed to treat as thinking creatures with something resembling free will - have an inherent racial tendency towards some alignment.I don't see "free will" as being an issue. For a species to be "always evil", it isn't like they are being forced to be evil against their "free will", they are just inherently evil. They always freely choose to be evil, because that's their nature.

kyoryu
2018-01-10, 12:20 PM
I don't see "free will" as being an issue. For a species to be "always evil", it isn't like they are being forced to be evil against their "free will", they are just inherently evil. They always freely choose to be evil, because that's their nature.

If a species literally has to commit evil acts to survive, then I think it's reasonable.

It may be possible for a member to be non-evil, but then that member would also be dead.

1337 b4k4
2018-01-10, 12:36 PM
Alignment was fine until they mixed it up with morality. Yes way back when alignment was Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, there was overlap between that and morality, but it should be telling that the spell was protection from evil, not protection from chaos. Lawful or chaotic aren’t moral judgements. Good and evil are, and 99% of alignment arguments are over good vs evil, not lawful vs chaotic.

Red Fel
2018-01-10, 12:54 PM
I don't see "free will" as being an issue. For a species to be "always evil", it isn't like they are being forced to be evil against their "free will", they are just inherently evil. They always freely choose to be evil, because that's their nature.

Not how free will actually works.

If a species has free will, then it has the ability to go against its nature. Like, every day I go out and don't straight-up headbutt every idiot I see, I'm exercising my free will and rebelling against every instinct in my body demanding that the weak, foolish masses be taught their rightful place in the world, namely at my heel. That's what free will looks like.

If a species is "always Evil," and not in the "always means, like, 90%" sense, but properly always and universally Evil, then it cannot go against that nature. Its instincts are to engage in acts of Evil, whatever they may be, and it will not go against those instincts. That isn't free will.

In aligned Outsiders or similar embodiments of alignment, that's understandable. A Slaad, or Archon, or Devil, is made up of cosmic alignment-stuff, so of course it will never rebel against those instincts. But what about mortal races? If a mortal race is described as "always Evil," that means that babies, when they are born and before they are capable of causing any harm other than stains, are Evil. This is an absurd result.

If a creature has free will, it can choose its actions, its mindset, and its ultimate resultant alignment. To arbitrarily assign alignment based upon circumstances of birth is, at best, completely irrational. (Again, setting aside Outsiders.)

Aliquid
2018-01-10, 01:34 PM
Not how free will actually works.

If a species has free will, then it has the ability to go against its nature. Like, every day I go out and don't straight-up headbutt every idiot I see, I'm exercising my free will and rebelling against every instinct in my body demanding that the weak, foolish masses be taught their rightful place in the world, namely at my heel. That's what free will looks like.What you are talking about is impulse control. I don't think of that as exactly the same as free will (even though it is similar). Some people have impulse control disorders, where they "act before they think"... so the voice in the head that says "maybe you shouldn't do that", doesn't talk until after you actually did it.

Now it is true that someone with an impulse control disorder could very easily say "I don't like this disorder, I'm going to do what I can to control it", and then they would go to therapy and take medicine etc, to find ways to mitigate the problem.

But... if we go another route, according to most studies, a true psychopath [/I]can not[/I] feel empathy or guilt. They can't decide to exercise free will and rebel against this lack of compassion... it is something that simply does not exist in their brain. A true psychopath will never want to go to therapy to "get better". They might go to therapy to make people believe they are getting better... but it will just be an act.


If a species is "always Evil," and not in the "always means, like, 90%" sense, but properly always and universally Evil, then it cannot go against that nature. Its instincts are to engage in acts of Evil, whatever they may be, and it will not go against those instincts.I am not arguing that an "always evil" creature couldn't try to go against its nature. I'm arguing that it would never want to, and would only do so if forced by others.


That isn't free will.It absolutely is. It is the freedom to be evil because that's what the creature wants.

I don't know you, but I'm guessing you don't headbutt people because you do want to AND don't want to at the same time... and your internal battle lets the "don't want to" argument win. Maybe your "don't want to", is simply because you are aware of the consequences and don't want to deal with it, and maybe your "don't want to" is because society has repeatedly conditioned you to think that is "wrong", and maybe your "don't want to" because part of your personality is actually a compassionate guy who is telling the headbutt guy to back off.

Either way, you suppress your urge to headbutt, because you want to. If there is a creature that by default never wants to... then it is exercising free will by always being evil.


In aligned Outsiders or similar embodiments of alignment, that's understandable. A Slaad, or Archon, or Devil, is made up of cosmic alignment-stuff, so of course it will never rebel against those instincts. But what about mortal races? If a mortal race is described as "always Evil," that means that babies, when they are born and before they are capable of causing any harm other than stains, are Evil. This is an absurd result.Not an absurd result at all, but a horrible result to ponder because saying that a baby "will always grow up evil" very strongly goes against our values as humans. And rightfully so, we should never think that a baby is evil... because someone might apply that logic to a human, and you don't ever want to go there.


Saying that... I'm going to do a complete 360 here... and say that having "always evil" creatures in a D&D game is a very bad idea. Not because it is impossible, but because of the implications.

Lets say someone builds a robot that looks and acts exactly like a small child. I tell you and prove to you that it is in fact a robot, and then someone starts beating that robot with a baseball bat. Meanwhile the robot very convincingly cries and begs the person to stop.

Even though you know it is a robot, you will instinctively feel horrified with what you are witnessing and likely do what you can to stop the process. This is because a lot of our moral responses are "gut feelings" rather than rational ones. If someone next to you was laughing and saying "ha ha, hit that robot!", you would think... "that guy makes me nervous... why doesn't this bother him. What else could he do without being bothered?"

So, likewise, we shouldn't have people in a RPG killing babies because they are "evil"... because we shouldn't condition ourselves to think that kind of behavior is ok.

Cazero
2018-01-10, 01:51 PM
But... if we go another route, according to most studies, a true psychopath [/I]can not[/I] feel empathy or guilt. They can't decide to exercise free will and rebel against this lack of compassion... it is something that simply does not exist in their brain. A true psychopath will never want to go to therapy to "get better". They might go to therapy to make people believe they are getting better... but it will just be an act.
A true psychopath can perfectly, from their own free will, decide to get therapy with the actual intent to "get better" (for example, if they're curious about what that empathy thing is). Your assumption that it is impossible for them to do so tells more about your limited imagination than about psychopaths.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-10, 02:08 PM
Not how free will actually works.

If a species has free will, then it has the ability to go against its nature. Like, every day I go out and don't straight-up headbutt every idiot I see, I'm exercising my free will and rebelling against every instinct in my body demanding that the weak, foolish masses be taught their rightful place in the world, namely at my heel. That's what free will looks like.

If a species is "always Evil," and not in the "always means, like, 90%" sense, but properly always and universally Evil, then it cannot go against that nature. Its instincts are to engage in acts of Evil, whatever they may be, and it will not go against those instincts. That isn't free will.

In aligned Outsiders or similar embodiments of alignment, that's understandable. A Slaad, or Archon, or Devil, is made up of cosmic alignment-stuff, so of course it will never rebel against those instincts. But what about mortal races? If a mortal race is described as "always Evil," that means that babies, when they are born and before they are capable of causing any harm other than stains, are Evil. This is an absurd result.

If a creature has free will, it can choose its actions, its mindset, and its ultimate resultant alignment. To arbitrarily assign alignment based upon circumstances of birth is, at best, completely irrational. (Again, setting aside Outsiders.)


IMO, whether we're talking about a game or not, an individual's morality is defined by its intent and actions, not by "evil thoughts" or "cosmic forces".

Actual free will requires that the individual be capable of independent intent and that said intent can be of a full range of beneficent and maleficent.

Drache64
2018-01-10, 02:36 PM
I treat alignment as a way to interpret player behavior. The player is free to do whatever they want without restriction, but I'll use the system to qualify disqualify from classes, alignment based resistances etc.

So the paladin wants to murder a whole town? Feel free! But based on his reason or intent for doing so he might have to find a new class.

Cealocanth
2018-01-10, 02:46 PM
Alignment works in game worlds that have extremely rigidly defined morality where every living being goes to a certain plane of existence when they die and their personalities are determined by a single chart. In other words, alignment works well in Gygaxian D&D. There is literally no other game world or setting where I have seen alignment serve any purpose at all whatsoever.

Aliquid
2018-01-10, 03:03 PM
A true psychopath can perfectly, from their own free will, decide to get therapy with the actual intent to "get better" (for example, if they're curious about what that empathy thing is). Your assumption that it is impossible for them to do so tells more about your limited imagination than about psychopaths.The vast majority of experts in the field specifically say that "a true psychopaths will not seek out therapy". This isn't my lack of imagination, this is what the experts say.

Note that this isn't saying that they 'can not', it is saying that they 'will not'. They are perfectly capable of seeking out therapy, but they will not want to.

No psychopath is curious bout this empathy thing. They are statistically smarter and more logical than the average person, and they know exactly what empathy is and how it works. They just don't have it, and they see people with empathy as weak and foolish for having it. They don't want to 'get better' because they believe that they already are better. Better than the rest of us. Superior because they aren't burdened by such silly things as empathy and guilt.

Tanarii
2018-01-10, 03:40 PM
That latter point, by the way? That actually is a a RAW example of alignment being prescriptive, not just descriptive.Descriptive is just as bad, because that's where the vast majority of arguments stem from.

If the player gets to decide how they use their Alignment as a motivation as one part of personality traits, it's neither prescriptive (ie not required nor the only thing resulting in specific individual actions) nor descriptive (determined by behavior).

But who decides what resulting overall behavior fits into what behavior category, especially when it's not based on individual actions, and when it's not required to be consistent? That's where all the arguments happen.

The best way to use Alignment is absolutely: Alignment + Personality Traits --> player's motivations for PC decision making --> in-game actions.

IMO etc etc :smallbiggrin:

Mechalich
2018-01-10, 03:57 PM
Alignment has two different kinds of problems.

First, there are problems of design and implementation of alignment. I don't think there's a lot of objection that alignment is badly designed. It was cobbled together ad hoc over time. Its two-axis (or in Planescape pie chart) representation of morality doesn't match with any familiar moral structures ever created by an actual human society. It interacts with gameplay is weird and erratic ways such as paladin falls, holy weapons, and other alignment delineated effects. Overall, the alignment system, as presented in most editions of D&D is bad at what it tries to do.

Second, there are objections to inserting a system of objective morality and a stat that measures where characters currently stand within that system into a game or a fantasy world. And I think those objections are off-base.

In D&D a character's mortal existence - in almost all cases (exceptions include liches and various other means to avoid death) - merely a test that decides where they are going to spend the overwhelming majority of their existence floating about in the outer planes. Mortal existence is the time you spend on the assembly line at the factory before you hit completion (death), go through processing (judgment of the soul) and then get shipped out to the appropriate destination (assignment to a divine realm/outer plane) where you will spend 99-99.9% of your actual existence. This sounds weird, but it's a fairly common belief structure and its extremely common in fantasy worlds. D&D - to it's great credit - has long recognized that, at the level of magic presented in the game world, people are explicitly aware of the afterlife and how it works. In part because people and beings from the outer planes keep showing up and explaining things. Societies have even changed behavior as a result of changes in the system (the Forgotten Realms novel where Kelemvor takes over as judge of the dead and briefly changes all the rules goes into this in some detail, it's ridiculous, but on point).

A lot of players don't like having fantasy worlds explicitly structured in this way. That's understandable, since it obligates all characters in such a world to have worldviews foreign to the modern western secular mindset. But once you build the world that way - in which the most important thing that will ever happen to a person is the judgment that occurs upon death - some sort of mechanic that records moral stance is necessary.

Is alignment, as presented in D&D, a good way to deal with all this. No, it is not. But in a universe setup the way the D&D cosmos is, you can't just ignore moral position.

kyoryu
2018-01-10, 04:44 PM
Descriptive is just as bad, because that's where the vast majority of arguments stem from.

Primarily it's bad because people don't agree on whether you should use a consequentialist/utilitarian view or a deontological.

Add in that consequentialism is *really hard* without the ability to predict the future, and those two result in the vast majority of disputes. (Note that the Good/Evil divide is where the issues typically are, not the Law/Chaos divide, which has much less vigorous arguments, though there are still some grey areas).

If you start with a deontological viewpoint, and it's explicitly stated "this is how we're doing alignment, even if you disagree with it in the real world", then it works reasonably well.

Aliquid
2018-01-10, 04:56 PM
.. not the Law/Chaos divide, which has much less vigorous arguments, though there are still some grey areasI've always got the impression that there is just as much disagreement about law/chaos, but people don't make as big of a fuss about it. Good and Evil are words that people use in the real world that have a strong emotional attachment to it. Saying "this is evil", will get someone's back up very fast if they disagree, because you are challenging their values.

Law and Chaos are much more vague terms and have less emotional attachment to them. If I say that I disagree with your interpretation of what "chaos" means, it is less likely that you would interpret that as me disagreeing with your personal values.

Tanarii
2018-01-10, 05:34 PM
(Note that the Good/Evil divide is where the issues typically are, not the Law/Chaos divide, which has much less vigorous arguments, though there are still some grey areas).Absolutely, and a large chunk of that is because most people attach more moral 'weight' to individual evil evil actions than a combined total of good behavior, as well as believing in a Fall from Grace.


If you start with a deontological viewpoint, and it's explicitly stated "this is how we're doing alignment, even if you disagree with it in the real world", then it works reasonably well.Not really. Because the definitions are never interpreted the same way by everyone at the table. You'd need a full on book of Alignment Codes for that to work. Plus an assigned judge, and probably Alignment lawyers to argue your case before them.

Morty
2018-01-10, 08:13 PM
I used to engage in all the hoop-jumping required for alignment to make sense, then I realized... well, what's the point? In order to make alignment a guideline rather than as straitjacket, descriptive rather than prescriptive, etcetera... we dilute it to the point of meaninglessness. And what do we get in return? Nine vague labels that can really mean anything when we get down to it. There's plenty of ways to facilitate role play, define character goals and help inexperienced players find their footing that don't make statements about morality and provoke lengthy debates.

RedMage125
2018-01-10, 11:29 PM
Disagree.

Sure, a lot of the arguments against alignment result from misreadings or disagreements on alignment, but not all.
I said 100% of the ones I have seen. But that's a pretty broad stroke statement that encompasses everything from people using "alternate definitions" of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, to DMs mandating prescriptive alignment, to players who try and treat Chaotic Neutral as a blank check to be Evil, utterly random, or otherwise a disruptive jerkbag, and more.



Want to know why I dislike alignment? It's simple.

No, really, that's my answer. Alignment is simple. As in, a gross oversimplification.
But that's exactly why it works. Alignment is SUCH a gross overgeneralization that more complex moral and ethical outlooks are not precluded. The claim of which by some people is one of the things that REALLY sticks in my craw.


Certain actions are arbitrarily, inherently Evil (or non-Evil); certain beings - being which we are otherwise supposed to treat as thinking creatures with something resembling free will - have an inherent racial tendency towards some alignment.

That latter point, by the way? That actually is a a RAW example of alignment being prescriptive, not just descriptive. If you have a race of 100% Evil beings, that's basically mandating alignment and actions. Less so for a PC - they get to decide just how Evil they want to be - but a mandate nonetheless.

I can't think of any examples of actions which are "arbitrarily" Evil, can you name some? I know people try to claim some bullhonky about "creation of undead" as a popular one, but that's an asinine claim. Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Creation of Undead as inherently evil in previous editions of D&D is supported by several reasons listed in the RAW, and all the mechanics surrounding it are coherent and cohesive. Which means it is not "arbitrary". Can you be more specific?



Think of how many debates there are over stupid, stupid alignment things, things that could create all sorts of nuance and conflict. The classic Paladin auto-fall scenarios. The idea of killing one person to save thousands. These things could create amazing scenarios, plots, and moments of turmoil and challenge. But instead, arbitrary alignment rears its ugly head and says, "Nope, Good is Good and Evil is Evil."
"Paladin auto-fall scenarios" are-once again- the fault of a jerkbag DM, and NOT alignment mechanics. So I refuse to engage that topic. The fault is PEOPLE, not the result of inferior or faulty mechanics. Doesn't matter that the DM used alignment to be a jerkbag. If someone gets beaten to death with a length of steel pipe, because steel pipes were built to be sturdy, does that mean that steel pipes are inherently dangerous to people when used in the appropriate manner.


Arguments like this one aren't about people deviating from the rules. They're about the rules oversimplifying concepts that should be complex and nuanced, ideas that should make for a great narrative and character arc. Instead, you can literally equip an item that tells you, "No, this is bad, that is good, do that." (Phylactery of Faithfulness, for the record.)
Arguments like this one are about PEOPLE being the problem. Whether they're deviating from the rules, or using them as an excuse to be a jerkbag. Blame the DM or the Player who did it, not the rules they used.



If a species is "always Evil," and not in the "always means, like, 90%" sense, but properly always and universally Evil, then it cannot go against that nature. Its instincts are to engage in acts of Evil, whatever they may be, and it will not go against those instincts. That isn't free will.

In aligned Outsiders or similar embodiments of alignment, that's understandable. A Slaad, or Archon, or Devil, is made up of cosmic alignment-stuff, so of course it will never rebel against those instincts. But what about mortal races? If a mortal race is described as "always Evil," that means that babies, when they are born and before they are capable of causing any harm other than stains, are Evil. This is an absurd result.

If a creature has free will, it can choose its actions, its mindset, and its ultimate resultant alignment. To arbitrarily assign alignment based upon circumstances of birth is, at best, completely irrational. (Again, setting aside Outsiders.)
Ok, so you didn't mean Outsiders, beings who are literally made of alignment energies.

What mortal races are listed as "always Evil"? All the examples of 3.5e I can think of say "Usually Evil" or "Often Evil". I'm more familiar with that edition than any other. I know in 5e, evil humanoid races have less free will than in previous editions, because the gods that created them designed them that way. Orcs, for example, constantly feel the dark will of Gruumsh driving them to Evil. Even Half-orcs feel his call, but are better able to resist it, due to their orc blood being diluted.

What other examples from what editions are you talking about? Mortal races that say "Always Evil"?


I used to engage in all the hoop-jumping required for alignment to make sense, then I realized... well, what's the point? In order to make alignment a guideline rather than as straitjacket, descriptive rather than prescriptive, etcetera... we dilute it to the point of meaninglessness. And what do we get in return? Nine vague labels that can really mean anything when we get down to it. There's plenty of ways to facilitate role play, define character goals and help inexperienced players find their footing that don't make statements about morality and provoke lengthy debates.

Ah yes, here it is, the inevitable post from someone who likes to claim that alignment is only for people "less evolved" as a gamer than they.

You're very impressive. Those of us using alignment are clearly much more primitive and less experienced than you are. *clap clap*. Now move along.

ImNotTrevor
2018-01-10, 11:54 PM
Ah yes, here it is, the inevitable post from someone who likes to claim that alignment is only for people "less evolved" as a gamer than they.

You're very impressive. Those of us using alignment are clearly much more primitive and less experienced than you are. *clap clap*. Now move along.

There's enough salt here to cure a whole cow's worth of beef.

Also, that's not what he said. He said that there are other ways to accomplish the same outcome without the weaknesses alignment suffers from.

If you like it, then by all means use it. Just don't get so self-absorbed and salty that literally anyone giving reasons why they prefer not to use it must therefore be insulting you. If anyone simply saying they prefer other solutions feels to you like an attack, that says a lot more about the weakness of alignment than anything he said.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-10, 11:54 PM
Primarily it's bad because people don't agree on whether you should use a consequentialist/utilitarian view or a deontological.

Add in that consequentialism is *really hard* without the ability to predict the future, and those two result in the vast majority of disputes. (Note that the Good/Evil divide is where the issues typically are, not the Law/Chaos divide, which has much less vigorous arguments, though there are still some grey areas).

If you start with a deontological viewpoint, and it's explicitly stated "this is how we're doing alignment, even if you disagree with it in the real world", then it works reasonably well.

IMO, the "cannot know the future" issue is one of the reasons intent also matters (along with actions and outcomes). If your "good faith" (in the intellectual sense) intent is to do a good thing, to help or benefit others, to make things better,etc, and you had solid reason to think that your actions would have that kind of outcome, then that's morally different than intentionally setting out to do harm and cause suffering (for their own sake), make things worse, put your wants above someone else's rights, etc.

This also short-circuits many ginned-up "fall to evil" scenarios. Example, if you were given every reason to believe that your actions would have a good result, but it was s trick to get you to harm and deprive others, and you regret the outcome after the fact, then IMO you were not tricked into doing evil, you were tricked by someone else who was intentionally doing evil.

In fact, many of the "moral dilemmas" I see in fiction and gaming are really examples of an outside party themselves engaged in an immoral act by forcing an impossible moral choice on the person who is supposedly forced to "do evil".

Aliquid
2018-01-11, 12:49 AM
IMO, the "cannot know the future" issue is one of the reasons intent also matters (along with actions and outcomes). If your "good faith" (in the intellectual sense) intent is to do a good thing, to help or benefit others, to make things better,etc, and you had solid reason to think that your actions would have that kind of outcome, then that's morally different than intentionally setting out to do harm and cause suffering (for their own sake), make things worse, put your wants above someone else's rights, etc. Agreed. You could quite easily have someone who tries to do the right thing, but constantly causes suffering and pain due to incompetence and bad decision making skills. They would be dangerous, but not evil.


This also short-circuits many ginned-up "fall to evil" scenarios. Example, if you were given every reason to believe that your actions would have a good result, but it was s trick to get you to harm and deprive others, and you regret the outcome after the fact, then IMO you were not tricked into doing evil, you were tricked by someone else who was intentionally doing evil.If an evil wizard saw two children roughhousing, and cast an illusion on one of them to make it look like a rabid goblin, attacking the other child... and a Paladin happens by.

Then no, the Paladin isn't evil for killing the child. He thought he was saving the other child. As you say, intent matters. (of course the paladin will be emotionally scared and guilt ridden... but not evil)

Mordaedil
2018-01-11, 02:17 AM
I don't think that there's a problem with people dropping alignments from their games. It's obviously a tool they don't like and won't engage with and dropping it is probably the right thing to do for their group if they feel that way. It causes probably less problems for them if they do and it isn't really likely to come back to bite them or anything. They just miss out on a minor aspect of the game that can be worked around very easily. You can just change spells like Detect Evil/Good to Detect Hostile Intent, Smite Evil to Smite Opponent and Undetectable alignment to Undetectable Intentions and the game can work just fine for all intents and purposes.

Similarly, Protection from Alignment should then be named simply Protection. Maybe the AC bonus would work like dodge in that you'd have to name the target they apply towards.

Anyway, I don't think it behooves begrudging people who like alignment to keep using them.

Satinavian
2018-01-11, 02:25 AM
In fact, many of the "moral dilemmas" I see in fiction and gaming are really examples of an outside party themselves engaged in an immoral act by forcing an impossible moral choice on the person who is supposedly forced to "do evil".That is just bad writing. And something most often found in Comics. Instead of having some plausible reason for a difficult choice you just take a villian who wants to make things difficult and you can justify any contrievances. And you have someone the audience can hate and blame for all evil outcomes.

In slightly more serious work such moral dilemmas usually are not imposed by an evil force (it can happen, but is rare). Typical examples are :

- Triage : You have limited ressources and more parties who really need it. It is something that can't be shared without becoming useless. Who is more deserving, where does the item in question do more good ?

- Loyalty : Do you help a friend you are indebted to or someone who needs your help more ?

- Force : So you have a plan to make the world a better place. But some people would be worse off with it and don't like your plan. How much force/violence is allowed to make them accept your Greater Good ?

- Recklessness : So you have incomplete information about the outcome but must make a choice. Do you prefer a small chance of something really bad happening to a big chance of something small happening ? Are you willing to expend valuable resources to chase a negligible chance of a miracle ?


Ah yes, here it is, the inevitable post from someone who likes to claim that alignment is only for people "less evolved" as a gamer than they.

You're very impressive. Those of us using alignment are clearly much more primitive and less experienced than you are. *clap clap*. Now move along.Maybe you should bring your complaint to those insisting on alignment being a useful guideline for new players instead of those who think alignment are not particularly useful in any situation.

jk7275
2018-01-11, 03:05 AM
Not an absurd result at all, but a horrible result to ponder because saying that a baby "will always grow up evil" very strongly goes against our values as humans. And rightfully so, we should never think that a baby is evil... because someone might apply that logic to a human, and you don't ever want to go there.


Yes we can see a baby as evil when we are talking about a fantasy world where some species are objectively evil



Lets say someone builds a robot that looks and acts exactly like a small child. I tell you and prove to you that it is in fact a robot, and then someone starts beating that robot with a baseball bat. Meanwhile the robot very convincingly cries and begs the person to stop.

Even though you know it is a robot, you will instinctively feel horrified with what you are witnessing and likely do what you can to stop the process. This is because a lot of our moral responses are "gut feelings" rather than rational ones. If someone next to you was laughing and saying "ha ha, hit that robot!", you would think... "that guy makes me nervous... why doesn't this bother him. What else could he do without being bothered?"

So, likewise, we shouldn't have people in a RPG killing babies because they are "evil"... because we shouldn't condition ourselves to think that kind of behavior is ok.

The robot example fails as that takes place in our world where evil is subjective and the robot looks like a human. You remind me of the people who said playing D&D will make people commit murders or start to worship the devil

Satinavian
2018-01-11, 03:40 AM
Yes we can see a baby as evil when we are talking about a fantasy world where some species are objectively evilAnd killing it will make you objectively evil because that is how that fantasy world works. Something like that is vile enough to not just count as an evil deed but as big enough a transgression to warrant instant alignment-shift. No excuses for genocidal motivated murder.

Mechalich
2018-01-11, 05:23 AM
Not an absurd result at all, but a horrible result to ponder because saying that a baby "will always grow up evil" very strongly goes against our values as humans. And rightfully so, we should never think that a baby is evil... because someone might apply that logic to a human, and you don't ever want to go there.


One of the things about alignment is that, at least over time, the writers and designers of D&D recognized that the universe they had created was full - like absolutely brimming - with beings that didn't have anything even vaguely resembling human values. When it came to alignment they tried to craft a system that would encompass everything. Planescape, in particular, really waded into the weeds on this.

This attempt at a sort of universal objectivity, one that would encompass not only all possible human cultures, but also the behavior of creatures such as a slave-taking hegemonizing swarm (Formians), bizarrely chaotic trickster beings that functioned largely as emotional parasites on other species (several fey types), bizarre alien beings that have to feed on the brains of other sapients to survive (illithids), and more had some weird consequences.

Ultimately, alignment values spew out values that are in many ways antithetical to human values, because the D&D universe isn't dominated by humans. That's why a significant number of the Planescape factions - which were intended to try and find some sort of philosophical lever to grasp the madness that is the D&D multiverse came up with an answer that begins 'this can't be right...something else must be going on.' and several others came up with 'blow it all up!'

At the end of the day in D&D, a pious human saint who forswears all worldly possessions and devotes his entire adult life to helping the poor and a floating orb with a giant eye, a mouth, and a bunch of eyes on stalks are going to be judged according to the same system of moral arbitration and have you souls sent out to places on the same pie chart. Yeah, it's pretty crazy - it's a fantasy kitchen sink, it always was.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-11, 07:30 AM
That is just bad writing. And something most often found in Comics. Instead of having some plausible reason for a difficult choice you just take a villian who wants to make things difficult and you can justify any contrievances. And you have someone the audience can hate and blame for all evil outcomes.


While I don't disagree that it's usually bad writing, I've often seen this sort of scenario presented, and accepted by the audience, as a case of the protagonist being "forced or tricked into doing evil", as if it made the tricked or forced character less good or more evil for having done the thing they were forced or tricked into doing.

Morty
2018-01-11, 07:40 AM
Ah yes, here it is, the inevitable post from someone who likes to claim that alignment is only for people "less evolved" as a gamer than they.

You're very impressive. Those of us using alignment are clearly much more primitive and less experienced than you are. *clap clap*. Now move along.

I said that I used to try and make alignment work, but then I realized it's not worth the trouble. Anything else that you've interpreted from my post is on you.

PopeLinus1
2018-01-11, 08:24 AM
If I don’t look at the massive arguments happening from this, it can’t kill my brain.

Aliquid
2018-01-11, 10:25 AM
Yes we can see a baby as evil when we are talking about a fantasy world where some species are objectively evil



The robot example fails as that takes place in our world where evil is subjective and the robot looks like a human. You remind me of the people who said playing D&D will make people commit murders or start to worship the devilThe robot example is 100% relevant because it is about a real world person responding to a situation, and when we play d&d we are real world people playing the game.

A player (real world person) should have a real world moral reaction (gut feeling) in response to discussing infanticide (in game). Even though it isn’t real (just like the robot isn’t a real child).

Red Fel
2018-01-11, 10:31 AM
I said 100% of the ones I have seen. But that's a pretty broad stroke statement that encompasses everything from people using "alternate definitions" of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, to DMs mandating prescriptive alignment, to players who try and treat Chaotic Neutral as a blank check to be Evil, utterly random, or otherwise a disruptive jerkbag, and more.

*adjusts glasses* Um, actually, you said "I have heard," but yeah, fair point.


But that's exactly why it works. Alignment is SUCH a gross overgeneralization that more complex moral and ethical outlooks are not precluded. The claim of which by some people is one of the things that REALLY sticks in my craw.

Here, again, is where I disagree. It's such a gross overgeneralization, in my mind, that more complex moral and ethical outlooks are precluded, because - again - the books draw explicit lines, irrespective of circumstance or justification.


I can't think of any examples of actions which are "arbitrarily" Evil, can you name some? I know people try to claim some bullhonky about "creation of undead" as a popular one, but that's an asinine claim. Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Creation of Undead as inherently evil in previous editions of D&D is supported by several reasons listed in the RAW, and all the mechanics surrounding it are coherent and cohesive. Which means it is not "arbitrary". Can you be more specific?

First, let me clarify: In this context, when I use the term "arbitrary," I mean the "because we said so and that's final" definition of the word, not necessarily the "unsupported and baseless" definition of the word. For example, slavery is obviously an Always Evil act, for perfectly logical reasons. By contrast, killing an Always Evil creature is an Always Good act, irrespective of context or justification. Again, see my admittedly reductio ad absurdum argument about Always Evil babies. I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which it would be an act of absolute, unquestionable Good to kill a baby. You can offer whatever justifications you like - it will grow up to murder, it naturally produces continent-annihilating toxins, whatever - and maybe you could make an argument. But you're still killing a baby, and under arbitrary alignment, there are contexts where that action is unquestionably Good.

Another example, which you point out, is spells with an [Evil] tag. Casting those makes you Evil, or indicates that you are the sort of Evil being who would cast such spells. This is true regardless of context or justification. By way of illustration, the Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) spell carries the Evil tag. This means that using it, for any reason, is an Evil act. But what if you're a triage doctor using it to determine quickly which patients need your life-saving treatments the most? That's pretty clearly a Good act. Nope, doesn't matter, Always Evil.

That's my point. D&D RAW has defined certain actions as Always Evil, or Always Good, irrespective of context or justification. And that last clause is problematic, because it prevents any moral complexity or nuance. The Trolley Problem is a moral dilemma because it asks the question - is it acceptable to commit one murder to save multiple lives? D&D RAW removes the nuance by stating explicitly: "Murder is an Evil act." Therefore, no, it is not acceptable, full stop.


"Paladin auto-fall scenarios" are-once again- the fault of a jerkbag DM, and NOT alignment mechanics. So I refuse to engage that topic. The fault is PEOPLE, not the result of inferior or faulty mechanics. Doesn't matter that the DM used alignment to be a jerkbag. If someone gets beaten to death with a length of steel pipe, because steel pipes were built to be sturdy, does that mean that steel pipes are inherently dangerous to people when used in the appropriate manner.

Agreed in part, disagreed in part. Paladin auto-fall scenarios are the fault of a jerkbag DM, true. However, they can only exist by RAW because alignment mechanics permit them. It's like this: If I push you off of the top of a building to your death, there's no question I am a murderer. But if there were no gravity, it would not have been possible for me to do so. That doesn't absolve me of blame for your death, but it explains the context in which it was possible for me to kill you.

Alignment mechanics are a tool for jerkbag DMs to engage in jerkbag tactics. They are not the only tool, but they are a powerful one, and removing them does neuter a jerkbag DM's ability to be a jerkbag, at least to a small extent.


Arguments like this one are about PEOPLE being the problem. Whether they're deviating from the rules, or using them as an excuse to be a jerkbag. Blame the DM or the Player who did it, not the rules they used.

Why not both? Yes, definitely, blame jerks for being jerks, but if we have the means to make it harder for them to be jerks - i.e. removing alignment mechanics - why not use those means?


Ok, so you didn't mean Outsiders, beings who are literally made of alignment energies.

What mortal races are listed as "always Evil"? All the examples of 3.5e I can think of say "Usually Evil" or "Often Evil". I'm more familiar with that edition than any other. I know in 5e, evil humanoid races have less free will than in previous editions, because the gods that created them designed them that way. Orcs, for example, constantly feel the dark will of Gruumsh driving them to Evil. Even Half-orcs feel his call, but are better able to resist it, due to their orc blood being diluted.

What other examples from what editions are you talking about? Mortal races that say "Always Evil"?

Aren't 5e Orcs "Always Evil?" I may be misremembering, mind you.

Also, do Dragons count as "mortal races?" Because 3.5e True Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) have the "always" marker next to their alignments. Black Dragon, always CE; Blue Dragon, always LE; Green Dragon, always LE; Red Dragon, always CE; and so on.

Do Undead count? 3.5e Vampires (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm), for example, are intelligent Undead - capable of thinking, feeling, and so forth - yet are listed as Always Evil (any). This means that you could theoretically have a Vampire who runs a hospital, cares for the sick and the feeble, saves countless lives, and is able to work tirelessly through the night (due to that whole lack of sleep thing), yet killing said Vampire is still an unquestionably Good act, because Always Evil.

Okay, let's put aside Dragons or Undead. What about Sphinxes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sphinx.htm)? In 3.5e, the Androsphinx is Always CG, the Hieracosphinx is Always CE. These are intelligent Magical Beasts - not Constructs, not cosmically-formed Outsiders, not inherently-Evil Undead, not ageless Dragons, just intelligent Magical Beasts - which are Always alignment. Do they count?

hamishspence
2018-01-11, 10:41 AM
Aren't 5e Orcs "Always Evil?" I may be misremembering, mind you.


5E leaves it a little unclear what the proportion of exceptions is. The 5e gnoll section does emphasise that they are magical creations of demon-tainting energies, and not a "natural race" as well as emphasising their evilness.


killing an Always Evil creature is an Always Good act, irrespective of context or justification. Again, see my admittedly reductio ad absurdum argument about Always Evil babies. I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which it would be an act of absolute, unquestionable Good to kill a baby.

The 3e book that says that (BOVD), narrows it down a bit - it says that killing a fiend (Outsider with the Evil subtype) is Always Good. It has a bit more nuance for "ordinary" Always Evil creatures like dragons.

It says that killing a chromatic dragon purely for personal profit, is "not an evil act, though it's not a good act".

Are there "fiend babies" in 3rd ed? Yes. Unholy scions in Heroes of Horror, and the offspring of erinyes couples in FF2 (it states that erinyes reproduce like mortals (unlike most fiends) and that this is where new erinyes tend to come from - ones who weren't ever "fallen angels".

So, taking BoVD literally, killing a baby erinyes or Unholy Scion would be an "act of absolute, unquestionable Good" though it might revolt the players.

Pleh
2018-01-11, 11:41 AM
Are there "fiend babies" in 3rd ed? Yes. Unholy scions in Heroes of Horror, and the offspring of erinyes couples in FF2 (it states that erinyes reproduce like mortals (unlike most fiends) and that this is where new erinyes tend to come from - ones who weren't ever "fallen angels".

So, taking BoVD literally, killing a baby erinyes or Unholy Scion would be an "act of absolute, unquestionable Good" though it might revolt the players.

I dunno. The concept of "fiend babies" reproduced like mortals while still being essentially "made of pure evil" gives me reason to believe they aren't the quiet, innocent creatures as our own infants. They're still intrinsically evil creatures and would probably bite a pound of flesh off you if given the chance for no other reason than that it would be more evil than not biting you.

I get the sense that if we were really considering the scenario given that while Erinyes have offspring that can technically be called, "babies," an accurate description would likely make them seem like really weak and ineffectual monsters more than resembling what we think of as babies.

kyoryu
2018-01-11, 11:54 AM
That's my point. D&D RAW has defined certain actions as Always Evil, or Always Good, irrespective of context or justification. And that last clause is problematic, because it prevents any moral complexity or nuance. The Trolley Problem is a moral dilemma because it asks the question - is it acceptable to commit one murder to save multiple lives? D&D RAW removes the nuance by stating explicitly: "Murder is an Evil act." Therefore, no, it is not acceptable, full stop.

Yes. D&D alignment works from a deontological viewpoint. The point of the trolley problem isn't "find the right answer" it's "are you a consequentialist or a deontologist?" Asking a question which already has a defined answer is kind of stupid, and so trolley problems shouldn't exist in D&D. Or, at the very least, the GM should be clear about how the answer will be interpreted re: alignment.

A reasonable understanding of alignment made by a mature GM handles it quite nicely. Yes, it's an Evil act (though, if you ask the person and they agree to be sacrificed, I'd argue it's not.). It also saves a lot of people.

But guess what? People, even Good people, can *and do* commit Evil acts. Committing an Evil act to save many, many people may still be Evil, but probably won't twig your alignment, particularly if the individual feels remorse and guilt over their actions. The only real issue is when the person commits this act and feels totally justified and "yup, did the right thing!" A Good person just won't commit a significant Evil act, or one without a good reason, and will prefer to take the problems themselves rather than push them on others. But there are situations, sure! A Good character might steal to save starving orphans if all other options had been exhausted - but they'd still regret doing it, and would try to make amends in some way.

Now, a Paladin might Fall for that, true... but that's exactly why Atonement exists. If you're a Paladin that has done something Evil, even if necessary, the guilt of that should weigh you down, until some way of making amends for it (the spell) has occurred.

Now, if you've got a **** GM who's just out to screw you via trolley problem? Then, yeah, you're in a bad situation. But that's because you've got a **** GM.

jk7275
2018-01-11, 12:22 PM
And killing it will make you objectively evil because that is how that fantasy world works. Something like that is vile enough to not just count as an evil deed but as big enough a transgression to warrant instant alignment-shift. No excuses for genocidal motivated murder.

That's not how that fantasy world works. You are reducing the amount of evil in the world and this is not about killing humans. If someone kills a baby rattlesnake are you going to say that is evil? If we kill off all the cockroaches are you going to call it murder or genocide?
Murder is an unlawful killing. What are the laws governing killing in a fantasy world? Why would they include anything that is objective evil? What are the laws of gods? There isn't anything stopping from a lawful good god telling his paladins to kill Orc babies and when that paladin kills an orc baby it is not evil


The robot example is 100% relevant because it is about a real world person responding to a situation, and when we play d&d we are real world people playing the game.

A player (real world person) should have a real world moral reaction (gut feeling) in response to discussing infanticide (in game). Even though it isn’t real (just like the robot isn’t a real child).

The robot example is basically just an appeal to emotion.

Aliquid
2018-01-11, 01:04 PM
The robot example is basically just an appeal to emotion.If you want to go there, then EVERY response to what is moral or immoral is an "appeal to emotion". We don't have time to ponder logically and philosophically about what is moral and immoral for every event we witness or partake in. 90% of the time that you think "this is wrong", it is a gut reaction, not a logical deduction. You might logically justify your emotional response after the fact, or you might logically tell yourself that you are overreacting... but it isn't logic that drives our values.

I'm not trying to argue that the robot example is moral or immoral, I'm not appealing to anything. What I am saying is that when someone is in that scenario, their immediate reaction should be a visceral feeling or horror. They might be able to pull back and say to themselves "whoah, relax, it is just a robot" (if they were a very pragmatic person), but many people wouldn't even be able to do that, because the emotional response would overwhelm any logical thought.

Imagining infanticide in a D&D game is nowhere as visceral as the robot example, but the process is still the same.

wumpus
2018-01-11, 01:10 PM
Primarily it's bad because people don't agree on whether you should use a consequentialist/utilitarian view or a deontological.

Add in that consequentialism is *really hard* without the ability to predict the future, and those two result in the vast majority of disputes. (Note that the Good/Evil divide is where the issues typically are, not the Law/Chaos divide, which has much less vigorous arguments, though there are still some grey areas).

If you start with a deontological viewpoint, and it's explicitly stated "this is how we're doing alignment, even if you disagree with it in the real world", then it works reasonably well.

Your problem with consequentialism essentially disappears in many (including RAW D&D, take your edition) fantasy settings as they allow divination magic. Presumably the universe (or planes of law/chaos, whatever) can instantly use such magic to determine the alignment of said action and update the PC/NPC/whatever's aura.

Personally, I think very few fantasy settings can be improved by such morals, but the mechanism for determining them aren't really at issue (until the DM has to retroactively change something that wasn't obvious at the time).

When V cast the familicide spell, 'e didn't seem to think it was terribly evil, although in the stickverse it was seen as extremely objectively evil by the fiends (and presumably had "evil" tag on the spell). It wasn't until 'e realized that non-dragons were slain as well that the evil of the spell was obvious. V apparently has a consequentialism defined morality (possibly appropriate to a neutral character) in a world with an objective morality. So regardless of how the character thinks of themselves, the consequences of good/evil acts will effect them regardless of the ends.

For the player, if your build depends on following an alignment you clearly have to follow the setting's idea of how your morality works. For anybody else, this is open to interpretation (although expect to face the consequences). Personally, I am open to anything that kills the "9 possible personality types allowed in D&D" fallacy.

Bohandas
2018-01-11, 01:24 PM
Alignment is intrinsic to the planescape setting

EDIT:
Furthermore it is consistent with the setting for alignment to be inconsistent and wonky due to the outer planes being shaped by mortal beings' stupid minds.

Bohandas
2018-01-11, 01:45 PM
The 3e book that says that (BOVD), narrows it down a bit - it says that killing a fiend (Outsider with the Evil subtype) is Always Good. It has a bit more nuance for "ordinary" Always Evil creatures like dragons.

BoVD doesn;t count. Firstly because the general consensus is that the game designers were tripping when they wrote BoVD and BoED and more importantly because it's canon that fiends, and demons especially, spend most of their time killing other fiends; this is apparent in the Fiendish Codices, the Manual of the Planes, and about a dozen Planescape supplements.

jk7275
2018-01-11, 02:43 PM
I'm not trying to argue that the robot example is moral or immoral, I'm not appealing to anything. What I am saying is that when someone is in that scenario, their immediate reaction should be a visceral feeling or horror. They might be able to pull back and say to themselves "whoah, relax, it is just a robot" (if they were a very pragmatic person), but many people wouldn't even be able to do that, because the emotional response would overwhelm any logical thought.

Imagining infanticide in a D&D game is nowhere as visceral as the robot example, but the process is still the same.

In your robot example I react with horror but then again I am human watching what likes a human baby get hit but my reaction may be different if the robot did not look like a human baby. Humans can feel horror and disgust when watching a human baby get hit and feel nothing when a baby animal gets hit

In D&D Humans , Dwarves , Elves and other races have been at war with Orcs for centuries. Years ago an article was written in dragon magazine issue 89 that dealt with population growth rates of the races and the conflict between Orcs and races isn't just over alignment its about basic biology

Its short lived quickly maturing Orc vs long living slowing maturing Dwarf or Elf. Orcs start breeding when they are 8 Elves start when they are 100 and dwarfs have the problem of having only one third of babies born being female. Every Orc baby a dwarf lets live now means hundreds they have to fight 20 years from now, can Dwarves really afford to let the Orc babies live? Orcs main advantage is how fast they breed and crush other races by sheer weight on numbers something has to be done to keep their number in check

Orcs are trying to commit genocide and allowing Orc babies to live makes it easier for Orcs to commit genocide. This can cause major problems for dwarves given their low birth rate. You can make the argument that by refusing to commit genocide against Orcs your helping Orcs commit genocide against dwarves.

What is the emotional response of an elf or dwarf be when they see an Orc baby get killed? Elves and Dwarves have a right to self defense and what is the alternative.

Aliquid
2018-01-11, 03:13 PM
In your robot example I react with horror but then again I am human watching what likes a human baby get hit but my reaction may be different if the robot did not look like a human baby. Humans can feel horror and disgust when watching a human baby get hit and feel nothing when a baby animal gets hit

In D&D Humans , Dwarves , Elves and other races have been at war with Orcs for centuries. Years ago an article was written in dragon magazine issue 89 that dealt with population growth rates of the races and the conflict between Orcs and races isn't just over alignment its about basic biology

Its short lived quickly maturing Orc vs long living slowing maturing Dwarf or Elf. Orcs start breeding when they are 8 Elves start when they are 100 and dwarfs have the problem of having only one third of babies born being female. Every Orc baby a dwarf lets live now means hundreds they have to fight 20 years from now, can Dwarves really afford to let the Orc babies live? Orcs main advantage is how fast they breed and crush other races by sheer weight on numbers something has to be done to keep their number in check

Orcs are trying to commit genocide and allowing Orc babies to live makes it easier for Orcs to commit genocide. This can cause major problems for dwarves given their low birth rate. You can make the argument that by refusing to commit genocide against Orcs your helping Orcs commit genocide against dwarves.

What is the emotional response of an elf or dwarf be when they see an Orc baby get killed? Elves and Dwarves have a right to self defense and what is the alternative.I am not talking about “in game” morals. I agree with you that a character could in theory kill evil babies without moral repercussions.

I am talking about players. We as players should be cautious about playing a game where we discuss infanticide as a good thing. If you stop to think about the actions of your character, it should instinctively make you feel uncomfortable (not your character, you)

If you were to walk into a room and tell a group of people that you played a game where you killed a bunch of evil babies. Many people in the room would cringe and think you personally are creepy (not the character)

Now I’m not saying that everyone who plays like this is a sociopath. I’m sure if I had hit this scenario back in my hack and slash D&D days... I might have done the same.

I wouldn’t do it now because I stopped to think about it.

kyoryu
2018-01-11, 03:22 PM
If you were to walk into a room and tell a group of people that you played a game where you killed a bunch of evil babies. Many people in the room would cringe and think you personally are creepy (not the character)

Now I’m not saying that everyone who plays like this is a sociopath. I’m sure if I had hit this scenario back in my hack and slash D&D days... I might have done the same.

I wouldn’t do it now because I stopped to think about it.

Some people play games like this deliberately. I call them "take your demon out for a walk" games. I have zero interest in them, but some people seem to revel in doing the most screwed up things that they can think of in game.

Tanarii
2018-01-11, 03:28 PM
Some people play games like this deliberately. I call them "take your demon out for a walk" games. I have zero interest in them, but some people seem to revel in doing the most screwed up things that they can think of in game.
You've never played a game where a PC has leaned around a corner and lobbed a fireball into a room full of Gnolls, only to find out after the fact that it included a bunch of whelps?

... despite them being fully aware the the humanoids in the lairs had whelps in them, and specifically giving them chances to get away in previous encounters. But just getting caught up in the moment and not thinking about it in this case.

Dealing with the "what do we do with evil race's children we find in their lairs" question was a staple in a lot of older D&D modules.

(Edit: Clearly I missed this is a response to a response to this basic concept. /sigh. Or very slightly different, since I'm talking about it having happened on accident.)

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-11, 03:45 PM
The robot example is 100% relevant because it is about a real world person responding to a situation, and when we play d&d we are real world people playing the game.

A player (real world person) should have a real world moral reaction (gut feeling) in response to discussing infanticide (in game). Even though it isn’t real (just like the robot isn’t a real child).
You neglect the fact that the knowledge that an example is unreal changes the real moral reaction.

This is not hypothetical. We know it. Completely psychologically normal people who never go on to commit violent crimes will cheer for their friends to slaughter realistic human-like opponents in videogames. They do so because they know the virtual characters are not real and hence treating their deaths morally in the same way as deaths of real people would be absurd.

A psychologically normal person will never mistake arguments for infanticide of xenomorphs, orcs, devils or other fictional evil beings, as having any validity towards real humans. The only real exception goes for people who buy into alarmist rhetoric and believe said fictional evil beings are stand-ins for real people.

Bohandas
2018-01-11, 04:04 PM
...Lets say someone builds a robot that .... acts exactly like a small child....

In that case it passes the Turing test

jk7275
2018-01-11, 04:18 PM
I am not talking about “in game” morals. I agree with you that a character could in theory kill evil babies without moral repercussions.

I am talking about players. We as players should be cautious about playing a game where we discuss infanticide as a good thing. If you stop to think about the actions of your character, it should instinctively make you feel uncomfortable (not your character, you)



Currently I am in a 1st edition campaign playing a lawful good ranger and after writing my background I spent time with the DM what kind of morals the ranger would have. I think if every player does this it would avoid threads about alignments. Sit down with the DM and discuss what your character believes and what their goals are. I gave the DM my beliefs and values are for my ranger and lawful good was a good fit.

I think if every player does this it would avoid threads about alignments and maybe avoids having players doing things in character that would make other players uncomfortable

Aliquid
2018-01-11, 04:35 PM
In that case it passes the Turing testNot necessarily. The robot would have to: look like a child, cringe like a child, cry like a child and repeat some pre-recorded phrases like "please stop"... it wouldn't need to show any level of intelligence.



You neglect the fact that the knowledge that an example is unreal changes the real moral reaction.Yes, but only to a limited degree. People cry when watching movies. They get mad when something happens to their favorite character in a book. They get scared watching a horror flick... people's instinctive moral reactions are still there when they know it is fiction.


This is not hypothetical. We know it. Completely psychologically normal people who never go on to commit violent crimes will cheer for their friends to slaughter realistic human-like opponents in videogames. They do so because they know the virtual characters are not real and hence treating their deaths morally in the same way as deaths of real people would be absurd.True again. But most people have a limit on how far they can stretch that detachment. Some people find those games horrifying as is... others can handle them. But if you change the scenario in the game from "slaughter realistic human-like opponents", to "slaughter realistic frail seniors who beg for mercy and feebly try to escape"... then most of the cheering stops.


A psychologically normal person will never mistake arguments for infanticide of xenomorphs, orcs, devils or other fictional evil beings, as having any validity towards real humans.Looking at the responses to this thread, many people are saying that killing those babies would be wrong (in game). Are you suggesting that those people are psychologically unhealthy?

I agree that "in game" it could be morally acceptable, I also think that "in game" it is possible for a species with free will to be "always evil"... but the more I tried to justify that position, the more uncomfortable I became with the words I was typing, because of the real world parallels that could be drawn... so I had to stop.





Currently I am in a 1st edition campaign playing a lawful good ranger and after writing my background I spent time with the DM what kind of morals the ranger would have. I think if every player does this it would avoid threads about alignments. Sit down with the DM and discuss what your character believes and what their goals are. I gave the DM my beliefs and values are for my ranger and lawful good was a good fit.Making sure that all players and the DM are on the same page as to what is acceptable "in game behavior" is always a good idea. Even if it isn't related to "evil" behavior. I for instance don't like playing games with a Kender character.

RazorChain
2018-01-11, 04:45 PM
Making sure that all players and the DM are on the same page as to what is acceptable "in game behavior" is always a good idea. Even if it isn't related to "evil" behavior. I for instance don't like playing games with a Kender character.

Not that I'm a proponent of the alignment system but killing a Kender is NEVER an Evil act

kyoryu
2018-01-11, 04:58 PM
You've never played a game where a PC has leaned around a corner and lobbed a fireball into a room full of Gnolls, only to find out after the fact that it included a bunch of whelps?

... despite them being fully aware the the humanoids in the lairs had whelps in them, and specifically giving them chances to get away in previous encounters. But just getting caught up in the moment and not thinking about it in this case.

Dealing with the "what do we do with evil race's children we find in their lairs" question was a staple in a lot of older D&D modules.

(Edit: Clearly I missed this is a response to a response to this basic concept. /sigh. Or very slightly different, since I'm talking about it having happened on accident.)

Yeah, I'm talking about games where characters that are supposedly "good" stick decapitated heads on sticks and wave them around, giggling like ten year olds. Using the game as an excuse to imagine depraved crap.

Bohandas
2018-01-11, 06:45 PM
Not necessarily. The robot would have to: look like a child, cringe like a child, cry like a child and repeat some pre-recorded phrases like "please stop"... it wouldn't need to show any level of intelligence.


You're moving the goalposts. The premise was that it "acts exactly like a small child"


BoVD doesn;t count. Firstly because the general consensus is that the game designers were tripping when they wrote BoVD and BoED and more importantly because it's canon that fiends, and demons especially, spend most of their time killing other fiends; this is apparent in the Fiendish Codices, the Manual of the Planes, and about a dozen Planescape supplements.

And I forgot to mention the first time that Fiendish Codex 2 also states that before they started fighting the Blood War the Baatezu were good

Tinkerer
2018-01-11, 06:59 PM
You're moving the goalposts. The premise was that it "acts exactly like a small child"


Honestly the Turing Test isn't very hard to pass when dealing with a child under the age of 5.

Aliquid
2018-01-11, 07:01 PM
You're moving the goalposts. The premise was that it "acts exactly like a small child"The robot acts exactly like a small child within the context of the scenario given. I though that was assumed. That was my intent and if the message didn't go through, it was due to lack of clarity on my post, not "moving goalposts".

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-11, 08:41 PM
Passing the Turing Test is more about appearances than about what's under the hood.

ross
2018-01-11, 10:37 PM
That is just the opposite of my experience. I have seen far less backstabbing in games without alignments.
Being evil is not a crime. Killing things for being evil is evil.

Killing things for being evil is the best, especially if they happen to be centaurs that have a chance to drop million-gold-piece gems that you can then turn into XP, allowing you to gain dozens of levels per hour

Enixon
2018-01-11, 11:47 PM
It does have a very useful purpose. Not everybody needs it for that purpose, but in my personal experience it's the players who want to completely eliminate it who are most likely to have their PC's act like complete random, disruptive-to-the-game, nutburgers.


Oh thank god I'm not the only one

I swear, in my experience, every time someone says we should get rid of alignment it's something along the lines of "What do you MEAN my Lawful Good fighter is now Evil?! Just because I burnt down the orphanage, sold half the kids into slavery and slowly tortured to death the other?! Alignment is STUPID!"

I know it's an unfair bias but after all this I just can not take alignment complaints seriously, it always seems to be people wanting their characters to be horrible people who do horrible things for horrible reasons, but balk at the idea that they aren't a shining paragon of virtue as they dump enough Black Lotus Extract to put the Tarrasque into a coma into the villiage well because a crotchety farmer was rude to them. :confused:

NovenFromTheSun
2018-01-12, 02:08 AM
A lot of fictional monsters are dangerous right from birth (xenomorph face-huggers, for instance). D&D is the odd man out.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-12, 06:42 AM
Yes, but only to a limited degree. People cry when watching movies. They get mad when something happens to their favorite character in a book. They get scared watching a horror flick... people's instinctive moral reactions are still there when they know it is fiction.

Sure, fiction can trigger real emotions. Majority of people still understand that the target of the emotion is unreal and do not act in the same way as if the target is real. Majority of people who cry at movies do not, for example, lobby against future movies having bad or sad things happen to their characters. They do not actually rush to help these people either. A lot would actually argue that the bad and sad things happening to the characters is necessary for good fiction, because it makes them cry.


True again. But most people have a limit on how far they can stretch that detachment. Some people find those games horrifying as is... others can handle them. But if you change the scenario in the game from "slaughter realistic human-like opponents", to "slaughter realistic frail seniors who beg for mercy and feebly try to escape"... then most of the cheering stops.

Oh, for sure, at some point you cross the line where you start squicking people too much for them to enjoy the fiction. But do not confuse emotional response of visceral disgust for moral disgust. People often use the former as basis for latter, but as with the above example of people crying at movies, most people still do not act anything like if the virtual people being killed are real.

Also, "realistic frail seniors who beg for mercy and feebly try to escape" is a different category than always evil speculative species, such as xenomorphs, orcs, or demons, or even the much broader category of realistic humanlike opponents. The emotions caused are hence also different. Nevertheless, there are plenty of realistic, frail seniors in fiction of games which have been murdered by psychologically normal people. Hint: all it takes is for the senior to be sufficiently vile person for people to stop giving crap of their virtual human rights.


Looking at the responses to this thread, many people are saying that killing those babies would be wrong (in game). Are you suggesting that those people are psychologically unhealthy?

First, "abnormal" =/= "unhealthy".

Second, not all the people you refer to actually base their notion on the idea that fictional scenarios ought to be treated morally the same as real life - they base their notion of in-game rules, which is a different argument.

Of the rest, I'd actually claim majority fall in the category of "buys into alarmist rhetoric and thinks the fictional beings are stand-ins for real people".

It would not surprise me at all, though, if all posters who so argue in this thread are psychologically abnormal in some respect. We are talking of a tiny subset of people in a highly eccentric niche hobby. I don't have stellar reason to expect them to be normal in any other respect either.


I agree that "in game" it could be morally acceptable, I also think that "in game" it is possible for a species with free will to be "always evil"... but the more I tried to justify that position, the more uncomfortable I became with the words I was typing, because of the real world parallels that could be drawn... so I had to stop.

So congratulations, you engaged in mental gymnastics and it caused you to fall victim to alarmist rhetoric. The underlined part is you admitting that.

Here, let me offer you a remedy: unless you can scientifically solve all the problems with the concept of "free will" that exist in real life, your justifications are purely speculative and cannot be applied to real life. That is, the real life parallels aren't unless you actually prove them. Stop worrying about it.

---


Passing the Turing Test is more about appearances than about what's under the hood.

You are right and we have fairly dumb chatbots which already pass the test. Using such chatbots to enliven videogame characters has already been suggested and likely implemented.

No decrease in amount of virtual genocides has been detected. :smalltongue:

RedMage125
2018-01-12, 08:47 AM
*adjusts glasses* Um, actually, you said "I have heard," but yeah, fair point.
Well played. :smallwink:


Here, again, is where I disagree. It's such a gross overgeneralization, in my mind, that more complex moral and ethical outlooks are precluded, because - again - the books draw explicit lines, irrespective of circumstance or justification.
But those alignment defintions can encompass larger varieties of personality types and quirks than many people credit them for. And while there are "explicit lines" for specific ACTS, no single act "insta-changes" one's alignment. No individual ONLY commits acts that are within the definition of alignment, which is why it's descriptive, and not prescriptive.

On an entirely unrelated note, my inner Grammar-Nazi is delighted by your use of "irrespective" instead of a non-word like "irregardless".


First, let me clarify: In this context, when I use the term "arbitrary," I mean the "because we said so and that's final" definition of the word, not necessarily the "unsupported and baseless" definition of the word. For example, slavery is obviously an Always Evil act, for perfectly logical reasons. By contrast, killing an Always Evil creature is an Always Good act, irrespective of context or justification. Again, see my admittedly reductio ad absurdum argument about Always Evil babies. I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which it would be an act of absolute, unquestionable Good to kill a baby. You can offer whatever justifications you like - it will grow up to murder, it naturally produces continent-annihilating toxins, whatever - and maybe you could make an argument. But you're still killing a baby, and under arbitrary alignment, there are contexts where that action is unquestionably Good.
hamishspence covered a great deal of this, but to clarify: By 3.x rules (the last edition to clearly state things like this), killing "a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil", even for selfish reasons (such as profit) is a "non-evil act". Which is not the same as an "Always Good" act.

Furthermore, Frozen_Feet made a great point on this:



A psychologically normal person will never mistake arguments for infanticide of xenomorphs, orcs, devils or other fictional evil beings, as having any validity towards real humans. The only real exception goes for people who buy into alarmist rhetoric and believe said fictional evil beings are stand-ins for real people.
As he points out, fictional evil beings need not be measured by the same metrics we use in RL. Yes, by modern, Real-World standards, where we place emphasis on "nurture" over "nature", we believe in the inherent innocence of babies. But in a world with dragons, sorcerers, psions, beholders, and, more to the point-actual, objective, and quantifiable Evil-the prospect of living creatures (even humanoid ones) that are genuinely inherently Evil (capital "E") is one that we should not discount, nor should we allow ourselves to be So trapped by our Real-World preconceptions that we myopically ignore that D&D standards may be different.

To clarify, I am not speaking in favor, necessarily, of "killing babies". Merely that it is genuinely POSSIBLE in a D&D world for such an act to not necessarily be unquestionably Evil.



Another example, which you point out, is spells with an [Evil] tag. Casting those makes you Evil, or indicates that you are the sort of Evil being who would cast such spells. This is true regardless of context or justification. By way of illustration, the Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) spell carries the Evil tag. This means that using it, for any reason, is an Evil act. But what if you're a triage doctor using it to determine quickly which patients need your life-saving treatments the most? That's pretty clearly a Good act. Nope, doesn't matter, Always Evil.
The cleric spell Status does the same thing, without "drawing on the energies of undeath" to do so. Creation of Undead, by any means, is, in 3.x, an Unquestionably Evil act. For reasons that are very clear (check your BoVD under "Defining Evil"). Since creating them by ANY means is an Evil act, it follows logically that the spells which ONLY result in the creation of undead (Animate Dead, Create [Greater] Undead come to mind) have the [Evil] tag. It's internally consistent and coherent. Now, Deathwatch, a Necromancy spell, specifies that it taps into the "energies of undeath" (or something like that) in order to function. So the [Evil] tag on that one makes sense as it is tapping into energies that ARE inherently Evil. Although, to be fair, casting that spell is a much more minor act of Evil than, say, burning down an orphanage.



That's my point. D&D RAW has defined certain actions as Always Evil, or Always Good, irrespective of context or justification. And that last clause is problematic, because it prevents any moral complexity or nuance. The Trolley Problem is a moral dilemma because it asks the question - is it acceptable to commit one murder to save multiple lives? D&D RAW removes the nuance by stating explicitly: "Murder is an Evil act." Therefore, no, it is not acceptable, full stop.
D&D also specifies a definition of Murder that is: "killing of an intelligent creature for nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, personal pleasure, or the like"

The Trolley problem in D&D morality would-fist of all-place the onus of Evil act of the person who tied all 6 people to the tracks to begin with. The person standing at the switch had the binary [lesser evil act or greater evil act] choice, wherein even choosing to do nothing results in the greater evil occurring. In D&D, that is completely separate from "intentionally commiting an evil act". Now the Fat Man variant, where one must choose to push an otherwise innocent bystander (who was not in harm's way) in front of the trolley to save 5 people, THAT is where you go into the intentional committing of one evil act in order to save more lives.

kyoryu pointed out:


But guess what? People, even Good people, can *and do* commit Evil acts. Committing an Evil act to save many, many people may still be Evil, but probably won't twig your alignment, particularly if the individual feels remorse and guilt over their actions. The only real issue is when the person commits this act and feels totally justified and "yup, did the right thing!" A Good person just won't commit a significant Evil act, or one without a good reason, and will prefer to take the problems themselves rather than push them on others. But there are situations, sure! A Good character might steal to save starving orphans if all other options had been exhausted - but they'd still regret doing it, and would try to make amends in some way.

Now, a Paladin might Fall for that, true... but that's exactly why Atonement exists. If you're a Paladin that has done something Evil, even if necessary, the guilt of that should weigh you down, until some way of making amends for it (the spell) has occurred.
The whole point of Paladins was that they are held to SUCH a high standard of Good (big "G") that even committing one Evil act intentionally makes them fall from grace. In the Trolley Problem Fat Man variant, the paladin's only recourse is to jump in front of the trolley himself, using his armored corpse to slow and stop the trolley.

And of course, there is the Fat Villain variant, wherein the fat man who may be pushed in front of the trolley to stop it from killing 5 people is also the very person who tied those people to the track in the first place. While this is a valid moral conflict in real life, by D&D morality it is morally acceptable to hurl said villain to his death to save the people he was trying to kill, since he is-for all intents and purposes-in the middle of his plan to kill them, and you would be stopping him.


Agreed in part, disagreed in part. Paladin auto-fall scenarios are the fault of a jerkbag DM, true. However, they can only exist by RAW because alignment mechanics permit them. It's like this: If I push you off of the top of a building to your death, there's no question I am a murderer. But if there were no gravity, it would not have been possible for me to do so. That doesn't absolve me of blame for your death, but it explains the context in which it was possible for me to kill you.

Alignment mechanics are a tool for jerkbag DMs to engage in jerkbag tactics. They are not the only tool, but they are a powerful one, and removing them does neuter a jerkbag DM's ability to be a jerkbag, at least to a small extent.
I have to completely disagree with you here, because the tool is not the problem. My own experience with a super-controlling DM had nothing to do with alignment. His low level (lvl 5 or 6) players were exposed to a battle that featured literally epic-level villains, which we had no hope of defeating, until his (also epic-level) NPC came around and pulled our collective butts out of the fire. After which, said "savior" NPC forced a special "DM fiat" lycanthropy on the party which forced them all (I say "them" at this point, because I left the game, but some of my friends continued to play) to do the "pack leader's" bidding. If they refused, he could remotely-at any time-force a lycanthropic change of shape, completely rendering them under his slavish control. Mind you, the DM ruled that since said NPC was epic-level, the paladin party member's normal immunity to lycanthropy was overridden, but also since she was basically being forced to do his bidding, she never fell for her actions, either.

A DM intent on being a jerkbag is going to use ANY tool at his disposal to be a jerkbag. That, or he's going to fiat-handwaive said tool into existence. Just because some DMs use alignment mechanics to be jerkbags is NOT a valid indictment of flaws or failings in alignment mechanics themselves.


Why not both? Yes, definitely, blame jerks for being jerks, but if we have the means to make it harder for them to be jerks - i.e. removing alignment mechanics - why not use those means?
And yet removal of alignment mechanics also takes away the positive benefits of them. Among which, like I mentioned in my first post, is that alignment mechanics give mechanical voice to classic fantasy tropes in an objective manner. Holy weapons (and spells); Evil as a tangible, detectable thing; the oppressive effects that the Lower Planes would have on Good people...these are all alignment mechanic dependent.

You're suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water.



Aren't 5e Orcs "Always Evil?" I may be misremembering, mind you.
5e evil humanoid races do NOT have the same level of free will as PC races do, this is explicit in the rules. As I recall, Orcs constantly feel the whisperings of Gruumsh in their minds. Half-orcs do, too, but they can resist it easier due to the thinning of their orc blood.

While I do not think this is carte blanche to "kill orc babies", I do think it bears some consideration to what we discussed above, about not measuring these monster races by a rwal-world human metric. They literally DO NOT HAVE Free Will as we recognize it. What does that truly mean for the morality of their actions? What about the morality of actions taken against them? All I can say for certain is that a modern metric based off of Real World Human mores may not be applicable.


Also, do Dragons count as "mortal races?" Because 3.5e True Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) have the "always" marker next to their alignments. Black Dragon, always CE; Blue Dragon, always LE; Green Dragon, always LE; Red Dragon, always CE; and so on.
3.x categorized dragons as "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil". So...no?


Do Undead count? 3.5e Vampires (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm), for example, are intelligent Undead - capable of thinking, feeling, and so forth - yet are listed as Always Evil (any). This means that you could theoretically have a Vampire who runs a hospital, cares for the sick and the feeble, saves countless lives, and is able to work tirelessly through the night (due to that whole lack of sleep thing), yet killing said Vampire is still an unquestionably Good act, because Always Evil.
2 general rules that are major factors to consider here:
1- ALL undead, even Good aligned ones, radiate as Evil under a Detect Evil spell. Reasoning for this falls into the rules regarding how creation of undead is an Evil act no matter what, and therefore the magicks that animate their bodies (even the incorporeal ones) are Evil. Note that I say "magicks" and not "spells", because even a wight who was created by another wight is animated by Evil energies.
2- The "Always" tag for alignment means 99% or more of creatures of that type match that alignment. Your VERY NARROW (which I'm sure you can admit) example of a Vampire could still exist in D&D rules.

Mind you, even using a modern viewpoint to look at a vampire makes some kind of "evil" likely. This is a being who is now forced to feed off the blood of the living to sustain its existence. It is a soulless shell of its former self, not even necessarily inhabited by the original spirit of the person whose body it was (Libris Mortis supports this). Even if a vampire was dedicated to trying to retain its former mindset, outlook, and morality (i.e. alignment), it makes sense that it would gradually become more and more morally callous, as it justified what it had to do to survive. It's a slippery slope, to be sure.


Okay, let's put aside Dragons or Undead. What about Sphinxes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sphinx.htm)? In 3.5e, the Androsphinx is Always CG, the Hieracosphinx is Always CE. These are intelligent Magical Beasts - not Constructs, not cosmically-formed Outsiders, not inherently-Evil Undead, not ageless Dragons, just intelligent Magical Beasts - which are Always alignment. Do they count?
You got me there. I don't know why sphinxes are "always X" alignment. That defies my understanding of them, save that cryo- and heiraco- sphinxes are savagely driven by baser animal instincts, but intelligent enough to revel and delight in rapaciousness and slaughter.



BoVD doesn;t count. Firstly because the general consensus is that the game designers were tripping when they wrote BoVD and BoED and more importantly because it's canon that fiends, and demons especially, spend most of their time killing other fiends; this is apparent in the Fiendish Codices, the Manual of the Planes, and about a dozen Planescape supplements.
Who says BoVD doesn't count? you?
While a great deal of the crunchy bits are unbalanced out the wazoo, and the art is absurdly "adult" without rhyme or reason, a great deal of the fluff is solid. The entire Chapter on "The Nature of Evil" does not contradict anything in the PHB, or later works. In fact, it fleshes out, in more detail, the WHY on a great number of topics. It's still a first-party rules source, and is ABSOLUTELY valid. ESPECIALLY when discussing alignment.



A lot of fictional monsters are dangerous right from birth (xenomorph face-huggers, for instance). D&D is the odd man out.

I'd argue that xenomorph face-huggers entirely lack moral agency, though. They're basically Vermin with ant INT of "-".

hamishspence
2018-01-12, 08:58 AM
The cleric spell Status does the same thing, without "drawing on the energies of undeath" to do so. Creation of Undead, by any means, is, in 3.x, an Unquestionably Evil act. For reasons that are very clear (check your BoVD under "Defining Evil"). Since creating them by ANY means is an Evil act, it follows logically that the spells which ONLY result in the creation of undead (Animate Dead, Create [Greater] Undead come to mind) have the [Evil] tag. It's internally consistent and coherent. Now, Deathwatch, a Necromancy spell, specifies that it taps into the "energies of undeath" (or something like that) in order to function. So the [Evil] tag on that one makes sense as it is tapping into energies that ARE inherently Evil. Although, to be fair, casting that spell is a much more minor act of Evil than, say, burning down an orphanage.

I think the changeover from 3.0 to 3.5 also plays a part. The Healer class (required Good alignment), and the Slayer of Domiel PRC (Exalted good) both had Deathwatch on their class list, and both came out very early in 3.5.

In 3.0, Deathwatch did not have the [Evil] tag.

Maybe an alternate "lifewatch" spell, using positive rather than negative energy, could be what these classes/PRCs get, as a fix - so that (in the Slayer's case) they don't Fall for casting a spell that they get automatically?

Status is different enough from Deathwatch that it's difficult to use it exactly the same way - to identify characters at low hit points in need of a heal.

Red Fel
2018-01-12, 10:11 AM
Well played. :smallwink:

But those alignment defintions can encompass larger varieties of personality types and quirks than many people credit them for. And while there are "explicit lines" for specific ACTS, no single act "insta-changes" one's alignment. No individual ONLY commits acts that are within the definition of alignment, which is why it's descriptive, and not prescriptive.

On an entirely unrelated note, my inner Grammar-Nazi is delighted by your use of "irrespective" instead of a non-word like "irregardless".

That's a fair point. I thought I did clarify this, but if I didn't:

1. I intended to emphasize that there were Always Good/Evil acts, not that any single act constituted an automatic and instant change to alignment. My personal position on the matter is that acts, even particularly egregious or heinous ones (i.e. genocide) don't change alignment, but rather reflect an already-changed mindset, but that's beside the point.

2. I agree that no individual only commits a single species of act. I would qualify that, however, that where a being is considered inherently, immutably X, where X is an alignment or alignment component, that creature is most likely, at any given time, performing acts consistent with its alignment.

And I prefer Grammar Fascist, thank you. :smallwink:


hamishspence covered a great deal of this, but to clarify: By 3.x rules (the last edition to clearly state things like this), killing "a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil", even for selfish reasons (such as profit) is a "non-evil act". Which is not the same as an "Always Good" act.

Fair distinction, and actually one I've made in the past, so I concede that. However, calling it a "non-Evil act," where it otherwise would be Evil, still ignores context and justification, which I continue to assert are important.


Furthermore, Frozen_Feet made a great point on this:

As he points out, fictional evil beings need not be measured by the same metrics we use in RL. Yes, by modern, Real-World standards, where we place emphasis on "nurture" over "nature", we believe in the inherent innocence of babies. But in a world with dragons, sorcerers, psions, beholders, and, more to the point-actual, objective, and quantifiable Evil-the prospect of living creatures (even humanoid ones) that are genuinely inherently Evil (capital "E") is one that we should not discount, nor should we allow ourselves to be So trapped by our Real-World preconceptions that we myopically ignore that D&D standards may be different.

To clarify, I am not speaking in favor, necessarily, of "killing babies". Merely that it is genuinely POSSIBLE in a D&D world for such an act to not necessarily be unquestionably Evil.

I won't argue that fictional races are stand-ins for real people. (Even when, as is occasionally the case, they are constructed around stereotypes of real people.) However, my position is that, if a creature is possessed of free will, it has (or should have) the ability to defy its baser instincts. And further, my position is also that the aura a creature radiates, or the circumstances of its birth or creation, are not reflective of its actual self if it is capable of freely choosing to evolve past those factors.

Let us assume, for example, that there is a mortal, mammalian race called Smeerp. As with most mammals, Smeerp babies are almost entirely helpless until they reach maturity and can use tools and language. Smeerps are "Always Evil," not in the "always means, like, 99% of the population" sense, but in the always Evil sense. Adventurers come upon a Baby Smeerp. Is killing a helpless baby, in this context, a non-Evil act?

We can define Evil as a matter of mindset - that is, you are Evil because you intend Evil with your actions. This is a baby, and therefore cannot form intent; that won't fly. We can define Evil as a matter of conduct - if you consistently or readily perform Evil actions, you are Evil. This is a baby, and like a Pokemon, it only knows four moves: Eat, Sleep, Poop, Scream. (Scream is super-effective!) It is incapable of performing an Evil act, unless you count rupturing eardrums. So that's not an argument, either. The only argument is that it is inherently, irredeemably Evil, and therefore killing it is always a Non-Evil act.

That's my point. Even setting aside the fact that infanticide from a real-world perspective is atrocious, there is no context in which this baby is actually Evil except that the writers have decreed it to be so. That is not a position based in reason. Yes, even if we know for a fact that this baby will grow up to become inherently Evil, it is not now Evil. It is, by any and all definitions, an innocent, and under the same RAW that says that killing an inherently Evil being is always Non-Evil, killing a helpless innocent is always Evil. The logic is contradictory.

And again, it's a problem that if a creature is capable of free will, by all logic it should have the ability to overcome its alignment impulses. Yes, I suppose that's why "Always X" means "like, 99% of the time," but that makes the statistic frustrating and far less useful than it has any right to be anyway.


The cleric spell Status does the same thing, without "drawing on the energies of undeath" to do so. Creation of Undead, by any means, is, in 3.x, an Unquestionably Evil act. For reasons that are very clear (check your BoVD under "Defining Evil"). Since creating them by ANY means is an Evil act, it follows logically that the spells which ONLY result in the creation of undead (Animate Dead, Create [Greater] Undead come to mind) have the [Evil] tag. It's internally consistent and coherent. Now, Deathwatch, a Necromancy spell, specifies that it taps into the "energies of undeath" (or something like that) in order to function. So the [Evil] tag on that one makes sense as it is tapping into energies that ARE inherently Evil. Although, to be fair, casting that spell is a much more minor act of Evil than, say, burning down an orphanage.

But it's still an act of unquestionable Evil, irrespective of context or justification. I keep using that phrase, because I think it matters. If one wishes to argue that D&D's alignment system allows for complexity and nuance, one must allow for situations in which one can do bad things for good reasons, or good things for bad reasons. The triage medic using Deathwatch is an example of the former - doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. In most narratives, this character is, at worst, a conflicted antihero, using unorthodox methods to help people. In D&D, a person who is willing to consistently tap into the "energies of undeath" is strictly Evil, irrespective of why he does it. That doesn't allow for nuance. That's what I mean by arbitrary - by Rule of God, that character is now Evil, full stop.


D&D also specifies a definition of Murder that is: "killing of an intelligent creature for nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, personal pleasure, or the like"

The Trolley problem in D&D morality would-fist of all-place the onus of Evil act of the person who tied all 6 people to the tracks to begin with. The person standing at the switch had the binary [lesser evil act or greater evil act] choice, wherein even choosing to do nothing results in the greater evil occurring. In D&D, that is completely separate from "intentionally commiting an evil act". Now the Fat Man variant, where one must choose to push an otherwise innocent bystander (who was not in harm's way) in front of the trolley to save 5 people, THAT is where you go into the intentional committing of one evil act in order to save more lives.

Pretty sure that killing a helpless target also qualifies. Per terminology, a "helpless" character is "otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy." The nature of the trolley problem is such that the lone man on the side track is necessarily at your mercy, so I'm pretty sure he'd count as helpless. Again, I could be misremembering.

Totally agree on the fat man variant, though. Cold-blooded.


kyoryu pointed out:

The whole point of Paladins was that they are held to SUCH a high standard of Good (big "G") that even committing one Evil act intentionally makes them fall from grace. In the Trolley Problem Fat Man variant, the paladin's only recourse is to jump in front of the trolley himself, using his armored corpse to slow and stop the trolley.

Funny story, I had a DM who tried to use that scenario as a test for characters to join the Harpers. (My character took the third option, and jumped onto the track himself. This was before I took philosophy. Go fig.)

And no, my character was not a Paladin. CN PsyWar, if memory serves.


And of course, there is the Fat Villain variant, wherein the fat man who may be pushed in front of the trolley to stop it from killing 5 people is also the very person who tied those people to the track in the first place. While this is a valid moral conflict in real life, by D&D morality it is morally acceptable to hurl said villain to his death to save the people he was trying to kill, since he is-for all intents and purposes-in the middle of his plan to kill them, and you would be stopping him.

Oh, sure, throw villains on the tracks. Just all the time. Not like we're people or anything.

Racist.


I have to completely disagree with you here, because the tool is not the problem. My own experience with a super-controlling DM had nothing to do with alignment. His low level (lvl 5 or 6) players were exposed to a battle that featured literally epic-level villains, which we had no hope of defeating, until his (also epic-level) NPC came around and pulled our collective butts out of the fire. After which, said "savior" NPC forced a special "DM fiat" lycanthropy on the party which forced them all (I say "them" at this point, because I left the game, but some of my friends continued to play) to do the "pack leader's" bidding. If they refused, he could remotely-at any time-force a lycanthropic change of shape, completely rendering them under his slavish control. Mind you, the DM ruled that since said NPC was epic-level, the paladin party member's normal immunity to lycanthropy was overridden, but also since she was basically being forced to do his bidding, she never fell for her actions, either.

A DM intent on being a jerkbag is going to use ANY tool at his disposal to be a jerkbag. That, or he's going to fiat-handwaive said tool into existence. Just because some DMs use alignment mechanics to be jerkbags is NOT a valid indictment of flaws or failings in alignment mechanics themselves.

Again, fair position. I agree that a jerkbag is a jerkbag is a jerkbag, and will find whatever means are available to be one. I am not faulting the alignment mechanics for the conduct of the jerkbag. But I am saying that alignment mechanics are among the tools of the jerkbag, and taking some of those tools away at least frustrates his aims a little.


And yet removal of alignment mechanics also takes away the positive benefits of them. Among which, like I mentioned in my first post, is that alignment mechanics give mechanical voice to classic fantasy tropes in an objective manner. Holy weapons (and spells); Evil as a tangible, detectable thing; the oppressive effects that the Lower Planes would have on Good people...these are all alignment mechanic dependent.

Holy weapons can still function - just deal their damage to Undead or Outsiders or what-have-you. Make them X-Bane weapons, which is honestly closer to many "classic fantasy tropes" than more generically "Holy" weapons. Hodr's twig doesn't kill Baldr because it's a magical godslaying weapon, it kills him because it's the only thing that never swore to not hurt him. The Master Sword, the Sword that Seals Evil, doesn't magically annihilate all Evil beings - it specifically frustrates the designs of Demise and his reincarnation(s), Ganon. Heck, it doesn't even work against Vaati - Link needs the Four Sword for that job. Per the "classic" tropes, the hero's magic weapon is designed for one very special purpose, not a broadly-applicable purpose.

Evil as a tangible thing can still function as well - Detect Magic exists. You can easily adjust Detect Evil to become Detect X, where X could be anything from Fey, to Undead, to Dragons, to Aberrations. Likewise, the "oppressive effects" you describe can be a magical aura or localized curse. Again, it makes more sense from a classical perspective - the character is reacting to that thing which is his narrative antagonist. The hero sworn to slay Dragons recognizes their smell; the exorcist senses the intrusion of the Lower Planes into our world; the Dhampyr recognizes the taint of his father's ilk. There are ways to express this that have nothing to do with alignment.

Just as one could argue that Status is a non-Evil version of Deathwatch, I can argue that you can accomplish a lot of these things without alignment mechanics, and do so in a way that is often more authentic to "classic fantasy tropes." Instead of, "I sense a strong aura of Evil here," you could have, "This room is colder than it should be," or "I have a sudden feeling of foreboding," or "Uncle has... the willies." You can do it in other ways.


You're suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water.

To be fair, I was the one suggesting sparing the baby, if you'll recall. You were on the other side of that argument. :smallwink:


5e evil humanoid races do NOT have the same level of free will as PC races do, this is explicit in the rules. As I recall, Orcs constantly feel the whisperings of Gruumsh in their minds. Half-orcs do, too, but they can resist it easier due to the thinning of their orc blood.

But Half-Orcs can resist it, because fiat. Because the writers said so. (And because 5e wanted to avoid the moral dilemmas of non-Evil monstrous races.) My point is that Orcs are a mortal race that is inherently Evil, which we explain away by saying that they're robots.

Problem: Robots aren't Evil, they're robots. They're incapable of forming intent, instead following programming. It's also why animals are generally Neutral. Either Orcs have enough free will to choose Evil, in which case they can also choose Not Evil, or they don't, in which case they are robots and therefore Not Evil. It's a self-defeating argument.


While I do not think this is carte blanche to "kill orc babies", I do think it bears some consideration to what we discussed above, about not measuring these monster races by a rwal-world human metric. They literally DO NOT HAVE Free Will as we recognize it. What does that truly mean for the morality of their actions? What about the morality of actions taken against them? All I can say for certain is that a modern metric based off of Real World Human mores may not be applicable.

I agree that a modern metric based on real world mores may not be applicable. My issue, aside from what I described above, is with the creation of a universe in which this concept even exists; it is logically inconsistent.


3.x categorized dragons as "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil". So...no?

Again, I have issue with this. Are they intelligent creatures that can change their minds, or are they robots?

In Dragonlance, the Noble Draconians were created from a Chromatic Dragon base. Magic was used on Chromatic Dragon eggs that allowed them to (1) hatch as dragon-people, and (2) not be inherently Evil. So clearly, it's not genetic, or at least not so much that a little magical tampering can't bypass it.

Dragons aren't Undead, created by inherently Evil means. They're not Evil Outsiders, formed of the inherent Evilness of the cosmos. They're physical creatures, if ageless and ineffable. There shouldn't be anything inherently Good or Evil about them, aside from this racial tendency. We can't even say it's a result of Tiamat's influence, because other races in 3.5 have their own deities, and are able to ignore that influence (see e.g. Orcs and Gruumsh, Elves and Corellon, Humans and Zarus).


2 general rules that are major factors to consider here:
1- ALL undead, even Good aligned ones, radiate as Evil under a Detect Evil spell. Reasoning for this falls into the rules regarding how creation of undead is an Evil act no matter what, and therefore the magicks that animate their bodies (even the incorporeal ones) are Evil. Note that I say "magicks" and not "spells", because even a wight who was created by another wight is animated by Evil energies.
2- The "Always" tag for alignment means 99% or more of creatures of that type match that alignment. Your VERY NARROW (which I'm sure you can admit) example of a Vampire could still exist in D&D rules.

1. What aura they radiate is (or should be) irrelevant. You can put a spell on an item or person to make it radiate with an aura completely inconsistent with the item or person itself. Yes, I'll concede that Undead are formed from Negative Energy, which (by author fiat) is inherently Evil, and therefore they radiate that same Evil. That should not, however, automatically mean that the subject is in fact Evil.

2. This is, again, a problem. If "Always" means "except, you know, for Drizz't," then it becomes increasingly meaningless. In that case, why even have an "always" metric - isn't "often" or "usually" enough? If you want to say that the race has a strong disposition towards an alignment or alignment component, fine, but saying "Always" and then qualifying, "But not always always," is a cop-out and renders the term meaningless.

And yes, I will admit to using a very narrow example. If the goal is to challenge a rule which should apply universally, showing an exception, no matter how narrow, demonstrates that it cannot.


Mind you, even using a modern viewpoint to look at a vampire makes some kind of "evil" likely. This is a being who is now forced to feed off the blood of the living to sustain its existence. It is a soulless shell of its former self, not even necessarily inhabited by the original spirit of the person whose body it was (Libris Mortis supports this). Even if a vampire was dedicated to trying to retain its former mindset, outlook, and morality (i.e. alignment), it makes sense that it would gradually become more and more morally callous, as it justified what it had to do to survive. It's a slippery slope, to be sure.

Sure, I'll give you that. But "callous indifference" and "active Evil" are two points on a spectrum, and they're not equivalent. For example, the deathstyle of a Lich, aside from the "unspeakably Evil" action(s) necessary to become one, seems to be more Neutral than Evil - focused on research to the exclusion of all else.


You got me there. I don't know why sphinxes are "always X" alignment. That defies my understanding of them, save that cryo- and heiraco- sphinxes are savagely driven by baser animal instincts, but intelligent enough to revel and delight in rapaciousness and slaughter.

I know, right? I admit, I was just sort of digging around for examples when I found that one, and it just struck me as weird. Go figure.

hamishspence
2018-01-12, 10:42 AM
If one wishes to argue that D&D's alignment system allows for complexity and nuance, one must allow for situations in which one can do bad things for good reasons, or good things for bad reasons. The triage medic using Deathwatch is an example of the former - doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. In most narratives, this character is, at worst, a conflicted antihero, using unorthodox methods to help people.

That's pretty much the approach Heroes of Horror (3.5 D&D splatbook) takes - using Evil means to Good ends, and being "a flexible Neutral character".

The general rule that consistently committing Evil acts makes you an Evil character, can be bent somewhat - especially if those Evil acts are small, and the character's Good acts are equally consistent.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-12, 10:54 AM
Holy weapons can still function - just deal their damage to Undead or Outsiders or what-have-you. Make them X-Bane weapons, which is honestly closer to many "classic fantasy tropes" than more generically "Holy" weapons. Hodr's twig doesn't kill Baldr because it's a magical godslaying weapon, it kills him because it's the only thing that never swore to not hurt him. The Master Sword, the Sword that Seals Evil, doesn't magically annihilate all Evil beings - it specifically frustrates the designs of Demise and his reincarnation(s), Ganon. Heck, it doesn't even work against Vaati - Link needs the Four Sword for that job. Per the "classic" tropes, the hero's magic weapon is designed for one very special purpose, not a broadly-applicable purpose.

Evil as a tangible thing can still function as well - Detect Magic exists. You can easily adjust Detect Evil to become Detect X, where X could be anything from Fey, to Undead, to Dragons, to Aberrations. Likewise, the "oppressive effects" you describe can be a magical aura or localized curse. Again, it makes more sense from a classical perspective - the character is reacting to that thing which is his narrative antagonist. The hero sworn to slay Dragons recognizes their smell; the exorcist senses the intrusion of the Lower Planes into our world; the Dhampyr recognizes the taint of his father's ilk. There are ways to express this that have nothing to do with alignment.

Just as one could argue that Status is a non-Evil version of Deathwatch, I can argue that you can accomplish a lot of these things without alignment mechanics, and do so in a way that is often more authentic to "classic fantasy tropes." Instead of, "I sense a strong aura of Evil here," you could have, "This room is colder than it should be," or "I have a sudden feeling of foreboding," or "Uncle has... the willies." You can do it in other ways.



Not jumping into the whole debate, but 5e basically does this (without renaming things). The 5e detect evil and good would be better named detect non-mortals--it detects fiends, celestials, undead, elementals, and fey. Has no effect on mortals at all. Same with the protection from evil and good spell. Paladins have Divine Sense, which functions as a stronger detect evil and good. There are a few items that react differently based on alignment as well as a single creature (the sprite) who can detect alignment. Other than that, only being on the alignment-based planes has a direct mechanical effect on alignment.

It's enough that I've dumped alignment as a mechanical thing for my setting--it's descriptive only. Not even angels and fiends have a fixed alignment. Solves a lot of problems, IMO.

Aliquid
2018-01-12, 11:00 AM
Oh, for sure, at some point you cross the line where you start squicking people too much for them to enjoy the fiction. But do not confuse emotional response of visceral disgust for moral disgust. People often use the former as basis for latter, but as with the above example of people crying at movies, most people still do not act anything like if the virtual people being killed are real.The thing is though... if the game suddenly switches to "frail seniors who beg for mercy", and all the cheering stops, except for one guy who keeps going "yeah! Ha! Smash those seniors. ha, ha, ha... *sigh* look at them beg". Many people would feel uncomfortable around that person, and worry about his mental health.

What I'm saying is that being ok with in game infanticide is a similar thing (although to a much lesser degree). i.e. most people seem to feel uncomfortable with it, and will look at you (or me) funny if we say "what's the big deal, it's a goblin"


Also, "realistic frail seniors who beg for mercy and feebly try to escape" is a different category than always evil speculative species, such as xenomorphs, orcs, or demons, or even the much broader category of realistic humanlike opponents. The emotions caused are hence also different. Nevertheless, there are plenty of realistic, frail seniors in fiction of games which have been murdered by psychologically normal people. Hint: all it takes is for the senior to be sufficiently vile person for people to stop giving crap of their virtual human rights.There are always boundaries, and the boundaries are different for everyone. Some people think that the most vile person just needs a hug, and they will turn nice...


Of the rest, I'd actually claim majority fall in the category of "buys into alarmist rhetoric and thinks the fictional beings are stand-ins for real people".
I would suggest another category: people who can't comprehend someone different than them.

The quickest example I can think of is the Extrovert who can't grasp that their Introvert friend truly doesn't want to go to the party and would rather stay home and read. No matter how many times you explain it to them. For them, the party is way more fun, therefore it must be more fun for everyone... and anyone who says otherwise must be forcefully brought to the party to show them that they are wrong.

Many people can get past that mental hurdle (some people are different than me), but they still can't imagine a sentient creature that isn't human.

The vast majority of the time that I see people talking about other species in a game (alien, or monster or whatever), they really describing the difference on a superficial level. They are in effect describing a human with a costume. For them the Orc, or Elf, or whatever for them is still a "human" underneath it all. They can't truly imagine a different species that would think and act completely differently than a human. And this is why they can't imagine such a creature being "always evil"... because that would mean that a human could be "always evil", and they don't want to go there.


So congratulations, you engaged in mental gymnastics and it caused you to fall victim to alarmist rhetoric. The underlined part is you admitting that.Not quite. My concern is more that (as above), there are people that can't separate fantasy creatures with humans... and as such when I say "monster babies can be evil", they subconsciously hear "human babies can be evil", and I don't want them to hear me saying that... even if that isn't what I mean. My concern is more the perception of others than my own perception.

Tanarii
2018-01-12, 11:14 AM
This thread has already shown us the main reason Alignment is bad:
- it means different things in different editions

BECMI vs AD&D vs 3e vs 4e vs 5e Alignment can mean hugely different things, and people often assume something from one or the other. For example, people frequently bring 3e Alignment baggage to 5e ... and pretty much anything you thought you knew about Alignment from 3e is baggage when you get to 5e.

A second reason not so prevalent in this particular thread so far, but still common:
- people bring their own preconceptions of good and evil to the table, and to a lesser degree lawful and chaotic

When people talk about Alignment, they typically bring it own personal definitions to the table, which thoroughly muddies the waters. For example, in the last two editions, even thinking about some 'axis' as separate Alignment 'objects' doesn't even make much sense. In 4e it was Law and Chaos. In 5e none of the Alignments have components broken down into explicit axis separation outside of examples of associated Ideals, and any thinking about Alignment in terms of individual actions, especially on a single axis, is complete conjecture and personal assumptions.

Edit: I still like it in 5e anyway, but that's because I find that once it is explained as a component of personality motivations (along with Personality Trait, Ideal, Bond and Flaw), it's useful tool to help players that are willing to get in character (as opposed to playing an avatar of their own personality) do so. Those who don't want to do that don't need to worry too much about personality traits. (They can do the normal thing and write a backstory instead, saying how awesome their surrogate them was before play even began. :smallyuk: )

Also because it gives me an easy way to ban excessive 'Evil' behavior. I can point at the three evil behavior associations, and say "please don't have your PC behave like that on a regular basis, in my personal judgement".

kyoryu
2018-01-12, 11:32 AM
The whole point of Paladins was that they are held to SUCH a high standard of Good (big "G") that even committing one Evil act intentionally makes them fall from grace. In the Trolley Problem Fat Man variant, the paladin's only recourse is to jump in front of the trolley himself, using his armored corpse to slow and stop the trolley.

From a deontological view, not interfering is neutral - the Paladin is not morally culpable for the events up to this point, he's not the idiot that set up the trolley problem. There's no Good answer, but there's an Evil one.

From a utilitarian view, the correct answer is to kill the one person.

The big problem is that it's a thought experiment, not a real situation, and in anything resembling a real situation there's any number of other solutions that can at least be attempted - the thought experiment limits the responses to two to ask a question (or, more likely, try to make a point against deontological viewpoints).

The simplest alternate solution is to ask the one to sacrifice themself - making them the agent, and letting them make the decision about their own life, a decision which should be theirs. Even if you pull the lever at their request, that's a neutral act. Beyond that, in any actual scenario there would certainly be other actions that could be taken to try to save everyone's life. That's the nature of thought experiments.

I kind of prefer one of the original versions of the trolley problem, where a magistrate is faced with the dilemna of framing and executing an innocent person in order to stop mob violence over an unsolved crime. It's the same fundamental question, but I prefer the framing.

The reason I prefer the deontological viewpoint when running D&D is simple - it's easy to adjudicate. In the trolley problem, sure, from a utilitarian point of view, 1 > 5. But what if the one could have saved 100 people with whatever research they were working on? The deontological view avoids this issue entirely, comes up with reasonable answers in the vast, vast majority of instances, and the areas that are a bit questionable would be grey areas under pretty much any moral system.

Bohandas
2018-01-12, 12:21 PM
5e evil humanoid races do NOT have the same level of free will as PC races do, this is explicit in the rules. As I recall, Orcs constantly feel the whisperings of Gruumsh in their minds.

Even if they wear a hat made out of foil?

Aliquid
2018-01-12, 01:05 PM
Even if they wear a hat made out of foil?As a total side-note, there was a study at MIT about the effectiveness of tinfoil hats for stopping aliens (or the government) from reading your mind. End conclusion was that the tinfoil hat actually amplified the signal and made it easier to read your mind.

Cazero
2018-01-12, 01:37 PM
As a total side-note, there was a study at MIT about the effectiveness of tinfoil hats for stopping aliens (or the government) from reading your mind. End conclusion was that the tinfoil hat actually amplified the signal and made it easier to read your mind.
One can argue that the typical tinfoil hat doesn't have the right shape to form a Faraday cage and thus would act as an antenna instead of isolating the head.

Bohandas
2018-01-12, 01:42 PM
True again. But most people have a limit on how far they can stretch that detachment. Some people find those games horrifying as is... others can handle them. But if you change the scenario in the game from "slaughter realistic human-like opponents", to "slaughter realistic frail seniors who beg for mercy and feebly try to escape"... then most of the cheering stops.

I believe that was the premise of Tom Fulp's videogame DisOrderly

RedMage125
2018-01-13, 09:32 AM
I think the changeover from 3.0 to 3.5 also plays a part. The Healer class (required Good alignment), and the Slayer of Domiel PRC (Exalted good) both had Deathwatch on their class list, and both came out very early in 3.5.

In 3.0, Deathwatch did not have the [Evil] tag.

Maybe an alternate "lifewatch" spell, using positive rather than negative energy, could be what these classes/PRCs get, as a fix - so that (in the Slayer's case) they don't Fall for casting a spell that they get automatically?

Status is different enough from Deathwatch that it's difficult to use it exactly the same way - to identify characters at low hit points in need of a heal.
BoED and Miniatures Handbook (home of the Healer) have a publishing date of only 3 months after the first printing of the 3.5e Core Rules. They are both rife with mistakes that fell through the cracks during transition. This is actually one of the more well-known examples.


That's a fair point. I thought I did clarify this, but if I didn't:

1. I intended to emphasize that there were Always Good/Evil acts, not that any single act constituted an automatic and instant change to alignment. My personal position on the matter is that acts, even particularly egregious or heinous ones (i.e. genocide) don't change alignment, but rather reflect an already-changed mindset, but that's beside the point.
And yet, one does not "commit genocide" as a single act. What may have started with a single killing-no matter how justified it may seem-turned into a crusade to kill more of that race/species, until the killing was-itself-the goal. It was during that period of time wherein the genocide was being committed that the mindset (and thus alignment) would have changed. So yes, by the time genocide had fully been committed, the person was already Evil.



2. I agree that no individual only commits a single species of act. I would qualify that, however, that where a being is considered inherently, immutably X, where X is an alignment or alignment component, that creature is most likely, at any given time, performing acts consistent with its alignment.
And yet why is that somehow jarring to you? In Real Life, I am most likely to be found doing things that are well in keeping with my character. of course, by a D&D metric I would absolutely be judged as Lawful Neutral, so maybe that's my discipline, adherence to routine, and overall predictability. Are Chaotic people less likely to be doing chaotic things due to their chaotic nature? Would them doing such things make them less chaotic? This could be a deep rabbit hole, better stop.


And I prefer Grammar Fascist, thank you. :smallwink:
And I prefer Grammar TYRANT! :wink: (I miss the beholder smilies of the wotc forums)



Fair distinction, and actually one I've made in the past, so I concede that. However, calling it a "non-Evil act," where it otherwise would be Evil, still ignores context and justification, which I continue to assert are important.
Context IS important, and you're missing the fact that even that statement has a contextual qualifier. Which is: that this maxim of "killing this creature is always a non-evil act" can ONLY apply to a creature of "consummate, irredeemable evil", such as a chromatic dragon, or a fiend. No humanoid is ever so far gone into depravity and evil to qualify as such. If you conspire to assassinate the Dread Emperor (from BoVD, guy who kept children chained to his armor) for the sole purpose of taking his wealth, it's an Evil act. Because it's murder. By the same token, if you plan to sneak in and take him by surprise and kill him (because he'd otherwise overpower you) because it's the right thing to do, and you want to free his slaves and spare future generations from being preyed on by him, then killing him is either good or neutral. So context IS important.



I won't argue that fictional races are stand-ins for real people. (Even when, as is occasionally the case, they are constructed around stereotypes of real people.) However, my position is that, if a creature is possessed of free will, it has (or should have) the ability to defy its baser instincts. And further, my position is also that the aura a creature radiates, or the circumstances of its birth or creation, are not reflective of its actual self if it is capable of freely choosing to evolve past those factors.
I bolded something here that I believe is the lynchpin of why we are debating (and let me say, it is AMAZINGLY refreshing to have a polite alignment debate for a change).

What I must posit to you is: What if it isn't? What if-and this is relevant in the case of 5e orcs and such-the creature, although it possesses humanlike intelligence, it does NOT have free will? Or at least, Free Will in a manner which we-in real life-would recognized as such? That's a clincher, isn't it? This is a fantasy construct, not the real world. In the real world, something without sentience (like a robot or an animal) cannot have moral agency. And anything WITH sentience (humans, and maybe some more intelligent apes and dolphins), we BELIEVE chooses it's actions by Free Will. But Fantasy need not adhere to that. You can have sentient, thinking beings (orcs, goblinoids, etc) that do not have Free Will. And you can rebut that with "because fiat" all you want, but it's in the RAW. And as a construct of fantasy, that makes it true (since all house rules are impossible to account for, the only valid baseline for discussion on what is true or not is the RAW).

And how do you judge those creatures that are not capable of choosing to evolve past those factors? The <1% of outliers of "Always" alignment are usually not because they somehow "chose to be different/better", but usually reflect those beings that were affected by outside sources (jam a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a Balor, or a Trumpet Archon), or they are simply aberrant, i.e. they were born/formed/created that way (cue the Lady Gaga).



Let us assume, for example, that there is a mortal, mammalian race called Smeerp. As with most mammals, Smeerp babies are almost entirely helpless until they reach maturity and can use tools and language. Smeerps are "Always Evil," not in the "always means, like, 99% of the population" sense, but in the always Evil sense. Adventurers come upon a Baby Smeerp. Is killing a helpless baby, in this context, a non-Evil act?

We can define Evil as a matter of mindset - that is, you are Evil because you intend Evil with your actions. This is a baby, and therefore cannot form intent; that won't fly. We can define Evil as a matter of conduct - if you consistently or readily perform Evil actions, you are Evil. This is a baby, and like a Pokemon, it only knows four moves: Eat, Sleep, Poop, Scream. (Scream is super-effective!) It is incapable of performing an Evil act, unless you count rupturing eardrums. So that's not an argument, either. The only argument is that it is inherently, irredeemably Evil, and therefore killing it is always a Non-Evil act.

That's my point. Even setting aside the fact that infanticide from a real-world perspective is atrocious, there is no context in which this baby is actually Evil except that the writers have decreed it to be so. That is not a position based in reason. Yes, even if we know for a fact that this baby will grow up to become inherently Evil, it is not now Evil. It is, by any and all definitions, an innocent, and under the same RAW that says that killing an inherently Evil being is always Non-Evil, killing a helpless innocent is always Evil. The logic is contradictory.
I need more context to accept this, or, like the sphinx, it is jarring to me. All of the "Always x alignment" from the 3.5e rules that I am familiar with make sense to me (except sphinxes now, curse you). And none that I am aware of are "mortal" humanoid races. your example is indeed monstrous. But even it is jarring with how most actual examples in D&D work. Just because it's POSSIBLE to create-by homebrew-a mortal mammalian race with an "always evil" tag, doesn't reflect a failure in the default rules.




And again, it's a problem that if a creature is capable of free will, by all logic it should have the ability to overcome its alignment impulses. Yes, I suppose that's why "Always X" means "like, 99% of the time," but that makes the statistic frustrating and far less useful than it has any right to be anyway.
Just for emphasis, but that outlier doesn't always reflect that some portion (1% or less) come by that deviation NATURALLY. The very existence of Helms of Opposite Alignment precludes any one creature type EVER being able to be "100%" any one alignment.




But it's still an act of unquestionable Evil, irrespective of context or justification. I keep using that phrase, because I think it matters. If one wishes to argue that D&D's alignment system allows for complexity and nuance, one must allow for situations in which one can do bad things for good reasons, or good things for bad reasons. The triage medic using Deathwatch is an example of the former - doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. In most narratives, this character is, at worst, a conflicted antihero, using unorthodox methods to help people. In D&D, a person who is willing to consistently tap into the "energies of undeath" is strictly Evil, irrespective of why he does it. That doesn't allow for nuance. That's what I mean by arbitrary - by Rule of God, that character is now Evil, full stop.
You're neglecting the rest of the rules regarding alignment shifts, though. Committing an objectively Evil act in order to commit an objectively Good act means you are committing BOTH. You have committed an Evil act AND a Good act. As per 3.5e's rules in the DMG though (page 134) "Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality". Someone willing to use Evil means to accomplish Good ends is usually Neutral, or will become Neutral if their outlook is such that they justify them. Which is totally in keeping with any other examples of that.
If you click on my profile and look for threads that I have started, I made a long and involved character concept based on the idea of a genuinely non-evil necromancer (and I mean a necromancer SOLIDLY within the trope, a guy who is willing to raise the undead to use as his servants and soldiers, but is not Evil). The dude is Lawful Neutral, and in most respects of his personality and outlook, one would think him Lawful Good. Save that he is completely willing to use Evil magicks (that he knows are evil, but finds culturally acceptable...read the link if you're interested) on those that are wicked and deserving of punishment. As an aside though, he would never violate a properly buried corpse, even one buried under a religion other than his, because his ethos dictates that final death is restful, peaceful, and inviolate.

Personally, as a DM, I put use of Deathwatch pretty low on the Evil Acts scale, much like Protection From Good, and saving lives pretty moderate-to-high on the Good scale, so if I was your DM, that triage medic would get a small net positive. But by the RAW, it's a wash. The point being, that your triage medic would NOT be Evil from doing that.



Pretty sure that killing a helpless target also qualifies. Per terminology, a "helpless" character is "otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy." The nature of the trolley problem is such that the lone man on the side track is necessarily at your mercy, so I'm pretty sure he'd count as helpless. Again, I could be misremembering.
Firstly, killing a helpless target is not auto-evil, Hold Person/Animal/Monster renders a target "helpless".

More importantly, if you did not tie ANY of those people to the track to begin with, you are presented with a choice A) do nothing, take no action, and 5 people die, or B) flip a switch, causing one person who was not one of the original 5 to die. Here even failure to choose results in the greater amount of death. But more importantly, you are not being given this choice until the train is almost upon them. There's a distinction between "Kill 5 or kill 1" and "let 5 die, or save them by letting one different one-who is also in mortal danger by the hand of the villain-die". I thought about this some more, and here's where it gets messed up...I realized, that, by a 3.5e Paladin metric (wherein the paladin cannot try and throw himself in front of the trolley, let's say he's inside a Wall of Force), the only thing the paladin can do is NOT pull the lever. Since paladin's only fall for "intentionally committing an Evil act" or for "changing alignment from LG". The paladin may be wracked with guilt for letting those people die, but he didn't kill them, and he couldn't bring himself to intentionally kill the other man by his own hand. And more to the point, his lack of action won't immediately alter his entire outlook on life.




Totally agree on the fat man variant, though. Cold-blooded.
I think that's the only one relevant for D&D morality, though. Because there, you actually have to harm someone who wasn't already inside the villain's deathtrap. An innocent bystander, whose only crime is being fat enough to bring a runaway trolley to a full stop.



Funny story, I had a DM who tried to use that scenario as a test for characters to join the Harpers. (My character took the third option, and jumped onto the track himself. This was before I took philosophy. Go fig.)

And no, my character was not a Paladin. CN PsyWar, if memory serves.
Nice



Oh, sure, throw villains on the tracks. Just all the time. Not like we're people or anything.

Racist.

I thought you were the advocate for Lawful Evil?

Whoever said Lawful Evil = Villain? You assumed that, which says more about your stance on Evil than it does about mine.

Now who's racist? :smallwink:

And on the note of Evil, my mindset this entire time would be that what the Villain doesn't tell the hero in the Trolley dilemma is that the 5 people are actually all unrepentant pederasts and murderers, and the single guy on the other track is a kindly old priest. Don't give up that detail until AFTER they try to save the net of 4 lives. BWAHAHAHAHA! *burp*...excuse me.




Again, fair position. I agree that a jerkbag is a jerkbag is a jerkbag, and will find whatever means are available to be one. I am not faulting the alignment mechanics for the conduct of the jerkbag. But I am saying that alignment mechanics are among the tools of the jerkbag, and taking some of those tools away at least frustrates his aims a little.
Maybe it's because I find more positives in alignment than you do. I don't want to fault a tool that I, personally, find useful in a constructive way. Both as a player and as a DM.



Holy weapons can still function - just deal their damage to Undead or Outsiders or what-have-you. Make them X-Bane weapons, which is honestly closer to many "classic fantasy tropes" than more generically "Holy" weapons. Hodr's twig doesn't kill Baldr because it's a magical godslaying weapon, it kills him because it's the only thing that never swore to not hurt him. The Master Sword, the Sword that Seals Evil, doesn't magically annihilate all Evil beings - it specifically frustrates the designs of Demise and his reincarnation(s), Ganon. Heck, it doesn't even work against Vaati - Link needs the Four Sword for that job. Per the "classic" tropes, the hero's magic weapon is designed for one very special purpose, not a broadly-applicable purpose.
The Master Sword is-in most games-more effective against EVERYTHING. Even your mention of Demise from Skyward Sword is incorrect, the fully formed Master Sword is more effective against regular foes than the Goddess Sword was. In Breath of the Wild, it is extra effective against any creature directly allied with Ganon's power (all tainted Guardians, for example, but not the training guardians inside the shrines). Holy Avengers as widely-effective tools of "Good" in general are a staple of D&D.



Evil as a tangible thing can still function as well - Detect Magic exists. You can easily adjust Detect Evil to become Detect X, where X could be anything from Fey, to Undead, to Dragons, to Aberrations. Likewise, the "oppressive effects" you describe can be a magical aura or localized curse. Again, it makes more sense from a classical perspective - the character is reacting to that thing which is his narrative antagonist. The hero sworn to slay Dragons recognizes their smell; the exorcist senses the intrusion of the Lower Planes into our world; the Dhampyr recognizes the taint of his father's ilk. There are ways to express this that have nothing to do with alignment.


Just as one could argue that Status is a non-Evil version of Deathwatch, I can argue that you can accomplish a lot of these things without alignment mechanics, and do so in a way that is often more authentic to "classic fantasy tropes." Instead of, "I sense a strong aura of Evil here," you could have, "This room is colder than it should be," or "I have a sudden feeling of foreboding," or "Uncle has... the willies." You can do it in other ways.
I mean the players enter the area and the place "stinks of Evil". Where "Evil" is a tangible force. One that a champion of good need not be specifically a dragon slayer, knight of the chalice, or exorcist to detect. Heroes should be able to broad in range. I like "Evil" being tangible in and of itself. I feel that alignment mechanics allow that concept to have mechanical voice in a manner which is not dependent of DM fiat.




To be fair, I was the one suggesting sparing the baby, if you'll recall. You were on the other side of that argument. :smallwink:
ROFL



But Half-Orcs can resist it, because fiat. Because the writers said so. (And because 5e wanted to avoid the moral dilemmas of non-Evil monstrous races.) My point is that Orcs are a mortal race that is inherently Evil, which we explain away by saying that they're robots.

Problem: Robots aren't Evil, they're robots. They're incapable of forming intent, instead following programming. It's also why animals are generally Neutral. Either Orcs have enough free will to choose Evil, in which case they can also choose Not Evil, or they don't, in which case they are robots and therefore Not Evil. It's a self-defeating argument.

I agree that a modern metric based on real world mores may not be applicable. My issue, aside from what I described above, is with the creation of a universe in which this concept even exists; it is logically inconsistent.

Again, I have issue with this. Are they intelligent creatures that can change their minds, or are they robots?
Okay, I put all this together because you ARE using a modern metric based on real world mores.

You are equating any humanoid that "isn't an automaton" with "has free will". And what I am trying to tell you that is difficult is that since this is fantasy, there exists a possibility of something that is neither. A thinking, sentient, speech-capable humanoid with society and culture...that does not have Free Will as we understand it by Real World standards (that is, the ability to decide for itself whether or not to behave a certain way). We are also mortal, and cannot comprehend the span of a deity's mind. Gruumsh clearly allows orcs to fight and kill each other, so he's not monolithic, and they clearly exercise individuality, if not a small measure of free will (no caps). But they are powerless to resist the call of Gruumsh. Maybe it's only when violence erupts around them, who knows? But for whatever reason, in whatever manner, they don't get the same choice we as humans do.


In Dragonlance, the Noble Draconians were created from a Chromatic Dragon base. Magic was used on Chromatic Dragon eggs that allowed them to (1) hatch as dragon-people, and (2) not be inherently Evil. So clearly, it's not genetic, or at least not so much that a little magical tampering can't bypass it.
Isn't it disingenuous to use that example, when REGULAR draconians-who ARE all evil- are made the same way from corrupted metallic dragon eggs?


Dragons aren't Undead, created by inherently Evil means. They're not Evil Outsiders, formed of the inherent Evilness of the cosmos. They're physical creatures, if ageless and ineffable. There shouldn't be anything inherently Good or Evil about them, aside from this racial tendency. We can't even say it's a result of Tiamat's influence, because other races in 3.5 have their own deities, and are able to ignore that influence (see e.g. Orcs and Gruumsh, Elves and Corellon, Humans and Zarus).
Depending on how deep into dragon lore from which edition you go into. In 4e lore, yes Chromatics (and even Metallics who allow too much greed or Envy into their hearts) DO fall under the sway of Tiamat. In 2e (Council of Wyrms), the behaviors ARE learned, but the education starts in the egg. So by the time you SEE a hatchling-even right as it comes out the egg, it's already quite indoctrinated into the means and methods of its subtype. I believe 3.5e went down a similar route, but it's been a long time since I read the Draconomicon.


1. What aura they radiate is (or should be) irrelevant. You can put a spell on an item or person to make it radiate with an aura completely inconsistent with the item or person itself. Yes, I'll concede that Undead are formed from Negative Energy, which (by author fiat) is inherently Evil, and therefore they radiate that same Evil. That should not, however, automatically mean that the subject is in fact Evil.
Detect Evil detects the presence of evil magick in them, yes? A CG vampire would still also radiate Good as well as Evil. Destroying them would STILL eliminate the presence of Evil in the world, would it not?


2. This is, again, a problem. If "Always" means "except, you know, for Drizz't," then it becomes increasingly meaningless. In that case, why even have an "always" metric - isn't "often" or "usually" enough? If you want to say that the race has a strong disposition towards an alignment or alignment component, fine, but saying "Always" and then qualifying, "But not always always," is a cop-out and renders the term meaningless.
Alternately, "Always, but not always" creates a general maxim, but leaves room for specific hedge-cases that can be exceptional standouts. A Lich cleric of a Neutral Good deity, or an Evil Gold Dragon-by virtue of their exception to the norm-stand out and are memorable. I will remind you, that when Driz'zt first appeared, he was COOL.



And yes, I will admit to using a very narrow example. If the goal is to challenge a rule which should apply universally, showing an exception, no matter how narrow, demonstrates that it cannot.
But I showed that even your narrow example still works in the framework of the ruleset in question (3.5e). Because your case could BE that <1% exception. BOOM. Done.



Sure, I'll give you that. But "callous indifference" and "active Evil" are two points on a spectrum, and they're not equivalent. For example, the deathstyle of a Lich, aside from the "unspeakably Evil" action(s) necessary to become one, seems to be more Neutral than Evil - focused on research to the exclusion of all else.
And one of my favorite NPCs I've ever made is just that. A lich who was a human diviner and historian, wanted more time, became a lich, and now sits in seclusion in an undead-infested ruin (it keeps nosy neighbors at bay), while he scries on the world and records new History books, which he magically makes copies of and donates to libraries around the world. He's true neutral, and he only kills in self-defense (he's had to kill a few thick-witted paladins in self-defense). The evil act to become a lich was "a necessary evil" by his standards.
The fact that he's so unusual MAKES him neat.

5e liches made them so that they must constantly feed on souls. Bernard the lich would sadly never do that. :smallfrown:


I know, right? I admit, I was just sort of digging around for examples when I found that one, and it just struck me as weird. Go figure.
Nice catch, though.

I'm all for defending alignment at NEARLY every turn, but there were a few mistakes and some inconsistencies here and there. I enjoy when a genuine inconsistency like this is found, because the ones that the more rabid anti-alignment people bring up aren't actually inconsistent at all (I particularly like shutting down the claim that undead creation being evil is "circular").

Even if they wear a hat made out of foil?

That may indeed...FOIL...Gruumsh's plans *raises pinky finger to lips*

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-13, 09:45 AM
In a way, this thread (and every thread just like it on any forum anywhere) is kinda evidence of why and how alignment is bad.

King of Nowhere
2018-01-13, 09:56 AM
In a way, this thread (and every thread just like it on any forum anywhere) is kinda evidence of why and how alignment is bad.

Because people can't stop arguing about it? Seems more like a problem of people to me. Heck, peoople keep arguing about religion, about culture, and about morality, so maybe we should remove THOSE things too? In fact, I could equally say that something so prone to arguments is a good thing, because
1) it makes people feel strongly, and 2) it makes them think.

But, I think the purpose of alignment is for those people who want to play without much involvment. Some of us like to face a campaign with serious moral questions and quandaries. Others are just in there to bash stuff, and having a spell that tells you which targets are acceptable saves a lot of hassle. In fact, reading the monster manual, I figure that's the main focus of the rules. And so many spells and mechanics are designed to flat-out remove all other "distractions" so that one can focus more on bashing monsters (read: creatures that a spell say it's ok to kill).
We who love more complex stuff are actually a minority. We are more represented on the internet because we are the ones who care enough about this stuff to go write about it in the internet. We are also knowledgeable enough that we can alter the system to suit our needs. Most people hhave more basic needs and they don't care enough to change the system, so they made the system to cater to them. Also consider that those people are the most likely to buy manuals; we can ask and look on internet, and we can homebrew anything we want anyway.

D+1
2018-01-13, 05:37 PM
In a way, this thread (and every thread just like it on any forum anywhere) is kinda evidence of why and how alignment is bad.
Anecdotal evidence, but I never have alignment issues in my games. I can cut off a thumb and still count up on one hand the number of times alignment has been a genuine problem in a game I've been in as a player or run over the past 40 years. And half of those were simply poorly considered instances of DM's allowing assassins in the same party with paladins. The only place I EVER see it being a real problem is on web forums. And then much of it is the fact that the players simply DON'T COMMUNICATE why a character is doing what they're doing, or the DM has everyone on double-secret alignment probation so he can whack them with punishments for random transgressions out of the blue, and the rest is caused by DM's who are stupidly convinced that it is their mission in life to simply make a paladin PC impossible to play.

Granted, the older editions do nobody any favors in presenting alignment, but mostly I only see alignment being a problem because people go out of their way to make it one.

Tanarii
2018-01-13, 05:47 PM
But, I think the purpose of alignment is for those people who want to play without much involvment. Some of us like to face a campaign with serious moral questions and quandaries. Others are just in there to bash stuff, and having a spell that tells you which targets are acceptable saves a lot of hassle.
Yeah, where alignment shines, and the entire reason it's called Alignment, is when it's a designator of sides. Good guys vs bad guys. PCs vs Monster. Us vs Them.

Not a garuntee, just as a easy line for people that don't really care about moral qualms, but want clearly identified enemies as a general rule. Exceptions can occur, and they often mean something interesting going on with the campaign.

Where the line is for those kinds of games will be drawn in different places. The most common ones I see or run for PCs vs non-PCs are either not-evil vs any-evil, or not-NE/CE vs Villains (super extra any-evil). Again, as a general rule.

Edit: that's why a common replacement for Alignment is something not to do with morality at all. Factions for example.

RedMage125
2018-01-14, 03:18 AM
Yeah, where alignment shines, and the entire reason it's called Alignment, is when it's a designator of sides. Good guys vs bad guys. PCs vs Monster. Us vs Them.

Not a garuntee, just as a easy line for people that don't really care about moral qualms, but want clearly identified enemies as a general rule. Exceptions can occur, and they often mean something interesting going on with the campaign.

Where the line is for those kinds of games will be drawn in different places. The most common ones I see or run for PCs vs non-PCs are either not-evil vs any-evil, or not-NE/CE vs Villains (super extra any-evil). Again, as a general rule.

Edit: that's why a common replacement for Alignment is something not to do with morality at all. Factions for example.

One of my favorite lines from the Belgariad by David Eddings is when the ancient sorcerer Belgarath is talking about having simple lines of demarcation drawn. Another character asks him "Like Good and Evil?". Belgarath winces and says "I prefer 'Us and Them', it cuts through a lot of unnecessary baggage".

I'm a fan because-even though I am a proponent of alignment-I like occasionally seeing common tropes turned on their ear. I developed a story with a legitimate Lawful Good antagonist. I like how Eberron frequently has situations where Evil-aligned NPCs are better allies to heroic PCs than some of the Good-aligned NPCs (the rulers of Karrnath and Aundair, respectively, come to mind, or even that LE Cardinal of the Silver Flame).

This namely, because my attitude towards alignment is that it is, above all NOT an absolute barometer of action or affiliation.

Tanarii
2018-01-14, 04:03 AM
One of my favorite lines from the Belgariad by David Eddings is when the ancient sorcerer Belgarath is talking about having simple lines of demarcation drawn. Another character asks him "Like Good and Evil?". Belgarath winces and says "I prefer 'Us and Them', it cuts through a lot of unnecessary baggage".Whenever you see me posting about Alignment Teams, I always include Us vs Them, and it's from that specific quote.

RedMage125
2018-01-14, 04:24 AM
Whenever you see me posting about Alignment Teams, I always include Us vs Them, and it's from that specific quote.

NICE!

I love that series, and have probably read it 13 or more times in my lifetime. Also Elenium/Tamuli.

Florian
2018-01-14, 07:08 AM
Yeah, where alignment shines, and the entire reason it's called Alignment, is when it's a designator of sides. Good guys vs bad guys. PCs vs Monster. Us vs Them.

What it means is that all moral an philosophical questions have been asked and answered. Hegel, Fukuyama and others coined the term of "end of history", meaning debate is over and the results stand.

King of Nowhere
2018-01-14, 08:13 AM
What it means is that all moral an philosophical questions have been asked and answered. Hegel, Fukuyama and others coined the term of "end of history", meaning debate is over and the results stand.

What it means is what YOU want it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less. This is, after all, a big sandbox open world.

Florian
2018-01-14, 08:35 AM
What it means is what YOU want it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less. This is, after all, a big sandbox open world.

No, it i not. It´s a game and one that you can play as an "sandbox" if you want to, but that's not a given.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-14, 10:09 AM
If ones does not care about moral qualms or quandaries, and is just worried about sides, about Us vs Them, then using moral terms for the sides is needlessly obfuscating and confusing. Alignment, specifically the Good vs Evil sort under discussion, is in that case both unneeded and potentially counterproductive.

If one DOES care about moral qualms and quandaries, then a grossly oversimplified "moral" system that gives platitudes in response to easy questions and nonsense answers to the hard questions, and that also has no connection to anything outside that one game system, is going to serve very poorly. Alignment, specifically the Good vs Evil sort under discussions, is in that case going to be useless.

jk7275
2018-01-14, 11:04 AM
Not how free will actually works.

If a species has free will, then it has the ability to go against its nature. Like, every day I go out and don't straight-up headbutt every idiot I see, I'm exercising my free will and rebelling against every instinct in my body demanding that the weak, foolish masses be taught their rightful place in the world, namely at my heel. That's what free will looks like.

If a species is "always Evil," and not in the "always means, like, 90%" sense, but properly always and universally Evil, then it cannot go against that nature. Its instincts are to engage in acts of Evil, whatever they may be, and it will not go against those instincts. That isn't free will.

In aligned Outsiders or similar embodiments of alignment, that's understandable. A Slaad, or Archon, or Devil, is made up of cosmic alignment-stuff, so of course it will never rebel against those instincts. But what about mortal races? If a mortal race is described as "always Evil," that means that babies, when they are born and before they are capable of causing any harm other than stains, are Evil. This is an absurd result.

If a creature has free will, it can choose its actions, its mindset, and its ultimate resultant alignment. To arbitrarily assign alignment based upon circumstances of birth is, at best, completely irrational. (Again, setting aside Outsiders.)

Neuroscience has done research on free will which can be used to argue that free will is just an illusion

It was pointed out that free will doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and how some study defines free will may be different then how how you define it

Given how little we know about how the mind works how can anyone say if free will really exists or how it works

Tanarii
2018-01-14, 11:14 AM
If ones does not care about moral qualms or quandaries, and is just worried about sides, about Us vs Them, then using moral terms for the sides is needlessly obfuscating and confusing. Alignment, specifically the Good vs Evil sort under discussion, is in that case both unneeded and potentially counterproductive.

If one DOES care about moral qualms and quandaries, then a grossly oversimplified "moral" system that gives platitudes in response to easy questions and nonsense answers to the hard questions, and that also has no connection to anything outside that one game system, is going to serve very poorly. Alignment, specifically the Good vs Evil sort under discussions, is in that case going to be useless.You'd think so, right? But in this, it's just matching real life.
We must be the Good guys, supporting civilization, order, and all that is right.
They must be the bad guys, sowing chaos, destruction, and all that is wrong.

You may look down on this, but plenty of players want exactly that. They want to know they're killing the Bad guys, be they swindling devious Devils (or lawyers), highly organized tyrants with regimented warriors (or Hobgoblins), or rampaging destructive Hordes of berserk barbarians (or Orcs). They want clean, obvious moral lines to their "Us vs Them".

Morty
2018-01-14, 12:31 PM
If your story involves clear-cut moral lines in which the good and bad side is obvious, then the alignment system is entirely redundant. We don't need a big, red "EVIL" label to know Voldemort and his pals are the worst in Harry Potter, do we? Of course... people who oppose him aren't exactly squeaky clean, either. But they're still fundamentally good.

Therefore, if you use alignment to tell the stories it's supposedly made to tell, you don't actually need it. People have told stories with clear, simple morality for as long as they've told stories at all, without it. But as soon as you introduce any serious moral ambiguity, alignment does nothing but get in the way.

Tanarii
2018-01-14, 12:57 PM
You don't need Alignment to tell stories, if it's about sides.

You use it to glance at a monster stat block, and know which side it's usually on.

If you're using it for very broad typical behaviors (5e), you use it to glance at a monster stat block, and know something about how it typically behaves.

Edit: "you" in this case means "the DM". Since you were talking about telling stories.

Bohandas
2018-01-14, 01:18 PM
I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic for an inyelligent species to be predisposed to evil, but there are factors that place limits on how strong that predisposition can plausibly be before the species wipes itself out. In particular mortality, chaotic alignment, civilization, and intraspecific fighting place limits on how much evil is plausible. A species that spends most of it's time killing each other isn't going to be able to develop much of a civilization unless they're lawful enough that that killing takes the form of relatively organized warfare rather than random murders. And mortal beings like humanoids and monstrous humanoids more or less necessarily need some of the population to be focused on providing food, shelter, etc rather than warfare

Bohandas
2018-01-14, 01:21 PM
Neuroscience has done research on free will which can be used to argue that free will is just an illusion

It was pointed out that free will doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and how some study defines free will may be different then how how you define it.

Precisely. That study is bunk because the concept of "free will" is too vague and nebulous to ever be seriously studied. You can't prove or disprove weasel words (and especially not philosophical/religious weasel words) because that would require them to have a defined and coherent meaning.

2D8HP
2018-01-14, 02:38 PM
If ones does not care about moral qualms or quandaries, and is just worried about sides, about Us vs Them, then using moral terms for the sides is needlessly obfuscating and confusing. Alignment, specifically the Good vs Evil sort under discussion, is in that case both unneeded and potentially counterproductive...


While I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

Clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

RazorChain
2018-01-14, 05:01 PM
It does have a very useful purpose. Not everybody needs it for that purpose, but in my personal experience it's the players who want to completely eliminate it who are most likely to have their PC's act like complete random, disruptive-to-the-game, nutburgers. More than anything else, that is what alignment is intended to keep under control.


Oh thank god I'm not the only one

I swear, in my experience, every time someone says we should get rid of alignment it's something along the lines of "What do you MEAN my Lawful Good fighter is now Evil?! Just because I burnt down the orphanage, sold half the kids into slavery and slowly tortured to death the other?! Alignment is STUPID!"

I know it's an unfair bias but after all this I just can not take alignment complaints seriously, it always seems to be people wanting their characters to be horrible people who do horrible things for horrible reasons, but balk at the idea that they aren't a shining paragon of virtue as they dump enough Black Lotus Extract to put the Tarrasque into a coma into the villiage well because a crotchety farmer was rude to them. :confused:


You do realize that there is only one game system that uses alignment? Most other games do not track player character morality in any way or shape. But of course other games are just bloodbaths where player characters behave like maniacs on a murderrampage because there is no alignment to keep them in check. It's like when I removed the Elements of Harmony from the My little ponny: Tails of Equestria game I was running for my kids. My adorable, well behaved children turned into bloody savages that destroyed all cute and furry little animals in their path. The shock and horror on my face when my 7 year old daughter was like "Hey, let's kill the **** out of Thumper and skin him...or better yet let's skin him first and kill him after" when they had an encounter with a little rabbit.

If I play a game of D&D and decide to do something evil when playing a Good character then that is not going to stop me if I'm making a decicion based on the character I'm playing. If the DM would try to enforce my alignment then I'd leave the game. Simply because the DM control's everything but my character and if he wants to control my character as well then there is little or no reason for me to play.

Tanarii
2018-01-14, 06:04 PM
You do realize that there is only one game system that uses alignment?
Palladium also has Alignments. Each one also comes with a bullet point list of things a character of that alignment probably would or wouldn't do. For that system, it falls into one of the more well done parts of the rules system.

RazorChain
2018-01-14, 09:55 PM
Palladium also has Alignments. Each one also comes with a bullet point list of things a character of that alignment probably would or wouldn't do. For that system, it falls into one of the more well done parts of the rules system.

I stand corrected, the only Palladium book I had was on Arms & Armor. This was pre internet and it had lots of pictures of different weapons and armor which was the reason I bought it

RedMage125
2018-01-14, 11:36 PM
If ones does not care about moral qualms or quandaries, and is just worried about sides, about Us vs Them, then using moral terms for the sides is needlessly obfuscating and confusing. Alignment, specifically the Good vs Evil sort under discussion, is in that case both unneeded and potentially counterproductive.
Agreed.


If one DOES care about moral qualms and quandaries, then a grossly oversimplified "moral" system that gives platitudes in response to easy questions and nonsense answers to the hard questions, and that also has no connection to anything outside that one game system, is going to serve very poorly. Alignment, specifically the Good vs Evil sort under discussions, is in that case going to be useless.
That's a ridiculous claim. You're inputting your own bias here with language like "platitudes" and "nonsense answers", dismissing the basics of the system without serious examination, and then your conclusion, "alignment will still be useless", is thus entirely tautological, because the "uselessness" of alignment is predicated only on your hand-waived dismissal of the merit of the system.

The only "oversimplification" in the alignment system is as it applies to a given alignment of a specific creature. And even that doesn't preclude more nuanced personality or moral/ethical mores or quandaries. it means only that each individual is ultimately judged by an ENTIRELY objective and dispassionate judge that does not waiver (the cosmic forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos). In the default D&D world, even the gods are beholden to these forces, and since the forces are completely objective and dispassionate, they are not swayed by any kind of excuses or moral vacillating. A given character may have justification for the horrible things he does. He may, in fact, be doing it for the greater good of a community or a population. His people may love him and think him a hero. But his actions will always be judged by an objective measure.

It is important to understand this: Alignment is [u]not[/I] an absolute barometer of action or affiliation.

Just because someone's alignment is "evil" doesn't mean that he's "Them", and just because someone's alignment is "neutral" or "good" doesn't mean he's "Us". And despite all your snide dismissal of alignment as only serving to be exactly that, the RAW disagree with you, and you are wrong.

I'm not trying to say "you have to like alignment" or "you have to use alignment". I don't care about changing people's opinions. But when you make fallacious claims about what is and is not fact, I must object.


If your story involves clear-cut moral lines in which the good and bad side is obvious, then the alignment system is entirely redundant. We don't need a big, red "EVIL" label to know Voldemort and his pals are the worst in Harry Potter, do we? Of course... people who oppose him aren't exactly squeaky clean, either. But they're still fundamentally good.

Therefore, if you use alignment to tell the stories it's supposedly made to tell, you don't actually need it. People have told stories with clear, simple morality for as long as they've told stories at all, without it. But as soon as you introduce any serious moral ambiguity, alignment does nothing but get in the way.
See what I said to Max_Killjoy, above. Moral ambiguity can absolutely exist in a game that uses alignment. Just because an absolute moral standard exists on a cosmic/universal level, doesn't mean that all living creatures in that reality are aware of said absolute lines, or that they only adhere rigidly to the textbook examples of the alignment that they are judged to be. Nothing about alignment precludes serious moral ambiguity in a game.


I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic for an inyelligent species to be predisposed to evil, but there are factors that place limits on how strong that predisposition can plausibly be before the species wipes itself out. In particular mortality, chaotic alignment, civilization, and intraspecific fighting place limits on how much evil is plausible. A species that spends most of it's time killing each other isn't going to be able to develop much of a civilization unless they're lawful enough that that killing takes the form of relatively organized warfare rather than random murders. And mortal beings like humanoids and monstrous humanoids more or less necessarily need some of the population to be focused on providing food, shelter, etc rather than warfare
That kind of view only stands up if you believe Evil beings are incapable of cooperation, connection to others, and so on. "Evil" in alignment does not mean "textbook sociopath", neither does "chaotic". Orcs, for example, don't "spends most of their time killing each other". Fights for leadership may get lethal, but orcs also fall in line behind a chieftain who leads them into glorious battle.

Even evil characters have families, or loved ones, and can care about them. Even "inherently evil" races need food. Of course, an orc whose been relegated to farming duty might do so while grumbling "I'd rather be pillaging", but they can still do it.

I recommend the 5e Volo's Guide, if you haven't read it yet. Great examination of some evil humanoids' cultures.

Bohandas
2018-01-15, 02:23 AM
That kind of view only stands up if you believe Evil beings are incapable of cooperation, connection to others, and so on. "Evil" in alignment does not mean "textbook sociopath", neither does "chaotic". Orcs, for example, don't "spends most of their time killing each other". Fights for leadership may get lethal, but orcs also fall in line behind a chieftain who leads them into glorious battle.

Even evil characters have families, or loved ones, and can care about them. Even "inherently evil" races need food. Of course, an orc whose been relegated to farming duty might do so while grumbling "I'd rather be pillaging", but they can still do it.

I'm saying the same thing you are. Orcs and Goblins and stuff can't realistically be more evil on average than street gangs or mobsters or pirates

Only the fiends - who have no need to eat or drink and who come into being already knowing at least the basics of what they need to know - can afford to be all evil all the time. And even then it's questionable whether this can be achieved on a longterm basis (in the words of GWAR "They say that war is all we know; if only that were true. No matter how I work my schedule there are always other things that I do")

RedMage125
2018-01-15, 04:36 AM
I'm saying the same thing you are. Orcs and Goblins and stuff can't realistically be more evil on average than street gangs or mobsters or pirates

Only the fiends - who have no need to eat or drink and who come into being already knowing at least the basics of what they need to know - can afford to be all evil all the time. And even then it's questionable whether this can be achieved on a longterm basis (in the words of GWAR "They say that war is all we know; if only that were true. No matter how I work my schedule there are always other things that I do")

I'm not saying that, though. I'm saying the truth is between those examples you were setting. Orcs and Goblins ARE more evil on average than street gangs, mobsters, or pirates. BUt just because they are that evil does not mean that they're "chaotic stupid" and killing each other all the time. Even beings that are inherently that evil can still cooperate, and perform basic sustenance tasks like growing food, building homes, and so on,

Satinavian
2018-01-15, 04:37 AM
That kind of view only stands up if you believe Evil beings are incapable of cooperation, connection to others, and so on. "Evil" in alignment does not mean "textbook sociopath", neither does "chaotic". Orcs, for example, don't "spends most of their time killing each other". Fights for leadership may get lethal, but orcs also fall in line behind a chieftain who leads them into glorious battle.

Even evil characters have families, or loved ones, and can care about them. Even "inherently evil" races need food. Of course, an orc whose been relegated to farming duty might do so while grumbling "I'd rather be pillaging", but they can still do it.

I recommend the 5e Volo's Guide, if you haven't read it yet. Great examination of some evil humanoids' cultures.


Whenever you see me posting about Alignment Teams, I always include Us vs Them, and it's from that specific quote.

Using morality as team designation was an utterly stupid move.

It might make some sense for the good guys to band together to make the world a better place. It really doesn't make any sense for the evil guys to make the world a worse place. Sure, evil people can work together/have friends and so on. But would some evil guy choose some sociopath over someone helpfull as friend ? Do any evil guys want to be on the receiving end of the evil other people might inflict ? No.
If evil people could choose a team, they would nearly always choose the team of the good guys which would be the team that protects their interest and freedom.

Florian
2018-01-15, 05:04 AM
Using morality as team designation was an utterly stupid move.

It might make some sense for the good guys to band together to make the world a better place. It really doesn't make any sense for the evil guys to make the world a worse place. Sure, evil people can work together/have friends and so on. But would some evil guy choose some sociopath over someone helpfull as friend ? Do any evil guys want to be on the receiving end of the evil other people might inflict ? No.
If evil people could choose a team, they would nearly always choose the team of the good guys which would be the team that protects their interest and freedom.

Nah, that's the kind of strange thought construct that always seems to be based on simulation (and also leads to the annoying discussions the like of "is doing x or y evil?).

I brought up "end of history" a bit upthread to try to explain that the alignment system is a meta game construct that tries to help inform how to play D&D the game. Saying something like "only Good characters" or "No Chaotic characters" is a concrete information about style, content and expected roles to be played. In a sense it also includes avoiding morality-based discussions by declaring them unwanted, which is part of the "team designation", ie declaring "reality has spoken, slaughtering orcs for loot is kosher".

So, basically, it´s what we know would term "social contract" with a direct mechanical side attached.

Contrast it with more concrete morality system, like Pendragon or L5R.

RedMage125
2018-01-15, 06:19 AM
Using morality as team designation was an utterly stupid move.

It might make some sense for the good guys to band together to make the world a better place. It really doesn't make any sense for the evil guys to make the world a worse place. Sure, evil people can work together/have friends and so on. But would some evil guy choose some sociopath over someone helpfull as friend ? Do any evil guys want to be on the receiving end of the evil other people might inflict ? No.
If evil people could choose a team, they would nearly always choose the team of the good guys which would be the team that protects their interest and freedom.

You seem a bit confused. The quote of mine that you posted was directly pointed at the guy who seemed to imply that "inherently evil" races are going to be predisposed towards eventual self-destruction, and my post was pointing out that such is not the case.

Tanarii's point was not that "morality is used as a team designation", but rather that he prefers "team designation" instead of any kind of moral postulating. He's advocating in favor of something I posit a lot, but goes about it in a different way that I do. I always emphasize that alignment is NOT an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. Tanarii is saying that SINCE it isn't useful as such a barometer, that it's better to do away with it, and only deal with "us vs them", which gets you down to brass tacks faster. I like the nuances of Good and Evil and such, ESPECIALLY when the normal tropes of "Good=Us and Evil=Them" are subverted.

Black Jester
2018-01-15, 07:08 AM
From a gamemastering perspective, I think that Alignment is actually not that helpful, because it is too much of a shorthand. For an RPG, as in any other medium, the concept of "show, don't tell" is quite important. So, if you want to present someone or something as a worthy opponent - or at least least as someone your players can love to hate - it is usually not sufficient to declare that he is evil because he is evil or something similarly tautological. You need to present your players with something more graspable than that something concrete - and if you include something like that the description of the alignment becomes so overshadowed that it is bascially superfluous.

From a player's perspective, I think that the assumption that your character might be a hero of sorts is usually the best one to take. After all, the concept of an RPG already implies that the PCs are the protagonists of their own and somewhat significant story and those stories usually become more enthralling if the protagonists are at least somewhat sympathetic. So, there is nothing wrong with a reluctant, ill-favoured or foul-mouthed hero, but outward cowards or villains are no fun to play. It is also, and that is even more important, it is not much fun to play with such a character. That is important for a social activity like an RPG you never play alone and you are at least partially responsible for the enjoyment of your fellow players, as they are for yours. And, generally speaking, nobody likes to play with an ********.
So, from the perspective of a player character design, I also see not much reason for the inclusion of alignment.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 07:51 AM
That's a ridiculous claim. You're inputting your own bias here with language like "platitudes" and "nonsense answers", dismissing the basics of the system without serious examination, and then your conclusion, "alignment will still be useless", is thus entirely tautological, because the "uselessness" of alignment is predicated only on your hand-waived dismissal of the merit of the system.

The only "oversimplification" in the alignment system is as it applies to a given alignment of a specific creature. And even that doesn't preclude more nuanced personality or moral/ethical mores or quandaries. it means only that each individual is ultimately judged by an ENTIRELY objective and dispassionate judge that does not waiver (the cosmic forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos). In the default D&D world, even the gods are beholden to these forces, and since the forces are completely objective and dispassionate, they are not swayed by any kind of excuses or moral vacillating. A given character may have justification for the horrible things he does. He may, in fact, be doing it for the greater good of a community or a population. His people may love him and think him a hero. But his actions will always be judged by an objective measure.

It is important to understand this: Alignment is [u]not[/I] an absolute barometer of action or affiliation.

Just because someone's alignment is "evil" doesn't mean that he's "Them", and just because someone's alignment is "neutral" or "good" doesn't mean he's "Us". And despite all your snide dismissal of alignment as only serving to be exactly that, the RAW disagree with you, and you are wrong.

I'm not trying to say "you have to like alignment" or "you have to use alignment". I don't care about changing people's opinions. But when you make fallacious claims about what is and is not fact, I must object.


Reread some of those posts. It's not both "us vs them" and "useless moral system" at the same time -- it's that it's a terrible Us vs Them OR a terrible Moral System. That there is also a conflation of the two that reflects a rather toxic real-world "us good vs them evil" mentality that's all too common is just icing on the cake.

"Us vs Them" is exactly how many players treat Alignment -- as permission to freely kill and steal from anything in the wrong / enemy jersey.

On the other hand...

The "objective morality" that both the detractors and defenders of Alignment alike describe... is sick, an absurdist horror show where supposed morality is defined simplistically by the actions one takes; where standing by and doing nothing is often more "morally safe" than taking action; where someone can be forced into "doing evil" in taking the least-bad option, when contrivance or circumstance arrange for nothing but bad choices. And it does in fact preclude any sort of moral quandaries or nuance, by establishing a checklist of "evil actions" and setting in stone that committing any of those actions is "evil", no matter what the circumstances are, no matter what the intent or motivation was, no matter what.

Unless of course you're killing anything wearing the Team Evil jersey, evidently? What does the Alignment system say about raiding a village of orcs and killing all the adults, or all of them to the last? After all, it's an objective system with ultimate unquestionable answers, it should have an answer for this one, right?

hamishspence
2018-01-15, 07:56 AM
What does the Alignment system say about raiding a village of orcs and killing all the adults, or all of them to the last? After all, it's an objective system with ultimate unquestionable answers, it should have an answer for this one, right?



BoED stresses that just because a village of orcs is evil, does not mean it's "OK" to attack it - not if the orcs have been "doing no harm" - and that doing so may be Evil.

Using the "to be evil you have to be harming others in some way" interpretation, it may be more "doing no external harm" - an introverted evil culture rather than an aggressive expanding one.

It also stresses that killing noncombatants in battle - like children and, in patriarchal cultures like orcs, women, is also evil.

So - you've got a couple of answers from one alignment splatbook, that emphasise the need for justification beyond "these people have, on average, an Evil alignment" - and the concept of "evil but noncombatant".



That's one of the reasons I'm fairly forgiving of the flaws in the book- because it doesn't take a "If your target is evil, almost anything you do to them is OK" attitude.

Tanarii
2018-01-15, 10:38 AM
Using morality as team designation was an utterly stupid move.Well, there goes half of fantasy or sci-if writing, dismissed for using a trope that "utterly stupid".

Seriously, this was, and still is, a major trope. Team Evil vs Team Good. And in some of the books the designers of the game were heavily into, plus many others, the alternative take of Team Law vs Team Chaos.

It's neither something new nor utterly stupid that they'd use it for the brand new chain mail Wargame, in which knowing which side you're going to play makes building armies have some 'sense' to them. Just as in the Star Wars Armada war game you're going to make an army out Rebels or Empire. So .. Law vs Chaos.

This carried over to single character control, and good vs evil needed to be introduced because of course it did. Many, many, MANY stories are always about Team Good vs Team Evil, heroes vs villains. Unless they subvert that trope. So it's hardly surprising that they'd suck that into the game along with all the other stuff the DMs and Players who were inventing the game pulled in from stories.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 10:51 AM
Well, there goes half of fantasy or sci-if writing, dismissed for using a trope that "utterly stupid".

Seriously, this was, and still is, a major trope. Team Evil vs Team Good. And in some of the books the designers of the game were heavily into, plus many others, the alternative take of Team Law vs Team Chaos.

It's neither something new nor utterly stupid that they'd use it for the brand new chain mail Wargame, in which knowing which side you're going to play makes building armies have some 'sense' to them. Just as in the Star Wars Armada war game you're going to make an army out Rebels or Empire. So .. Law vs Chaos.

This carried over to single character control, and good vs evil needed to be introduced because of course it did. Many, many, MANY stories are always about Team Good vs Team Evil, heroes vs villains. Unless they subvert that trope. So it's hardly surprising that they'd suck that into the game along with all the other stuff the DMs and Players who were inventing the game pulled in from stories.


You say it sarcastically, I say it seriously.

"Team Good" vs "Team Evil" is the worst sort of cartoonish simplification... a manifestation of base tribalism, leading to cul-de-sacs such as "well we're the good guys so anything we do is good, they're the bad guys so anything they do is bad". Or the "light side vs dark side" crap, where evidently there's a physical manifestation of "going evil" and a person flips from good-but-conflicted to outright child-slaughtering caricature because their eyes changed color.

Tanarii
2018-01-15, 10:56 AM
If your argument is Star Wars is a bad because Light Side vs Dark Side, it automatically fails. :smalltongue:

This is one element that works well both in stories, and in setting up conflicts for players in roleplaying games. People eat it up. You may not enjoy it, personally. But large numbers of people do, and it makes sense to them as Trope.

So no, it's not stupid. Unless you think people in general are stupid? And if you do ... I'm sorry.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 10:57 AM
If your argument is Star Wars is a bad because Light Side vs Dark Side, it automatically fails. :smalltongue:

This is one element that works well both in stories, and in setting up conflicts for players in roleplaying games. People eat it up. You may not enjoy it, personally. But large numbers of people do, and it makes sense to them as Trope.

So no, it's not stupid. Unless you think people in general are stupid? And if you do ... I'm sorry.

Let's just say that it strikes me as a manifestation of something far more disturbing that's larger and deeper than games... that it appeals to people for very unpleasant reasons... and leave it at that.

Bohandas
2018-01-15, 11:13 AM
You say it sarcastically, I say it seriously.

"Team Good" vs "Team Evil" is the worst sort of cartoonish simplification... a manifestation of base tribalism, leading to cul-de-sacs such as "well we're the good guys so anything we do is good, they're the bad guys so anything they do is bad". Or the "light side vs dark side" crap, where evidently there's a physical manifestation of "going evil" and a person flips from good-but-conflicted to outright child-slaughtering caricature because their eyes changed color.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hAMYnBEtg4#t=00m46s

Florian
2018-01-15, 11:38 AM
Let's just say that it strikes me as a manifestation of something far more disturbing that's larger and deeper than games... that it appeals to people for very unpleasant reasons... and leave it at that.

Naja. I´m a member of a far-left political party and have to deal with some very.. sensitive.. eyes at times and not eve those support that sentiment. Know the saying: Just because it quacks and lives on the water, it also can be a frog, not a duck.

Tanarii
2018-01-15, 12:10 PM
Let's just say that it strikes me as a manifestation of something far more disturbing that's larger and deeper than games... that it appeals to people for very unpleasant reasons... and leave it at that.Ah. That makes sense. It's one of two* often overlooked things humans do regularly that has caused many real world problems. I can see why you might dislike it as a general thing in that case.

*The other being hero worship / idolizing.

2D8HP
2018-01-15, 12:21 PM
Okay, unless your playing Pendragon and rolling against passions and traits for behavior, since a PC's actions are decided by players, I'm going to ask again:

I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.

How does writing it down on the sheet help?

What purpose is there in writing down a PC's Alignment?

Is it just a reminder, like writing down the names of a PC's relatives?

There's no more XP lost when a DM deems a PC has "changed alignments", so what exactly is it for?

Once upon a time "Lawful" PC's had to truthfully say there Alignment, which implies that they knew what it was, but I see nothing like that in the current rules.

Many DM's have a "no evil PC's" policy, and it's now a cliche that "Chaotic Neutral" on a sheet means 'evil PC in a "no evil" game'.

So what is the entry for?

RazorChain
2018-01-15, 02:45 PM
Many DM's have a "no evil PC's" policy, and it's now a cliche that "Chaotic Neutral" on a sheet means 'evil PC in a "no evil" game'.

So what is the entry for?

The alignment entry isn't needed. The Paladin may as well have a code of conduct or code of honor he must stick to and if he disregards the code he falls.

When I'm playing or Gm a system that don't have alignments the group will decide upon the morality of the group so it doesn't come as a suprise to anyone


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU


We might be anti-heroes that are in it for the money or have other motivations that spur the character on to do the right thing or we might be playing opportunistic bastards. What we try to keep to the minimum is character conflict that splits the group.

At least this way we avoid utterly stupid questions that often gets asked on these forums: Why is my lawful good character traveling with that evil character? He's murdering babies and I don't know what to do?

I've played different systems with different groups and nobody misses or pines for Alignment, the general consensus among the gamers in my circle is that Alignment is a not needed, at all.

I have yet to see what Alignment is good for

Bohandas
2018-01-15, 09:08 PM
but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake

It should be noted that D&D's type of 2 dimensional alignment is a part of some philosophical systems predating D&D, particularly Discordianism

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 09:21 PM
It should be noted that D&D's type of 2 dimensional alignment is a part of some philosophical systems predating D&D, particularly Discordianism

Which was, IIRC, a parody religion.

RazorChain
2018-01-15, 09:24 PM
Which was, IIRC, a parody religion.

I take offense to that! :smallbiggrin: Hail Eris!

I think I've said enough, Fnord!

SimonMoon6
2018-01-15, 10:22 PM
Holy Chao!

jojo
2018-01-16, 01:14 AM
I take offense to that! :smallbiggrin: Hail Eris!

I think I've said enough, Fnord!

Forget you not her Saint Bokonon. Busy, busy, busy is the Foma we call Alignment.

This I say as one genuine and authorized pope to another...

Mechalich
2018-01-16, 02:11 AM
I've played different systems with different groups and nobody misses or pines for Alignment, the general consensus among the gamers in my circle is that Alignment is a not needed, at all.

I have yet to see what Alignment is good for

Alignment is a mess because the impact of moral choices on the game world unfolds in an idiosyncratic way due to how D&D was put together. Your position on the pie chart determines which class of Outsiders hates you but otherwise only matters for a small portion of characters to whom alignment questions are tied - like Paladins. The case for retaining alignment would be stronger if the mechanical effects extended to every class.

If you're going to have a morality statistic in a game you need to meet two requirements:

1. The setting must have an objective moral system.

2. Interaction with that moral system must have meaningful effects in play.

D&D theoretically meets both of these, but the problem is that the moral system is crazy and bears little to no resemblance to the lived human experience of the players, and that the meaningful effects are scattershot and tangential to the core gameplay experience of running around in dungeons killing and looting everything you see.

Star Wars, however, meets both requirements with ease. The Force represents an objective (though rather opaque) moral system and the influence of the light side versus the dark side absolutely matters in gameplay. And as a result pretty much every Star Wars game ever made - including more video game versions - has possessed some sort of light/dark meter.

Many game settings will fulfill only one of these two requirements. For instance, the Wheel of Time hits 1 but not 2. There is an objective moral system - there's a Light-associated Creator and a Dark One source of all evil - but characters don't interact with the moral system in play (Rand al'Thor does, but you aren't playing as him). This is actually fairly common in modern fantasy epics which tend to has a form of vague monotheism in place. There are also game systems that fulfill 2 but not 1. Call of Cthulhu does. Morality certainly matters in play - since losing all your sanity eliminates your character - but it's pretty much the opposite of objective.

The benefit of a moral statistic is that it allows the game to offer non-societal consequences to moral choices. This is particularly useful in games where the characters are difficult or impossible for society to punish - such as any game in which the characters are effectively super-heroes. The horrific excesses of Exalted - which lacks any sort of moral restraints on characters who hit the god-level - are an example of why it can be a good thing to offer an in-game restraint.

Bohandas
2018-01-16, 03:04 AM
Alignment is a mess because the impact of moral choices on the game world unfolds in an idiosyncratic way due to how D&D was put together. Your position on the pie chart determines which class of Outsiders hates you but otherwise only matters for a small portion of characters to whom alignment questions are tied - like Paladins. The case for retaining alignment would be stronger if the mechanical effects extended to every class.

If you're going to have a morality statistic in a game you need to meet two requirements:

1. The setting must have an objective moral system.

2. Interaction with that moral system must have meaningful effects in play.

D&D theoretically meets both of these, but the problem is that the moral system is crazy and bears little to no resemblance to the lived human experience of the players, and that the meaningful effects are scattershot and tangential to the core gameplay experience of running around in dungeons killing and looting everything you see.

The in game effects of the moral system vary by campaign setting. In Eberron they're practically nil, but in Planescape or Ravenloft they can affect a lot.

Bohandas
2018-01-16, 03:11 AM
Which was, IIRC, a parody religion.

The theology is a farce; the philosophy is valid.

Arbane
2018-01-16, 03:15 AM
FNORD


The benefit of a moral statistic is that it allows the game to offer non-societal consequences to moral choices. This is particularly useful in games where the characters are difficult or impossible for society to punish - such as any game in which the characters are effectively super-heroes.

So it lets the GM slap down unruly players when the NPCs can't. Nice.


The horrific excesses of Exalted - which lacks any sort of moral restraints on characters who hit the god-level - are an example of why it can be a good thing to offer an in-game restraint.

It can be argued that the whole POINT of Exalted is that Power Corrupts. Most likely the Solars would've become insane tyrants even without the Great Curse. And one of the most common in-game ways for the Exalted to flip out is if they try to go against their morality. (Defy your Virtues, get Limit.)
Edit to add: Alternately, the central premise of Exalted is 'Okay, you can do anything. So, what sort of person ARE you?' And those wimpy Vampire players think they know anything about 'Personal Horror(tm)'.... :smallbiggrin:

PS: I rather like one of the Elric/Stormbringer BRP games' approach to 'alignment' - they actually had a list of what deeds would make a given deity like or dislike the PC, and kept percentage tracks of their divine brownie points. (Get enough, and you could possibly get a Divine Intervention, or just cash them in for a boost to your magic stat.) And they weren't mutually exclusive, except that Law and Chaos gods _mostly_ wanted opposite things.

Florian
2018-01-16, 04:16 AM
PS: I rather like one of the Elric/Stormbringer BRP games' approach to 'alignment' - they actually had a list of what deeds would make a given deity like or dislike the PC, and kept percentage tracks of their divine brownie points. (Get enough, and you could possibly get a Divine Intervention, or just cash them in for a boost to your magic stat.) And they weren't mutually exclusive, except that Law and Chaos gods _mostly_ wanted opposite things.

Black Crusade has an interesting variant of it. Basically, during game you earn XP which you can spent to gain more skills, skill ranks or talents. Now each of those is aligned with one of the four chaos gods and you keep track how many points of XP have been invested in the associated things (*). You start "unaligned" (+/- 0% percent discount/penalty) and once things start becoming lopsided by favoring one god over the other, the discount/penalty starts rising (up to +/- 50%), making it inviting to follow down that slope, but also an option to resist. So the all-out Khorne Berzerker can pile on combat abilities for cheap, but has a hard time advancing Tzeench related abilities.

(*) You also track how you gained the XP, so killing in the name of Tzeench with an Khorne-associated ability doesn't lead to a disfunction.

Mordaedil
2018-01-16, 04:42 AM
You say it sarcastically, I say it seriously.

"Team Good" vs "Team Evil" is the worst sort of cartoonish simplification... a manifestation of base tribalism, leading to cul-de-sacs such as "well we're the good guys so anything we do is good, they're the bad guys so anything they do is bad". Or the "light side vs dark side" crap, where evidently there's a physical manifestation of "going evil" and a person flips from good-but-conflicted to outright child-slaughtering caricature because their eyes changed color.

Ah yes. Such cartoonish simplifications would never happen in real life. Just ignore history and how people even today are just outright evil.

Black Jester
2018-01-16, 06:48 AM
If you're going to have a morality statistic in a game you need to meet two requirements:

1. The setting must have an objective moral system.

2. Interaction with that moral system must have meaningful effects in play.



That's another problem I have with alignment: It is never objective. It is always, inevitably based on the judgements of the gamemaster and his specific views and preferences and as such, they are probably going to be subjective morals for the most part.
There is only a very generic part of actions that probably anyone (that is anyone sane) would declare clearly immoral and those are so obvious (murder, rape) that you don't need any label for them that indicate, yes, that is evil. It's like asking someone if they knew that rape was bad. Everything else is, depending on circumstances, open to debate - and debate is good and can be productive in an RPG, especially when it becomes an in-character talk. I can almost guarantee you, such a heartfelt in-character talk can be one of the most memorable moments of any campaign.

Now, I as a gamemaster don't have all that many iron rules or principles, but one is "never tell the players how they are supposed to feel". And that doesn't work very well with a system that would obligate me to act as the final moral arbitter.

Morty
2018-01-16, 07:31 AM
See what I said to Max_Killjoy, above. Moral ambiguity can absolutely exist in a game that uses alignment. Just because an absolute moral standard exists on a cosmic/universal level, doesn't mean that all living creatures in that reality are aware of said absolute lines, or that they only adhere rigidly to the textbook examples of the alignment that they are judged to be. Nothing about alignment precludes serious moral ambiguity in a game.

So what's the benefit of using alignment when running a game with moral ambiguity? If I'm doing that, then slapping objective "good", "evil" and "neither" labels on things seems pretty counterproductive.



The benefit of a moral statistic is that it allows the game to offer non-societal consequences to moral choices. This is particularly useful in games where the characters are difficult or impossible for society to punish - such as any game in which the characters are effectively super-heroes. The horrific excesses of Exalted - which lacks any sort of moral restraints on characters who hit the god-level - are an example of why it can be a good thing to offer an in-game restraint.

Absolutely not. Exalted intentionally portrays a distinctly amoral setting where might makes right and righteousness is defined by those powerful enough to enforce it. The default protagonists have already almost destroyed the world and are just as likely to do it again as they are to save it. Trying to introduce any mechanic saying "don't do this thing, it's evil" would miss the point spectacularly. You're not supposed to restrain Exalted PCs. They're free to use their massive power as they see fit and then deal with the consequences. A far better example of a restraint that actually works is the game's ban on resurrection and time travel. Thus enforcing a "you break it, you bought it" effect.

Using alignment to punish PCs for rampaging around using their power is a pretty D&D-specific thing, because D&D is completely unprepared to handle the power it hands to the PCs once they're past level 5 or so. If you make your PCs powerful, either own up to it or simply say "this is a game about superheroes and not supervillains". Telling the players what the game is about is better than leaving it open but punishing them for playing a particular way.

ImNotTrevor
2018-01-16, 07:45 AM
Ah yes. Such cartoonish simplifications would never happen in real life. Just ignore history and how people even today are just outright evil.

But that's not his assertion. He never claimed that no one is evil.

He simply stated that things are very rarely so simple as two sides being homogenous in their good or evilness

Mechalich
2018-01-16, 08:22 AM
Absolutely not. Exalted intentionally portrays a distinctly amoral setting where might makes right and righteousness is defined by those powerful enough to enforce it. The default protagonists have already almost destroyed the world and are just as likely to do it again as they are to save it. Trying to introduce any mechanic saying "don't do this thing, it's evil" would miss the point spectacularly. You're not supposed to restrain Exalted PCs. They're free to use their massive power as they see fit and then deal with the consequences.

Yes. That is correct, and that is why Exalted is stupid. Everyone is awful, there is no reason to be nice - because the gods themselves are awful - and the entire setting is an exercise in pointless grimderp.

If you have characters who have power such that society is incapable of controlling their actions - which is what most superhero settings have - the natural evolution of the setting is into a grimdark dystopia where the strong take tyrannical rule over the weak and crush them forever. And that's what Exalted's setting is, with the additional wrinkle that the strong are themselves divided into numerous sub-layers all struggling to see who gets to hold the tyrannical ruler baton.

In a superhero universe like the DC Universe, Earth evades becoming a grimdark dystopia only because Superman is good (because reasons) and he's powerful enough to stop anyone who gets in his way. In effect, he's the benevolent god who imposes moral consequences upon everyone else. Now, because a setting in which evil characters get beaten down by an all-powerful good and just authority figure tend to be kind of boring (which is why DC is endlessly pushing Superman out of the picture from time to time) most fictional settings place the judgment after you die.

If you have a setting wherein there are individuals who can crank the GTA wanted level all the way up to 5 stars but still face no chance of death, then you need an answer for why said characters don't 'boot on face forever' the world. Slight aside - the most internally consistent D&D world is Dark Sun where the answer to that question is 'they did.' Having a greater power that fights for goodness and a game mechanic to represent this is one option.

Morty
2018-01-16, 10:12 AM
There's nothing stopping anyone in Exalted from being good and just, same as there's nothing stopping them from being evil. If you don't like this setting premise, that's one thing, but would you mind explaining how adding an arbitrary morality meter would make it any different or better? Or an arbitrarily powerful force of good that smacks down anyone who's too evil and too powerful for the society around them to stop them? Come to think of it, what's the cutoff point for power and wickedness?

If you want a superhero setting (or its fantasy equivalent) that's not a might-makes-right dystopia, you have to suspend your disbelief and assume that the heroes and villains exist in a sort of equilibrium and foil one another. That's fine, since fantasy requires suspension of disbelief anyway. But enforcing it using a system of objective morality is like dousing a fire with gasoline.

Tinkerer
2018-01-16, 10:18 AM
Using alignment to punish PCs for rampaging around using their power is a pretty D&D-specific thing, because D&D is completely unprepared to handle the power it hands to the PCs once they're past level 5 or so. If you make your PCs powerful, either own up to it or simply say "this is a game about superheroes and not supervillains". Telling the players what the game is about is better than leaving it open but punishing them for playing a particular way.

Might I ask how alignment is used to punish PCs? Assuming you aren't a paladin of course. People keep using that phrase but I don't get it.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-16, 10:37 AM
Theoretically, alignment is supposed to aid in determining two things (as well as specifying teams):

1) How a character should act (this is only a partial contribution--other things also matter here)

2) How the world (including the planar realms) reacts to your actions. A "Good" NPC should recoil in horror at the sight of a PC gleefully wallowing in blood. A "chaotic" NPC should resent the party bringing the strong arm of the law into things. Etc.

Is its purpose meaningful? Sure. Does it fulfill its purpose? Eh. Not convinced. I've seen too many "I'm CN (but act like CE)" players in "evil forbidden" games. Fortunately in 5e it's mechanically much weaker so I've removed it entirely as a mechanical force without needing significant surgery. Doing that in 3e would be painful.

hamishspence
2018-01-16, 10:56 AM
Might I ask how alignment is used to punish PCs? Assuming you aren't a paladin of course. People keep using that phrase but I don't get it.

In past editions (Moldvay 1st ed, for example - a prototype of AD&D with 5 alignments rather than the 3 of "standard D&D" or the 9 of "AD&D")

- there was a "If your character is not acting according to their alignment, the DM can penalize them by withholding XP" principle.

3e took the "if character is not acting according to what the DM thinks is appropriate alignment, the DM can change their alignment to the correct one, because the player made a mistake when writing it down" approach.

This plays havoc with paladins - but other classes could have issues too.

Changing a monk's alignment to non-lawful - cannot take any more Monk levels.
Changing a druid's alignment to one without a Neutral component - loss of powers.
Changing a cleric's alignment to one disallowed for their deity - loss of powers.
Changing a barbarian's alignment to one with a Lawful component - loss of Rage ability, cannot take any more barbarian levels.
Changing a bard's alignment to one with a Lawful component - cannot take any more bard levels.

Lvl 2 Expert
2018-01-16, 11:14 AM
I generally don't use alignment to come up with a character concept. I'm willing to see what fits afterwards, it can be nice to have proper mechanics for smiting evil people in a setting where good and evil are real and absolute. I feel like this approach remedies much of what's wrong with alignments.

Tanarii
2018-01-16, 11:15 AM
Star Wars, however, meets both requirements with ease. The Force represents an objective (though rather opaque) moral system and the influence of the light side versus the dark side absolutely matters in gameplay. And as a result pretty much every Star Wars game ever made - including more video game versions - has possessed some sort of light/dark meter. And pretty much every Star Wars game ever made has proven that this is a terrible approach to 'Alignment'. Light/dark meters, where single actions move you towards one or the other, are inevitably failures that cause stupid arguments. Same with Alignment meters in D&D.

The thing that causes Alignment to fail is:
- tying it to individual actions instead of broad behaviors
- tying it strongly to resolution mechanics

In other words, the exact things you claim are what make it work, are what in fact make it not work at all. This is why 5e Alignment is the best D&D Alignment system so far, and 3e's was one of the worst.

Aliquid
2018-01-16, 11:33 AM
Question to everyone for context

How often do you play in games where anyone actually pays attention to alignment?

We all have an opinion on alignment, and what it should mean.. but how often does it actually come up in game? I can go on about what is evil vs what is good (in theory for "in game")... but to be honest, I would say that in 90% of the games I have played, people choose and alignment during character creation and then never speak of it or think of it again for the rest of the campaign.

I have had plenty of debates about alignment on boards like this, or while sitting around and talking about alignment as a concept... but I can't remember one time where I had a debate about alignment during a game.

kyoryu
2018-01-16, 11:35 AM
The theology is a farce; the philosophy is valid.

Indeed, and the understanding of the Illuminatus! Trilogy is rather useful, after you get past people fornicating with fruit.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-16, 11:48 AM
Ah yes. Such cartoonish simplifications would never happen in real life. Just ignore history and how people even today are just outright evil.


I didn't say that there was no evil in real life, or that there are no evil people.

I said that reducing everything to "team good" vs "team evil" is a cartoonish oversimplification.

Tanarii
2018-01-16, 12:04 PM
Question to everyone for context

How often do you play in games where anyone actually pays attention to alignment?
Personally? I now review all my character motivations before a game, including Alignment, to remind me how to get in character. I started doing this with explicit motivations listed out only since I started playing 5e, but it's a fantastic tool for getting in character,

Since I mostly DM recently, I also encourage my players to do that too, but not all choose to.

So currently my answer is "as much as the players wants it to".

Historically, it's mattered a great deal in some campaigns and not at all in others. And I include things like all characters needing to meet strong alignment restrictions during character creation. I've played in many all Good campaigns, and a few anti-Chaos or anti-Law campaigns. The latter especially Alignment was very important. All Good campaigns are often just ways of saying "make heroes to fight Villains".

Bohandas
2018-01-16, 12:11 PM
Might I ask how alignment is used to punish PCs? Assuming you aren't a paladin of course. People keep using that phrase but I don't get it.

Well, IIRC in Ravenloft too many overtly evil actions will lead to a character becoming stuck in their own private hell and removed from play

Arbane
2018-01-16, 12:31 PM
Anecdata: A PF character I rather enjoyed was an Oracle with the Legalistic curse (Has to keep promises, or suffers penalties) and a not-Norse background. CG. It occurred to me that if she turned Lawful Evil, it was entirely possible that nobody would even notice for a while, since all the things she did would still make sense - she keeps all her promises anyway, having followers and a good reputation was a good thing, being polite to authority figures who can help or hinder you is just sensible, and killing things and taking their stuff was fun.

We also had a Just Playing My Character LE guy in the group, and he did some DUMB stuff because he felt he HAD to.

Other games with Alignment: TORG had three settings with alignment or similar: The Nile Empire was the Pulp Fiction world, so people there are Good or Evil. Nice and simple. Aysle was the D&Dish Fantasy world, and it had 'Honor' and 'Corruption' stats - act extremely honorable or corrupt, and the world would reward you for it, but it wasn't mandatory. The Orrorsh world (Horror) threw out the 'Honor' part and just rewarded anyone who was corrupt enough by eventually turning them into a monster.

Aliquid
2018-01-16, 12:32 PM
I didn't say that there was no evil in real life, or that there are no evil people.

I said that reducing everything to "team good" vs "team evil" is a cartoonish oversimplification.AND a way for "real world" people to justify horrible acts by essentially saying "but I'm on team 'good', so it is ok"

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-16, 01:00 PM
AND a way for "real world" people to justify horrible acts by essentially saying "but I'm on team 'good', so it is ok"

And "they're on team evil, so they deserve this". :smallfrown:

Mordaedil
2018-01-17, 05:02 AM
I feel like cartoons get a bad rap is all I'm saying. Their representation of character motivation and aligned sides is often far more complex and intricate than what often happens in real life.

People might seem complex if you single them out, but they are incredible simple and predictable the further out your perception is. That's why people often get the impression that "a person is smart, people are dumb" from, it's just because each clever individual arrive at the same conclusion, but their minds cannot cooperate in the same way to arrive at a collective reasonable conclusion.

Imagine you are moving through a crowd, you've seen how people in front of you are moving and how you need to move to avoid bumping into anyone while getting to your destination. But everybody else are also making the same observations or are distracted by focusing on other things and thus they will compensate from the situation from their perspective, but then you both move in an unpredictable way from each other and all of a sudden you bump into each other and you just think "gosh, if only you paid a bit more attention to things around, this wouldn't have happened".

You both made calculated smart moves, but unable to communicate your intention to each other, you both made each other the fool. You can apply this to some things regarding what I'm talking about evil sides and good sides in the larger picture too, but there's a problem here. There exists people out there who only have hate for other people and will go to extreme lengths to undermine them and possibly even get them killed. They are just that simple.

And they aren't cartoons.

RedMage125
2018-01-17, 07:16 AM
Reread some of those posts. It's not both "us vs them" and "useless moral system" at the same time -- it's that it's a terrible Us vs Them OR a terrible Moral System. That there is also a conflation of the two that reflects a rather toxic real-world "us good vs them evil" mentality that's all too common is just icing on the cake.

"Us vs Them" is exactly how many players treat Alignment -- as permission to freely kill and steal from anything in the wrong / enemy jersey.

So it's a binary choice between "terrible x" or a "terrible y" system, solely because YOU SAY SO, with no other options other than that?

Everything that you have said that you THINK is a point is tautological.



On the other hand...

The "objective morality" that both the detractors and defenders of Alignment alike describe... is sick, an absurdist horror show where supposed morality is defined simplistically by the actions one takes; where standing by and doing nothing is often more "morally safe" than taking action; where someone can be forced into "doing evil" in taking the least-bad option, when contrivance or circumstance arrange for nothing but bad choices. And it does in fact preclude any sort of moral quandaries or nuance, by establishing a checklist of "evil actions" and setting in stone that committing any of those actions is "evil", no matter what the circumstances are, no matter what the intent or motivation was, no matter what.
Not even remotely true of alignment in any edition that I am most familiar with (3.x, 4e, and 5e).

Take 3e, for example, since that had the most in-depth alignment mechanics of any. If you commit one of these "evil regardless of context" acts in order to do something good, then you have done both. Example, you raise some zombies and skeletons from a nearby graveyard to have soldiers to stop an orc tribe from attacking, thus saving an entire town. By the actual RAW of D&D alignment (not to be confused with the grotesque parody that YOU CLAIM is the RAW), you have committed a morally evil act (created undead), followed by a morally good act (saved hundreds of people's lives. Now, according to the rules on how alignment changes (3.5e DMG, page 134), "Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality". Someone who wants to accomplish Good ends, but is willing to use Evil means to do so is not truly "Good". And the same thing applies to your "doing nothing is morally safe" line of garbage. Such a person would also be Neutral.

Once again, you intend ONLY to discuss alignment in terms of your grotesquely distorted perception of it, claiming that is "true", then you are objectively WRONG, and I will call you on it.


Unless of course you're killing anything wearing the Team Evil jersey, evidently? What does the Alignment system say about raiding a village of orcs and killing all the adults, or all of them to the last? After all, it's an objective system with ultimate unquestionable answers, it should have an answer for this one, right?
hamishspence answered this beautifully. but you didn't respond, probably because you didn't like the fact that he completely shut down this claim of yours in a way that left you no room to continue saying "but alignment is bad because I want it to be bad". You, in fact, CONTINUE to harp on this point later...we'll come back to it.


How does writing it down on the sheet help?

What purpose is there in writing down a PC's Alignment?

Is it just a reminder, like writing down the names of a PC's relatives?

There's no more XP lost when a DM deems a PC has "changed alignments", so what exactly is it for?

Once upon a time "Lawful" PC's had to truthfully say there Alignment, which implies that they knew what it was, but I see nothing like that in the current rules.

Many DM's have a "no evil PC's" policy, and it's now a cliche that "Chaotic Neutral" on a sheet means 'evil PC in a "no evil" game'.

So what is the entry for?
In an edition with more concrete alignment mechanics, such as 3.5e, alignment determines how some spells, items, and abilities will affect you. Thus, an accurate telling of one's alignment is significant. If I started out with a party of all Good-aligned characters, but the part Fighter has been doing so much morally questionable stuff consistently over a long enough period of time that he has become Neutral, then when my party cleric casts Holy Word, the Fighter is going to be somewhat affected, while the rest of us are not.

And "Chaotic Neutral as evil or evil lite" is, once again, a fault of PEOPLE. Not every person mis-using alignment is a DM. Sometimes Players are jerkbags, too. That's not what CN is supposed t be, and I have seen (and played as) several Chaotic Neutral characters who are not even remotely disruptive to a party of Good and Neutral characters.


So what's the benefit of using alignment when running a game with moral ambiguity? If I'm doing that, then slapping objective "good", "evil" and "neither" labels on things seems pretty counterproductive.

As I said before, alignment mechanics give mechanical voice-in an objective manner not determined by DM fiat-to several classic tropes of fantasy. Also, for what I said to 2D8HP, above.

Moral ambiguity is always still possible, because mortals do not perceive the objective nature of alignment without the use of magic. A PC or an NPC may be as morally ambiguous in play as you like. The existence of absolute objective moral and ethical standards in D&D are on a cosmic scale. So no matter how morally ambiguous a character is, they still end up falling somewhere within a defined alignment.

Of course, if you don't find alignment to be productive, don't use it. I've never advocated that everyone "should use" or even "should like" alignment. If people don't want to use it, they shouldn't. The ONLY wrong way to play D&D is a way in which people at your table are not having fun. I just argue about what alignment is and is not-factually-according to the RAW.



And "they're on team evil, so they deserve this". :smallfrown:
And...we're back to this.

Hamishspence pointed out to you that by a D&D metric, that isn't actually the case. But you wanted to keep saying this about alignment, so you ignored him. D&D alignment actually DOESN'T promote this mantra. And it's a blatant lie to say that it does.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-17, 08:03 AM
So, if that concept of Alignment isn't in any of the books, and it's just so not fair...

Where do so many people who've played D&D get that exact impression of Alignment from?

Why do so many people play it that way, or run into others who play it that way?

Why are there so many discussions of Alignment that come down to grossly oversimplified platitudes being lobbed back and forth?

Where do all these silly "moral trap" Paladin falls we hear about come from?

Why do so many players have horror stories about another player telling them "your character wouldn't do that, his alignment is _____!"


It's a choice between "terrible X" and "terrible Y" because those are the choices, it has nothing to do with my say-so.

If you want to draw up Team A and Team B, use different terms and don't conflate it with morality by your choice of terms.

If you want to actually explore moral uncertainty, quandaries, and disputes... then you can't present caricature of morality based on laundry lists of "good acts" and "evil acts" supposedly adjudicated by cosmic forces, where taking the least-bad option, or having a choice between two bad options imposed on you, or being outright tricked into doing something, can all result in YOU being held accountable for an "evil act" regardless of your intent or motivation. That's not moral complexity, that's a sick joke. And if "the universe" really does have forces that impose that kind of judgement, then "the universe" is morally bankrupt and every character living in it should go outside a raise a one-finger salute to the sky and tell "the universe " to go F itself.


You can call it "a lie" all you want. Doesn't make it any less true.

hamishspence
2018-01-17, 08:13 AM
The point of "always evil acts" is to codify what you can't do to anyone, not even "Team Evil" - and not trigger a negative reaction from the "cosmic forces of good" as expressed by the DM.

As BoVD points out though, no matter how "black-and-white" the moral setup is, there will always be grey areas. And it's in these grey areas, that uncertainty, and quandaries, arise.

King of Nowhere
2018-01-17, 09:22 AM
AND a way for "real world" people to justify horrible acts by essentially saying "but I'm on team 'good', so it is ok"

And "they're on team evil, so they deserve this". :smallfrown:

some people use hammers to bash skulls. This clearly means that hammers are bad and should be banned, and people who use hammers should feel bad. they probably just wait the right time to bash some skull with it.

hell no! Hammers are for planting nails, and they're useful when used for planting nails. If some people misuse them it's not a defect of the tool.

Because that's what alignments are, a tool. As such, there will be some people who will put it to goood use, some who will horribly misuse it, and some who will not have any use for it. Just decide what (if anything) you want to do with it, but don't bash others for their choices on the matter.


So, if that concept of Alignment isn't in any of the books, and it's just so not fair...

Where do so many people who've played D&D get that exact impression of Alignment from?

Why do so many people play it that way, or run into others who play it that way?

Why are there so many discussions of Alignment that come down to grossly oversimplified platitudes being lobbed back and forth?

Where do all these silly "moral trap" Paladin falls we hear about come from?

Why do so many players have horror stories about another player telling them "your character wouldn't do that, his alignment is _____!"


Why several of my high school students told me that rutherford used apha rays to "drill through a gold ingot", when I told them that he shot them through a thin gold foil?
Because they did not understood what I told them and put their own twisted interpretation to it.

Why a lot of americans think that europe is a country?
Those who do are ignorant. And those youtube videos showing those people are only showing interviews of ignorant people.

Why it appears so many people get murdered or abused and humanity is hopeless?
Because the media amplify bad news over good ones.

So, all those horror stories of people horribly twisting and misusing alignments are just that: people who did not understood the issue, who put a twisted interpretation to it because they are ignorant on the matter, and they are a small number of bad cases that got amplified through the internet because people are more likely to recount and remember bad stories.

There are a lot of stories of toxic players around, because roleplaying requires a certain maturity and open-mindedness that not all players have. Some of those toxic stories are about alignment, but that's a fluke. Toxic players will be toxic players regardless of the rules you make. If your toxic player decided he wants to murder the rest of the party in their sleep and steal their loot he will try it, regardless of whether you will slap an alignment on him or not.
You are using intentional examples of bad players to justify your point. that's cherry-picking the evidence, and does not prove anything. Except that there are toxic players.

EDIT:


If you want to actually explore moral uncertainty, quandaries, and disputes... then you can't present caricature of morality based on laundry lists of "good acts" and "evil acts" supposedly adjudicated by cosmic forces, where taking the least-bad option, or having a choice between two bad options imposed on you, or being outright tricked into doing something, can all result in YOU being held accountable for an "evil act" regardless of your intent or motivation. That's not moral complexity, that's a sick joke.
As others pointed out, the only one expressing a charicature of morality is you. nothing you are describing here is really the alignment system, or at least, I've never seen anyone use it like that. Where do you get the idea that intent or motivation do not count? that's absurd. The BoED, which I do not like because it's still too rigid, outright states the opposite. And if you are stuck in a situation where you have no ggood choice, it's a completely different matter than doing evil in a normal situation. In that case of "I did what I had to do", the concept of committing an evil action is along the lines of "you should regret the necessity of doing so, and if possibly atone", not along the lines of "your soul is now damned forever, MWAHAHAHAHA!!!". Again, I've never seen anyone using the sick, twisted mock of alingment you pretend is the real thing.
I think you either had some very bad luck with toxic players in your groups, or you are reading too many bad stories on the internet and thinking they are the norm instead of the exceptions.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-17, 10:25 AM
As others pointed out, the only one expressing a charicature of morality is you. nothing you are describing here is really the alignment system, or at least, I've never seen anyone use it like that. Where do you get the idea that intent or motivation do not count? that's absurd. The BoED, which I do not like because it's still too rigid, outright states the opposite. And if you are stuck in a situation where you have no ggood choice, it's a completely different matter than doing evil in a normal situation. In that case of "I did what I had to do", the concept of committing an evil action is along the lines of "you should regret the necessity of doing so, and if possibly atone", not along the lines of "your soul is now damned forever, MWAHAHAHAHA!!!". Again, I've never seen anyone using the sick, twisted mock of alingment you pretend is the real thing.

I think you either had some very bad luck with toxic players in your groups, or you are reading too many bad stories on the internet and thinking they are the norm instead of the exceptions.


Multiple people in this thread who are advocates of Alignment as useful have described exactly what I just laid out:

absolute objective morality
"good" and "evil" as absolute cosmic forces
"good" and "evil" judged purely by an individual's actions with no regard for intent, motive, circumstances, or limited choices


Someone even claimed that under D&D alignment, the only non-evil choice in the Trolley Problem was to walk away / do nothing, because as soon as the character touched the switch and chose to direct the trolley, they were the one who had killed either the one person or the X number of people, and not the person who set up the situation.

I'll go back and find quotes if I have to.

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 10:38 AM
some people use hammers to bash skulls. This clearly means that hammers are bad and should be banned, and people who use hammers should feel bad. they probably just wait the right time to bash some skull with it.

hell no! Hammers are for planting nails, and they're useful when used for planting nails. If some people misuse them it's not a defect of the tool.

Because that's what alignments are, a tool. As such, there will be some people who will put it to goood use, some who will horribly misuse it, and some who will not have any use for it. Just decide what (if anything) you want to do with it, but don't bash others for their choices on the matter.If someone's "choice on the matter" is to use alignments in a way that reinforces their distorted and dangerous views of real world morality... then I will bash it. For most people, how we view Alignments in D&D very much mirrors how we view morality in the real world.

Calthropstu
2018-01-17, 10:44 AM
Am I alone in actually liking the alignment aspect?

It is, by no means, a be all end all kind of thing. It's not like "you filched from the candy jar. You are chaotic now." With the exception of paladins, alignment is simply a guideline for the gods to judge your actions.

And yes, playing with jerks is a thing. GMs need some mechanics to curb that. If you boot everyone who ever makes a **** move, D&D would quickly become extinct because everyone can have a bad day.

But alignment, by itself, is merely a cosmic judging mechanic, nothing else. It determines what afterlife you enjoy (or suffer.)

hamishspence
2018-01-17, 10:58 AM
Someone even claimed that under D&D alignment, the only non-evil choice in the Trolley Problem was to walk away / do nothing, because as soon as the character touched the switch and chose to direct the trolley, they were the one who had killed either the one person or the X number of people, and not the person who set up the situation.

I prefer to think of it in terms of "The airplane problem" - there is a damaged airplane, it will crash - but you (the air traffic controller) can direct it to land in the spot with the least people.


The trolley problem is exactly the same - except instead of directing a plane, you are directing a train - via tracks, rather than the train itself.


Giving those directions, does not qualify as "murdering" the people you are directing the plane toward. Murder requires more than just killing - an element of malicious intent needs to be involved.

And it's only murder, of all forms of killing, that D&D splatbooks say is Always Evil.

2D8HP
2018-01-17, 11:40 AM
Question to everyone for context

How often do you play in games where anyone actually pays attention to alignment?.....
A little bit in Stormbringer which had an explicit Law vs Chaos background based on the Elric series by Michael Moorcock, and there were some both mechanical and setting effects from "Lawful" and "Chaotic" behavior, but I didn't get to play it enough to experience it much.

In the other game that I've played that's with alignment, Dungeons & Dragons, the only time that alignment had much of an effect was a 5e WD&D game in which the DM said the PC's had to have an "Evil Alignment", and which coincidentally or not, one of the dullest D&D games I've played, as I found role-playing a psychopath among psychopaths tiresome.


...In an edition with more concrete alignment mechanics, such as 3.5e, alignment determines how some spells, items, and abilities will affect you. Thus, an accurate telling of one's alignment is significant... ..
Ah, that explains some, long ago I played a mix of Oe D&D/1e AD&D/third-party/magazine articles/stuff we made up, rules, and a lot of the TSR rules we just didn't use, including most of "Alignment" beyond writing one on the character sheet.

More recently I've played some Pendragon, which has "Passions and Traits" that effect behavior (it's a game that involves both more "roll-play" and "role-play" to game out Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight types of temptations), and that has had some mechanics that effect, and are effected by IC morality, otherwise I've played some B/X TD&D, which had "Alignment Languages" that didn't come up in play, and more 5e WD&D, which has Alignment inform the PC's "Ideals", "Flaws", etc, which DM's may award "Inspiration" bonuses for (similar to some mechanics in 1985's Pendragon), but I've never seen a DM actually use those rulers, just as I've never seen a DM impose the penalties that were in the old TSR D&D rules.

Obviously I haven't interacted with Alignment, because while I started gaming with the "Basic Set" almost 40 years ago, I haven't had enough actual table time, a problem you should totally solve by being my DM.

*place some sort of hopeful begging emoji here*

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 11:46 AM
I prefer to think of it in terms of "The airplane problem" - there is a damaged airplane, it will crash - but you (the air traffic controller) can direct it to land in the spot with the least people.


The trolley problem is exactly the same - except instead of directing a plane, you are directing a train - via tracks, rather than the train itself.That's not how the trolley problem works. It is a dilemma where the two options are basically:
1 - do nothing and a group of people die
2 - do something and only one person dies (but that person wasn't in danger for option 1)

Your airplane problem isn't a dilemma... there is no "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario going on... just a "how can I minimize damages".

kyoryu
2018-01-17, 12:10 PM
Someone even claimed that under D&D alignment, the only non-evil choice in the Trolley Problem was to walk away / do nothing, because as soon as the character touched the switch and chose to direct the trolley, they were the one who had killed either the one person or the X number of people, and not the person who set up the situation.

From a Kantian/deontological view, that is true. That's not an alignment issue. That's an issue with a school of ethics that you don't agree with.

To frame it slightly differently, is not saving someone from drowning Evil? I'd say it's very firmly neutral.

Is flipping the lever an "evil" act? Yes. But, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, a Good person can commit an Evil act. Doing it in situations of extreme duress, with appropriate guilt, and after all other possibillities have been exhausted, is not going to tweak someone's alignment. Doing it repeatedly, for little gain, and without looking for other opportunities, will.

If you do a Good act, as a Good person, you should feel pretty dang good, right? Do you think a Good person would feel A-OK about flipping the lever? I sure don't. It may be a necessary evil, but necessary evils are still evil.

A Paladin will likely Fall in that case, but that's why Atonement exists.

At least, that's how I run it. Acts are strict. People are loose and wibbly wobbly and complex.

Now, I'm not trying to convince you that your ethics should follow this. That's your thing. I am trying to convince you that this view isn't quite as bicycle-made-of-babies crazy as you're portraying it.

Tanarii
2018-01-17, 01:11 PM
Is flipping the lever an "evil" act? Yes. But, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, a Good person can commit an Evil act. Doing it in situations of extreme duress, with appropriate guilt, and after all other possibillities have been exhausted, is not going to tweak someone's alignment. Doing it repeatedly, for little gain, and without looking for other opportunities, will.There are lots of people that believe a single "evil" (or "bad", if you prefer, for IRL acts) act of sufficient magnitude outweighs all good acts. Fall from Grace thinking, basically. And many people include a single murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide in that category. Others include any killing.

King of Nowhere
2018-01-17, 01:15 PM
Multiple people in this thread who are advocates of Alignment as useful have described exactly what I just laid out:

absolute objective morality
"good" and "evil" as absolute cosmic forces
"good" and "evil" judged purely by an individual's actions with no regard for intent, motive, circumstances, or limited choices


We must be reading different threads, because I see none of them (ok, maybe a bit of the first two, but taken in context). Granted, I skipped a couple pages, but still. We must be interpreting the same texts in different ways.
But anyway, if there are people advocating for those things, those people are wrong. I repeat, you can't cherry-pick the worst cases and say "this is how alignment is supposed to work". Just like you can't take someone bashing a head with a hammer and say "this is how hammers are supposed to be used".




Someone even claimed that under D&D alignment, the only non-evil choice in the Trolley Problem was to walk away / do nothing, because as soon as the character touched the switch and chose to direct the trolley, they were the one who had killed either the one person or the X number of people, and not the person who set up the situation.

I'll go back and find quotes if I have to.
I'd argue that choice is evil too, because you refuse to help those in need.
But kyoryu already made a good dissection of that example with very satisfying answers. Which I hope you are NOT mistaking as "good" and "evil" judged purely by an individual's actions with no regard for intent, motive, circumstances, or limited choices"


If someone's "choice on the matter" is to use alignments in a way that reinforces their distorted and dangerous views of real world morality... then I will bash it. For most people, how we view Alignments in D&D very much mirrors how we view morality in the real world.

First, I know nobody who uses D&D alignments to make real world judgments. Your opinion that "most people" view real world morality that way is either over inflated, overy simplicistic, or you took the wrong sample of the population.
Second, somebody's attitude in a game is not the same thing as in real life. I play civilization, I declare wars, I nuke my opponents. I hope it's clear I wouldn't do it in real life. Going all moral guardian "dude, nuking people is wrong" means completely missing the point. I like to play a game where I can nuke cities, and some other people like games where they cast a spell on a kid and determine that it is ok to kill him. Their choice.
Third, if those people are confusing the game with the real world, then I'd bash those real world beliefs, not the game.
And especially not an innocent game practice that only get problematic when twisted beyond recognition.

EDIT:

There are lots of people that believe a single "evil" (or "bad", if you prefer, for IRL acts) act of sufficient magnitude outweighs all good acts. Fall from Grace thinking, basically. And many people include a single murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide in that category. Others include any killing.
Well, if you suddenly decide to commit genocide then yes, this is a single evil act that outweights all good acts. Even if you kill a person for no good reason, that's enough to call you evil until you seriously repent it.
As for the trolley problem, intent and circumstances DO matter, and so switching tracks is an extremely small evil. One whose taint on your soul is probably already lifted by the fact that you'll regret that, alas, you had to cause a death.
There may be some people believing that switching track causes you to become utterly and irredeemably evil, but then, there are also some people believing that the earth is flat. There's people believing anything out there.

kyoryu
2018-01-17, 01:18 PM
There are lots of people that believe a single "evil" (or "bad", if you prefer, for IRL acts) act of sufficient magnitude outweighs all good acts. Fall from Grace thinking, basically. And many people include a single murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide in that category. Others include any killing.

A sufficiently evil act may very well do so. Negligent homicide seems a stretch, as does "any killing" (since that would include self defense).

The idea that, in general, a single Evil act makes you Evil is not supported, at least in most editions. The exception of Paladins falling from a single Evil act proves the rule in this case, as if a single evil act turned *anyone* Evil, then it wouldn't need to be called out specifically for paladins. And note that even with Paladins it has to be knowing and intentional, IIRC.

If your point is "a lot of people have strange ideas about alignment that aren't really supported by the rules or logic", well, I'll agree with that.



I'd argue that choice is evil too, because you refuse to help those in need.

Not helping people in need is pretty much Neutral by most descriptions of alignment. It kind of defines Neutral on the Good/Evil axis - helping others, at no benefit to yourself, is exactly what a Good act is! Throwing someone in the river in hopes they'll drown is an Evil act...


But kyoryu already made a good dissection of that example with very satisfying answers. Which I hope you are NOT mistaking as "good" and "evil" judged purely by an individual's actions with no regard for intent, motive, circumstances, or limited choices"

Hey, thanks!

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 01:33 PM
First, I know nobody who uses D&D alignments to make real world judgments. Your opinion that "most people" view real world morality that way is either over inflated, overy simplicistic, or you took the wrong sample of the population.You are putting the cart before the horse.

I'm saying that most people decide what alignment means in game based on their real life value system. Not the other way around.


Second, somebody's attitude in a game is not the same thing as in real life. I play civilization, I declare wars, I nuke my opponents. I hope it's clear I wouldn't do it in real life. Going all moral guardian "dude, nuking people is wrong" means completely missing the point. But you aren't pretending that you are a "good guy" and "doing the morally right thing" while you do that. You aren't saying "In this game nuking people is totally virtuous behavior." You are playing a game and having fun, while being fully aware that this isn't in line with your real world values.


Third, if those people are confusing the game with the real world, then I'd bash those real world beliefs, not the game.
And especially not an innocent game practice that only get problematic when twisted beyond recognition.They are imposing their real world beliefs into the alignment system of the game. Bashing one is bashing the other.

There is a difference between this statement:
"In this game your character can torture 'evil' children for fun"

and this statement:
"In this game your character can torture 'evil' children for fun and still qualify as one of the 'good' guys"

Unless you make this statement:
"In this world, 'alignment' is so distorted by the powers of the insane gods that a character could torture 'evil' children for fun and still qualify as one of the 'good' guys. Your character doesn't have to agree with this morality, but that's what is enforced by the gods"

hamishspence
2018-01-17, 01:41 PM
That's not how the trolley problem works. It is a dilemma where the two options are basically:
1 - do nothing and a group of people die
2 - do something and only one person dies (but that person wasn't in danger for option 1)

Your airplane problem isn't a dilemma... there is no "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario going on... just a "how can I minimize damages".
They're in danger by being on tracks in the first place.

Switching a track, is "minimising damages".

It is "pushing the fat person into the path of the trolley to stop it" that's fundamentally different from the airplane problem.

Tanarii
2018-01-17, 01:51 PM
Well, if you suddenly decide to commit genocide then yes, this is a single evil act that outweights all good acts. Even if you kill a person for no good reason, that's enough to call you evil until you seriously repent it.A person could do actively Good works all their life, and yet they kill someone once for "no good reason", and continue doing seriously Good works, but never repent the killing ... and they're Evil? This is exactly what I mean by "Fall from Grace" thinking. If you prefer: the weight of single Evil actions always outweighs the cumulative of small Good actions. They never match up on the "balancing scale".

I'm not saying such thinking is wrong! But it is a common assumption, at a gut level, for most people. And it's one that's not necessarily supported by most edition's Alignment systems. IMO it needs to be pointed out as a common assumption, exactly because it is so often brought into the discussion without being explicitly defined as what it is.


A sufficiently evil act may very well do so. Negligent homicide seems a stretch, as does "any killing" (since that would include self defense).

The idea that, in general, a single Evil act makes you Evil is not supported, at least in most editions. The exception of Paladins falling from a single Evil act proves the rule in this case, as if a single evil act turned *anyone* Evil, then it wouldn't need to be called out specifically for paladins. And note that even with Paladins it has to be knowing and intentional, IIRC.

If your point is "a lot of people have strange ideas about alignment that aren't really supported by the rules or logic", well, I'll agree with that.The assumption of "Fall from Grace" and "Evil actions generally outweigh Good actions" may or may not be applicable to Alignment, depending on how that specific edition's Alignment works. If it's like Star Wars Light vs Dark side in most computer and table top games, where individual actions carry a certain value of "Good" or "Evil" or "Lawful" or "Chaos" it's really a matter of making sure that the group is in agreement on the values, so that it IS possible for a lifetime of Good works to balance out one single horrifically Evil act. Or not, depending on the morality value of the horrifically Evil act.

If it's a general behavior (like 5e), it's not a particularly valid assumption at all. In 5e, a Good character might very well Murder due to their Flaw once in a single specific situation, and still be a Good character if their prior and future behavior matches their particular Good alignment's typical behavior.

2D8HP
2018-01-17, 02:00 PM
...I'm saying that most people decide what alignment means in game based on their real life value system. Not the other way around.....
That's true for these on-line discussions, unlike say "Wisdom" which in-game means something different than how it's usually used, "Charisma" is now used in-game for persuasiveness, which is closer to it's dictionary meaning, rather than using it as a synonym for "hot or not" as I saw it mostly used years ago, but other than DM's looking at the listed alignments in the Monster Manual, to see how likely a creature was to attack the PC's, I've never actually noticed Alignment mentioned much at the table, if it all.

hamishspence
2018-01-17, 02:01 PM
A person could do actively Good works all their life, and yet they kill someone once for "no good reason", and continue doing seriously Good works, but never repent the killing ... and they're Evil? This is exactly what I mean by "Fall from Grace" thinking. If you prefer: the weight of single Evil actions always outweighs the cumulative of small Good actions. They never match up on the "balancing scale".

I'm not saying such thinking is wrong! But it is a common assumption, at a gut level, for most people. And it's one that's not necessarily supported by most edition's Alignment systems. IMO it needs to be pointed out as a common assumption, exactly because it is so often brought into the discussion without being explicitly defined as what it is..

The only 3.5 ed source that takes this approach to the afterlife (that you, a Lawful character in this case, with a few Evil acts under your belt, go to the Nine Hells no matter how much good you do) is Fiendish Codex 2.

And if you do repent your evil acts (but die having not yet atoned for them) you get a "second chance" being brought back to life as a Hellbred.

It also says nothing about your actual alignment - so, the unrepentant double murderer character (Murder is 5 pt Evil/Corrupt act, 9 pts of Corruption trips the afterlife trigger) - might be Neutral, or even Good if the player convinces the DM to focus on what the majority of the character's acts are like.

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 02:19 PM
They're in danger by being on tracks in the first place.

Switching a track, is "minimising damages".I'm saying that for the airplane one, minimizing damages is the only thing you are doing. There is no downside, there is no consequence. With the trolley, when you minimize damages there is a consequence of killing one innocent bystander. That innocent bystander's blood is on the hands of the person who decided to pull the switch... even though they saved the lives of the others.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-17, 02:24 PM
I'm saying that for the airplane one, minimizing damages is the only thing you are doing. There is no downside, there is no consequence. With the trolley, when you minimize damages there is a consequence of killing one innocent bystander. That innocent bystander's blood is on the hands of the person who decided to pull the switch... even though they saved the lives of the others.

I'd say that the blood from either outcome is on the hands of the person who set up the scenario.

Also, I'd have thought that the innocent bystander would also be tied to the tracks, such that it was "these multiple people tied to the tracks die" or "this one person tied to the tracks dies". If the bystander isn't tied to the tracks, then he can get the heck out of the way and the choice is easy and bloodless.

hamishspence
2018-01-17, 02:24 PM
I'm saying that for the airplane one, minimizing damages is the only thing you are doing. There is no downside, there is no consequence.

There's the consequence of having altered course. The families of the people who were landed on, who would not have been killed if course had not been altered, would be a little upset, even if they might be convinced that it was necessary.

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 02:41 PM
There's the consequence of having altered course. The families of the people who were landed on, who would not have been killed if course had not been altered, would be a little upset, even if they might be convinced that it was necessary.Yes, good point that is the same dilemma. Clearly I didn't read the scenario fully.

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 02:45 PM
I'd say that the blood from either outcome is on the hands of the person who set up the scenario.If the scenario were placed into a game then yes... but if this is a "real world" thought experiment, then nobody "set up the scenario" it is something that you hypothetically stumble into.

We face all sorts of real world dilemmas on a regular basis... the trolley problem is just a thought experiment that takes those dilemmas to an extreme, to see what people's moral response is.

Florian
2018-01-17, 03:04 PM
If the scenario were placed into a game then yes... but if this is a "real world" thought experiment, then nobody "set up the scenario" it is something that you hypothetically stumble into.

We face all sorts of real world dilemmas on a regular basis... the trolley problem is just a thought experiment that takes those dilemmas to an extreme, to see what people's moral response is.

And it´s Kindergarten. The real question is whether you take responsibility for your action and be ready to face the blame.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-17, 03:06 PM
If the scenario were placed into a game then yes... but if this is a "real world" thought experiment, then nobody "set up the scenario" it is something that you hypothetically stumble into.

We face all sorts of real world dilemmas on a regular basis... the trolley problem is just a thought experiment that takes those dilemmas to an extreme, to see what people's moral response is.

How did all those people get tied to the tracks if no one set it up?

If they're not tied to the tracks, then they can move and there's no dilemma.

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 03:20 PM
How did all those people get tied to the tracks if no one set it up?

If they're not tied to the tracks, then they can move and there's no dilemma.the standard “trolly dilemma” doesn’t have anyone tied to tracks. People just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they in theory can’t move because they don’t have time, or aren’t aware in time or something.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-17, 03:25 PM
the standard “trolly dilemma” doesn’t have anyone tied to tracks. People just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they in theory can’t move because they don’t have time, or aren’t aware in time or something.

Which then calls into question whether there's time to realize what's happening, make a moral decision, and switch the tracks.

King of Nowhere
2018-01-17, 03:25 PM
Not helping people in need is pretty much Neutral by most descriptions of alignment. It kind of defines Neutral on the Good/Evil axis - helping others, at no benefit to yourself, is exactly what a Good act is!

I'd generally agree with this, but not in a life-or-death situation with little to no risk from the person doing the helping. General rules fall apart in the face of extreme enough situations. If you don't jump into the river to rescue a drowning person, well, jumping into the river would have put you at risk too, I'd call it neutral; if you had a rope handy, and you refuse to throw it, then I'd say denying help to a dieing person because you can't be bothered to spend some minutes, with no risk for yourself, is a pretty evil act. But we're going on a tangent here.


You are putting the cart before the horse.

I'm saying that most people decide what alignment means in game based on their real life value system. Not the other way around.

But you aren't pretending that you are a "good guy" and "doing the morally right thing" while you do that. You aren't saying "In this game nuking people is totally virtuous behavior." You are playing a game and having fun, while being fully aware that this isn't in line with your real world values.

They are imposing their real world beliefs into the alignment system of the game. Bashing one is bashing the other.

There is a difference between this statement:
"In this game your character can torture 'evil' children for fun"

and this statement:
"In this game your character can torture 'evil' children for fun and still qualify as one of the 'good' guys"

Unless you make this statement:
"In this world, 'alignment' is so distorted by the powers of the insane gods that a character could torture 'evil' children for fun and still qualify as one of the 'good' guys. Your character doesn't have to agree with this morality, but that's what is enforced by the gods"

Ah, ok. Now I see your point better.
Still, I think you're not giving gamers enough credit. Yes, some people do apply their real life values to alignment. I'm one of them. But those people are the ones who do NOT say "orcs are evil, let's kill everyone". They are the people that will have blurred sides and adventures with difficult moral choices, where paladins may get their hands dirty from time to time and you need to judge case-by-case what to do with enemy noncombatants, or with those who surrender.
Those others gamers who are applying the "alignment makes for easy targeting" approach do not apply their values from real life. At least, I've never seen anyone propose (not seriously at least) to exterminate all relatives of terrorists because "they are evil". Which is what is done with orcs in those groups that you bash.
To be fair, I have never seen a group who uses that version of alignment and morality. But I think, if it was a common view, it would be heard more often.
P.S. If you think of comments in online newspapers, most of those people are venting out their emotions and do not really think what they write. I say it because I know several people like that.


A person could do actively Good works all their life, and yet they kill someone once for "no good reason", and continue doing seriously Good works, but never repent the killing ... and they're Evil? This is exactly what I mean by "Fall from Grace" thinking. If you prefer: the weight of single Evil actions always outweighs the cumulative of small Good actions. They never match up on the "balancing scale".

Well, for every rule you can find exceptions, if you look at sufficnetly extreme or strange cases. Still, it is difficult to accept the quoted argument.
I mean, there is this absolutely genuinely good person, who helps other people all his life, right? And then this guy sudddenly decides to murder someone. And then he goes on to do good, and he never repents murdering that someone. What kind of person is this? If he's a truly good person, and he killed somebody in a moment of rage, then he'll surely regret it. If he does not regret because he had a good reason for doing it, then the "for no good reason" condition falls. Looks like the only possibility is that the guy is totally nuts, and should seek professional help.

Tanarii
2018-01-17, 03:27 PM
That the trolley problem is not yet thoroughly discredited bunk, just drives home the point that the creators of D&D Alignment had a better grasp on the realities of morality and ethics than people who "study" it in real life.

(By which I mean they can't even clear that low bar.)


Well, for every rule you can find exceptions, if you look at sufficnetly extreme or strange cases. Still, it is difficult to accept the quoted argument.
I mean, there is this absolutely genuinely good person, who helps other people all his life, right? And then this guy sudddenly decides to murder someone. And then he goes on to do good, and he never repents murdering that someone. What kind of person is this? If he's a truly good person, and he killed somebody in a moment of rage, then he'll surely regret it. If he does not regret because he had a good reason for doing it, then the "for no good reason" condition falls. Looks like the only possibility is that the guy is totally nuts, and should seek professional help.
I agree it's a rather extreme outlier case, and probably merits psychological examination.

Let's instead make it someone that murders due to reason, a Bond is involved (5e style), and thus has no regrets. One time only. And otherwise has a consistently has a good typical associated behavior. In 5e Alignments, that should be a Good character. But fall from Grace and single Evil Actions count most thinkers will rarely agree with that.

Florian
2018-01-17, 03:39 PM
@King of Nowhere:

Plus, notice the lack of "Orc children" anywhere in those games. Should give a hint.

2D8HP
2018-01-17, 03:48 PM
That the trolley problem.My first exposure to the "Trolley problem" was in a 2009 "Justice" broadcast of a Harvard University lecture...


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TSH-m5GtrzE

....which (Full disclosure: I have never taken any College/University classes, but I've read some textbooks that my wife had from her time as a Harvard law student), after my initial gratitude upon seeing it televised, quickly made me reflect on how I could see no extra merit in the banter of the college students than I could in the minds of most of my inferiourly educates co-workers... [extended rant]

...... the only place other than this Forum that I have encountered the "trolley problem" is:

Existential Comic #106 (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/106)

ImNotTrevor
2018-01-17, 03:52 PM
That the trolley problem is not yet thoroughly discredited bunk, just drives home the point that the creators of D&D Alignment had a better grasp on the realities of morality and ethics than people who "study" it in real life.

(By which I mean they can't even clear that low bar.)

It's a thought experiment.
Like the ones that were used to demonstrate the principles of relativity.

If you think the point is to present a common and realistic problem, then you're sorely mistaken.

It could be simplified, though, if the circumstances bother you.

You are in a room with a button. If you push it, 1 person will die. If you don't, 5 will die. You have 3 seconds. Go.

It is interesting for its merit as a QUESTION, not its merit as a scenario and definitely not for answering questions. You can't debunk a question.

Tanarii
2018-01-17, 03:52 PM
...... the only place other than this Forum that I have encountered the "trolley problem" is:

Existential Comic #106 (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/106)
Lol I like that.

It's entirely possible I'm not being fair to philosophers that study morality. And that the Trolley Problem is thoroughly discredited bunk, that gets dragged out and used anyway both by freshmen professors and forum posters. It's not like that doesn't happen all the time in many other cases.

But the impression I get is its more like Parallel Universes & quantum physics, a BS thought experiment gone bad based on a underlying premise extended too far, that too many people who study the subject don't understand is bunk.

Aliquid
2018-01-17, 05:15 PM
Which then calls into question whether there's time to realize what's happening, make a moral decision, and switch the tracks.
Agreed. My understanding is that someone is beside the switch and can see the impending tragedy. They have basically a second to decide “pull the switch or not”. That isn’t enough time to make a moral decision. It is enough time to make a gut decision.

Me personally, I wouldn’t pull the switch, not because of any moral belief... but because I would freeze and respond too slowly.

Often the scenario is put forward as not “what would you do” but “John saw this scenario and pulled the switch. Did he do the right thing? Can the dead person’s family justifiably go after him for manslaughter? Etc

Arbane
2018-01-17, 05:21 PM
Pffft. We can do better than that (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1368#post396939159).



Did someone mention alignment in a D&D thread?

On Twin Faerun, a druid(me) in a town is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the druid can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows trolleys. The druid is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the druid can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single lawful neutral cleric, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the druid steers the trolley to the right. If the cleric on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty elves (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the elves' caravan will be crossing later that night). One of the elves that will be killed would have grown up to become a Lawful Evil tyrant who would make good utilitarian halflings do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become Drizzt, while a third would invent the Vancian Magic system.

If the druid chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a Chaotic Good bard on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local temple that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows hearts. If the bard on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the cleric on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten dwarves: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local temple for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the carvan of elves will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the wizard responsible for putting the druid at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis spells available, however the druid does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the druid's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other druids and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the druid chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue (Chaotic Good), while if the druid chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result (Lawful Evil). Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the druid in such a manner that the druid is never sure if it is being deceived.


QUESTION: What should I do to avoid losing my powers?

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-17, 05:23 PM
The thing is though... if the game suddenly switches to "frail seniors who beg for mercy", and all the cheering stops, except for one guy who keeps going "yeah! Ha! Smash those seniors. ha, ha, ha... *sigh* look at them beg". Many people would feel uncomfortable around that person, and worry about his mental health.

And maybe they have a reason to, but only because you moved the goal posts from one end of the field to another.

Hint: sudden, realistic portrayal of human suffering (like the above example) is not psychologically the same as expected, unrealistic suffering of anti-humans (slaughter of xenomorphs, orcs, or demons).

You don't even have to change the "unrealistic" part, only the "sudden". For example, people have different reactions to horror movies on second and further viewings. The first view has much greater shock factor which distract from other traits of the movies, where as once the shock factor is gone, analysis and humour become possible. That is, the person who is morally shocked by the slaughter of seniors, and the person who laughs at their destruction, can be the same person, just at different points of time.


What I'm saying is that being ok with in game infanticide is a similar thing (although to a much lesser degree). i.e. most people seem to feel uncomfortable with it, and will look at you (or me) funny if we say "what's the big deal, it's a goblin"

The body of players who gleefully run over human civilians in GTA is probably larger than the entire player base of tabletop RPGs. That is, I vehemently disagree with your assessment of "most people". Feeling moral discomfort over infanticide of orcs is niche concern for people in a niche hobby. The only times when such discomfort has reached mainstream has been during moral panics over how new media is bad to children, such as the Satanic panic over D&D


There are always boundaries, and the boundaries are different for everyone. Some people think that the most vile person just needs a hug, and they will turn nice...

And I don't disagree with that, I disagree over which sort of boundaries are normal, or, which should be used as the basis for deciding whether something is a genuine problem.

I know there are people who get upset over any sort of fictional violence, but using those people as a standard for what is morally bad in games makes about as much sense as using blind people as standards for visual arts, deaf people as standards for music, or Max_Killjoy as standard for using fiction tropes in RPGs is.


I would suggest another category: people who can't comprehend someone different than them.

Normal people comprehend just fine why violence against fictional beings is morally a non-problem and why violence in games is fun.

.
Many people can get past that mental hurdle (some people are different than me), but they still can't imagine a sentient creature that isn't human.

True, but also irrelevant, because people have no problem understanding that game objects are unreal and hence arguments about them have different weight than arguments about real humans.


And this is why they can't imagine such a creature being "always evil"... because that would mean that a human could be "always evil", and they don't want to go there.

You may be right, you mayve wrong, but you're also chasing a red herring.

The only thing that's required for a normal person to happily genocide xenomorphs, devils, orcs or whatever is for them to grok the trivial fact that the game events are unreal, and hence no real killing is taking place. Worrying about philosophical implications of the concept of "always evil" is domain of smart people who are being stupid in a very particular way, and people who listen to their rhetoric.

That is, the problem you describe is an artificial one that's entirely avoided by not making the argument you're trying to make in the first place.


Not quite. My concern is more that (as above), there are people that can't separate fantasy creatures with humans... and as such when I say "monster babies can be evil", they subconsciously hear "human babies can be evil", and I don't want them to hear me saying that... even if that isn't what I mean. My concern is more the perception of others than my own perception.

And I don't disagree about the existence of such people. I disagree about using them as a standard for what's normal, or what' good gaming. Because while your argument is not exactly the same as moral alarmists (moral alarmists would claim I genuinely mean human babies are evil, or would come to believe that as result of playing games), it on effect asks me to bow to their whims.

I'll have none of that, thank you very much.

If someone thinks that when I say killing Xenomorph larvae (etc.) is morally acceptable in a game and thinks I am endorsing real-life infanticide, the problem isn't me nor the xenomorphs (etc.).

This is not a hypothetical question nor a hypothetical answer. All of my hobbies have been subject to bizarre preconceptions, stereotypes and moral panic from the part of outsiders. "Having concern" over incorrect "subconscious" perceptions of people would force me to hide under a rock.

Tanarii
2018-01-17, 05:59 PM
Pffft. We can do better than that (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1368#post396939159).Any question that involves killing / not killing child-Drizzt has an obvious answer: always kill Drizzt. There is no greater evil than letting child-Drizzt live, no matter the resulting consequences.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-17, 06:04 PM
[The Trolley Problem is] Kindergarten.

Actually 7th or 8th grade*) (ages 13 to 14) of elementary school where I'm from. But yes, a concept that's meant to serve as introduction to the concept of moral dilemmas is basic. (Which is also why people like Max_Killjoy nitpicking it are being, bluntly, stupid. It's the equivalent of saying the fable of Frog and the Scorpion is bad because real animals don't talk.)

*) Though I recall we went over the Heinz dilemma in the lower grades, possibly 2nd or 3rd. (Ages 8 to 9)

---


The "objective morality" that both the detractors and defenders of Alignment alike describe... is sick, an absurdist horror show where supposed morality is defined simplistically by the actions one takes.

D&D is a game with Judeo-Christian devils, Lovecraftian cosmic horrors, vampires, werewolves and ghosts from gothic horror, Aesir and other polyteistic pantheons with decidedly non-modern morals, as well as a host of completely original creatures with such identifying traits as eating brains, killing you by looking, or masquerading as mundande objects in order to kill and deceive you.

In other words: why do you object to the game being an absurdist horror show on one level, when the potential to be so is built into the game at all levels?

Beyond a simple matter of taste, being a sick, absurdist horror show is no obstacle to being a good game. Which is both why your statement fails as a criticism of the Alignment system, and why Lamentations of the Flame Princess is one of the more successfull retroclones. :smalltongue:

2D8HP
2018-01-17, 06:45 PM
Pffft. We can do better than that (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1368#post396939159).
QUESTION: What should I do to avoid losing my powers?
:biggrin:

Thanks for that.

I'm totally going to steal make proper use of that in future threads if some doesn't beat my to it.



using those people as a standard for what is morally bad in games makes about as much sense as using blind people as standards for visual arts, deaf people as standards for music, or *********** as standard for using fiction tropes in RPGs is.
..
:eek:

I'm completely appalled that you would single out *********** for ridicule like that, and I will post a lengthy screed on how offended I am as soon as I can stop laughing and get up off the floor.


Actually 7th or 8th grade*) (ages 13 to 14) of elementary school where I'm from..
Again someone cites something from school that I don't remember at all.

Which makes me wonder what exactly was taught?

I remember the pain of getting hit with in dodgeball, the pain of getting tackled in smear the queer, how much less painful cutting PE and hanging out with the girls who went out of the gym and smoked, instead of staying with the other boys hitting each other was, and that whatever was in the teachers thermos smelled very strong.

That's about it.


....and why Lamentations of the Flame Princess is one of the more successfull retroclones. :smalltongue:.
I really like the rules for LotFP, but I would think twice before showing any of the art outside of a GWAR concert.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-17, 07:03 PM
I really like the rules for LotFP, but I would think twice before showing any of the art outside of a GWAR concert.


That's about right... though I'm not so enthused about the rules either.




Again someone cites something from school that I don't remember at all.

Which makes me wonder what exactly was taught?


Elementary and middle school in my experience were not places concerned with teaching about moral dilemmas or philosophy.

In college, I dodged taking any additional PHIL classes because I got sick of debates about whether the chair I was sitting in was in fact real...

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-17, 07:11 PM
Again someone cites something from school that I don't remember at all.

Which makes me wonder what exactly was taught?

IIRC your elementary school days took several decades before me and in a different country.

As an amusing coincidence, my professional education is as a heating, plumbing and airconditioning mechanic (AKA plumber), but I'm preeeetty sure that if we started citing to each other what we learned in trade school (or equivalent), we'd just end up staring dumbly at each other.

Bohandas
2018-01-17, 07:15 PM
I think ultimately the purpose of including the good-evil axis is to distinguish (correctly) that order and chaos are not the same thing as good and evil

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-17, 07:39 PM
That's about right... though I'm not so enthused about the rules either.

I bought the game because I liked the cover art and was disappointed that it turned out to be a basic D&D retroclone.

The system's primary virtue is that it is the cleanest, simplest, most playble version of B/X or OD&D available. The things which are unique to the game are in the modules and in the scenario design philosophy. It just turned out that being playable is good enough when the modules are actually interesting.

2D8HP
2018-01-17, 08:21 PM
I bought the game because I liked the cover art and was disappointed that it turned out to be a basic D&D retroclone.

The system's primary virtue is that it is the cleanest, simplest, most playble version of B/X or OD&D available.....
Yeah, that's what I like about it, because the rules that I can really remember best are pre Players Handbook D&D, and RuneQuest.

D&D because it was imprinted early, and BRP/Coc/RuneQuest/etc. because it was also imprinted early, and is pretty intuitive, unfortunately not as fun as D&D, but the BRP gonzo fantasy game Magic World looked like it could be fun since it has makes more sense/intuitive rules but with a D&D like setting, but few want to play it, so it's a moot point.

RedMage125
2018-01-17, 11:24 PM
First off, hamishspence, Calthropstu, and King of Nowhere, bravo, I second EVERYTHING you both said, so much.

the standard “trolly dilemma” doesn’t have anyone tied to tracks. People just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they in theory can’t move because they don’t have time, or aren’t aware in time or something.
You are incorrect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), sir or madame.


Multiple people in this thread who are advocates of Alignment as useful have described exactly what I just laid out:

absolute objective morality
"good" and "evil" as absolute cosmic forces
"good" and "evil" judged purely by an individual's actions with no regard for intent, motive, circumstances, or limited choices


Someone even claimed that under D&D alignment, the only non-evil choice in the Trolley Problem was to walk away / do nothing, because as soon as the character touched the switch and chose to direct the trolley, they were the one who had killed either the one person or the X number of people, and not the person who set up the situation.

I'll go back and find quotes if I have to.
Everything I bolded is a lie.

BoVD and BoED are both very clear that Intent and Conxtext matter as much as Action, and you have been told this before, so now you're actually lying on purpose.

And I'm the one that you are misquoting about the Trolley Problem. I said the only clear option for a PALADIN to do would be to not pull the lever. Because whether or not the paladin would fall for pulling the lever is in question, it could be argued either way that he "killed" the single person. But it is-by the RAW-very clear that he would not fall for refusing to pull the lever. Failing to do Good or Evil is a morally Neutral act. And paladins do not fall for committing a morally Neutral act.

I also explicitly said -multiple times- that the person who tied all those people to the tracks in the first place committed the greatest evil act, and the weight of any of those deaths falls on that person.



I'd say that the blood from either outcome is on the hands of the person who set up the scenario.

Also, I'd have thought that the innocent bystander would also be tied to the tracks, such that it was "these multiple people tied to the tracks die" or "this one person tied to the tracks dies". If the bystander isn't tied to the tracks, then he can get the heck out of the way and the choice is easy and bloodless.
OF course the blood is primarily on the hands of the person who set it up, that's what we've been saying. To imply that we've been pushing for anything else is intellectually dishonest on your part. The person standing at the switch is given the binary choice of "pull a switch to make 1 person in the trap die" or "do nothing and 5 people in the trap die". Which is a catch 22, with no clear act of intent on the art of the person at the switch, as all 6 people are in mortal danger from the guy who put them in the trap in the first place. Which is why I have said from the get-go, that the Fat Man variant is a better example for discussing D&D alignment.

In the "Fat Man" variant of the Trolley problem, the fat man is an innocent bystander, near but not on the tracks. He gets pushed in front of the trolley at the last moment, gets hit, but is so fat that he stops the trolley and thus saves all 5 people. THAT option requires the PC to make a choice to intentionally kill someone who was NOT in mortal danger to save others.

Also of interest is the "Fat Villain" variant, wherein said Fat Man near the tracks IS the villain who tied the 5 people to the tracks to begin with. While that conundrum -by real world standard-is ethically equivalent, by D&D standards it is clearly a non-evil act to kill the villain in the process of saving the 5 people he was going to murder via trolley.



So, if that concept of Alignment isn't in any of the books, and it's just so not fair...

Where do so many people who've played D&D get that exact impression of Alignment from?

Why do so many people play it that way, or run into others who play it that way?

Why are there so many discussions of Alignment that come down to grossly oversimplified platitudes being lobbed back and forth?

Where do all these silly "moral trap" Paladin falls we hear about come from?

Why do so many players have horror stories about another player telling them "your character wouldn't do that, his alignment is _____!"
Remember when I said the problem with all of those thing was PEOPLE? People who MISUSE the way alignment is supposed to work. I said that, several times.

And you cannot, with any kind of logical cohesiveness, say that a tool is objectively "bad" because bad things happen only when it is misused.




It's a choice between "terrible X" and "terrible Y" because those are the choices, it has nothing to do with my say-so.
According to you, it does.

You bring ZERO support for your argument.

You back up NOTHING of your claims with quotes from the text.

Your claims are baseless, intentional LIES, with no foundation in the truth.

The ONLY thing you say is "alignment is either a bad x or a bad y, and nothing else is true" with no evidence to support anything you say. So yes, it is, just on your "say-so".



If you want to draw up Team A and Team B, use different terms and don't conflate it with morality by your choice of terms.

If you want to actually explore moral uncertainty, quandaries, and disputes... then you can't present caricature of morality based on laundry lists of "good acts" and "evil acts" supposedly adjudicated by cosmic forces, where taking the least-bad option, or having a choice between two bad options imposed on you, or being outright tricked into doing something, can all result in YOU being held accountable for an "evil act" regardless of your intent or motivation. That's not moral complexity, that's a sick joke. And if "the universe" really does have forces that impose that kind of judgement, then "the universe" is morally bankrupt and every character living in it should go outside a raise a one-finger salute to the sky and tell "the universe " to go F itself.
Except that the RAW books that actually delve into this show-in black and white text-that you are wrong.

The BoVD and the BoED both say that both Actions and Intent matter.

The DMG says that alignment change is gradual, not instantaneous. And furthermore that a person who commits both Good and Evil acts is Neutral. Clearly this includes people who commit Evil Acts as a means to committing Good Acts. The DMG also stipulates that Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality, so your earlier claim about "doing nothing" is also a falsehood.

Yes, there are some acts that are Evil no matter what the consequence. Damaging and Harming the Soul, Consorting With Fiends, Creation of the Undead...all of these things are objectively Evil, and no amount of excuses or moral postulating can change that. Let's take Creation of Undead. According to the default RAW of D&D, that is a crime against the universe to create "a corrupt mockery of life and purity". If you animate a bunch of undead, and use them to do Good, you HAVE committed both a Good act and an Evil act. God forbid you should be morally held accountable for the actions you commit. What kind of self-serving narcissistic ass thinks he shouldn't be "held accountable" for his actions?



You can call it "a lie" all you want. Doesn't make it any less true.
You can call it "true" all you want. Doesn't make it any less a lie.

See how that works?

Can you provide a single shred of objective evidence to support your claims? Keep in mind, for purposes of forum discussion (since the totality of all possible house rules are impossible to account for), the ONLY thing that can be considered FACT is what is in print in the Rules As Written. Those are objective sources. Ones that we, the other participants in this discussion, can verify for ourselves-check your sources, as it were.

I challenge you to provide FACTUAL sources about the RAW that say what you claim is true, or admit your claims were false. Maybe you were just mistaken. Like I said before (maybe it was to someone else), perhaps the people you initially played with TOLD you that alignment was that, and you believed it, and you never read the rulebooks with an open mind ever again.

So how about it? Put up or shut up. You made your claim, I call bullsh*t. Ante up some evidence or fold.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-18, 12:03 AM
This thread is not just you posting and everyone responding to what you post. Other people have said things, and other people are responding to them, not you. And my comments are based on what has actually been said, and how alignment is actually used by players and discussed by players across multiple decades and multiple editions.

Not that it matters, since you are obviously incapable of having a conversation without resorting to insults and calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar.

If you reply to any of my posts on this thread again, I will report you for personal attacks, and place you on ignore.

"Conversation" over.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-18, 12:25 AM
We must be reading different threads, because I see none of them (ok, maybe a bit of the first two, but taken in context). Granted, I skipped a couple pages, but still. We must be interpreting the same texts in different ways.
But anyway, if there are people advocating for those things, those people are wrong.


The third one -- what do you think "an act that is evil no matter what, no matter the circumstances" is, other than a judgement based purely on the action and with no consideration for intent, motive, or circumstances?

Or we could just go with this comment, focusing on the part bolded:



it means only that each individual is ultimately judged by an ENTIRELY objective and dispassionate judge that does not waiver (the cosmic forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos). In the default D&D world, even the gods are beholden to these forces, and since the forces are completely objective and dispassionate, they are not swayed by any kind of excuses or moral vacillating. A given character may have justification for the horrible things he does. He may, in fact, be doing it for the greater good of a community or a population. His people may love him and think him a hero. But his actions will always be judged by an objective measure.


Sure reads like "no matter why you did it, no matter what outcome you wanted, no matter what outcome arose from it, no matter what the circumstances were, you did an evil thing and you'll be judged for it".




I'd argue that choice is evil too, because you refuse to help those in need.


Which just makes the "moral trap" problem bigger.

Someone has set up a situation where whoever happens to walk by as the train is approaching is forced to "Do Evil" under this moral "standard".

Do nothing? Evil, because they refused to help.
Touch the lever and choose whether one or ten people die? Evil, because their decision lead to one or ten deaths.

And now the "cosmic forces" of "morality" judge that person to have "done evil" no matter what. It's utterly lacking in justice of any kind. A universe in which this is true is a sick universe. I find such a universe, fictional as it may be, morally repugnant, utterly loathsome, and completely objectionable.

Aliquid
2018-01-18, 12:38 AM
You are incorrect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), sir or madame.
Interesting, that's not how I learned it... If that is truly the official scenario, I am in agreement with Max_Killjoy, the dilemma is utterly pointless and contrived because the one who tied them up has all of the blood on their hands.

Bohandas
2018-01-18, 01:18 AM
Regarding the orc babies thing, it should be noted that Orcs are not an "always evil" race or even "usually evil". Their alignment tendency is merely "often chaotic evil"

Mordaedil
2018-01-18, 02:23 AM
The trolley problem in D&D:

Good: Change the track to hit the one person.

Neutral: Freeze, do not change tracks.

Evil:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/727/DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.png

Florian
2018-01-18, 02:49 AM
Interesting, that's not how I learned it... If that is truly the official scenario, I am in agreement with Max_Killjoy, the dilemma is utterly pointless and contrived because the one who tied them up has all of the blood on their hands.

Last year, there was a great feature film on tv. Basic hostage situation, terrorists wanting to crash a plane into a fully filled stadium, a jet fighter pilot shooting them down and going for trial. After the speeches, the film stopped, two hotline numbers appeared and the audience had roughly 30 mins time to decide whether guilt or not and make the decision call.

So far, so good, so overly simplistic.

The real fun started when after that, Fischer, then high judge of the supreme court, came on and explained why the whole "Trolley / Terrorist" scenario is utter horse manure and should only be used to show freshmen law students that a "good / evil" question will never provide meaningful results, will often need "god or perfect knowledge". The he went on about outside force, direct force, intention, the usual stuff, but also went on that our german legal system includes some very heavy-handed elements based on objective morality on how they change the outcome(*).

(*) Yes, we do have those elements and also ways to deal with the paradoxes that come up by using them.

RazorChain
2018-01-18, 04:36 AM
Interesting, that's not how I learned it... If that is truly the official scenario, I am in agreement with Max_Killjoy, the dilemma is utterly pointless and contrived because the one who tied them up has all of the blood on their hands.

Actually you are right, the original dilemma has you steering a tram where there is 1 man working on one track and 5 men working on the other and you have to make a choice. If you guys actually read the whole of the wikipage from the link that Redmage posted then you would have found out

Morty
2018-01-18, 04:38 AM
Regarding the orc babies thing, it should be noted that Orcs are not an "always evil" race or even "usually evil". Their alignment tendency is merely "often chaotic evil"

That's what the rules say, technically, but you wouldn't know it from their descriptions, which don't account for non-evil examples. Later editions (4E, 5E, not sure about Pathfinder) drop the usually/often/always distinction and just call them evil. Then the descriptions double down on how vile and deserving of death they are.

Mordaedil
2018-01-18, 04:40 AM
Vsauce on YouTube also put people through the trolley problem, calling in people expecting to be part of something entirely else, and then they were presented with video footage and a switch that put all of the responsibilities on their hands.

Only 2 flipped the switch and rest let the train run down the 5 people working on the rail because they didn't mess with the controls. All of them tried to find someone that could intervene in their place.

RazorChain
2018-01-18, 04:53 AM
Vsauce on YouTube also put people through the trolley problem, calling in people expecting to be part of something entirely else, and then they were presented with video footage and a switch that put all of the responsibilities on their hands.

Only 2 flipped the switch and rest let the train run down the 5 people working on the rail because they didn't mess with the controls. All of them tried to find someone that could intervene in their place.

It's a very interesting show, the mind field

Here is the link to the show on the trolley problem


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiA

Tanarii
2018-01-18, 04:56 AM
Regarding the orc babies thing, it should be noted that Orcs are not an "always evil" race or even "usually evil". Their alignment tendency is merely "often chaotic evil"
That's not the current edition lore. They're Chaotic Evil, with their God whispering in their mind encouraging them to evil. Technically free willed, but limited and unlikely to be anything except Chaotic Evil due to divine influence. They also are describe are pillaging raiders, including the term 'Tribes like Plagues'.

If we're going to bring in dead edition lore, all editions Classic through 4e are on the table. Including gygaxian naturalism, which is where we get Orc and other humanoid babies (whelps) in Lairs & Modules from in the first place. Including infamously in B2, which was the first D&D experience for a generation of players.

I recently ran B2 adapted to 5e, and left the whelps in, with mixed results. It made things a pain for the players. It added and "interesting" element. But ultimately, they didn't want to have to deal with morality of accidentally fireballing a bunch of Gnoll whelps, which is what happened in the final run into the caves, in their Friday night fun of "eat pizza, throw dice, and murderhero orcs and other humanoids" game. I promised them no more whelps BS after that.

There's a reason Orcs and other monsters are structured to be the bad guys, and Alignment exists to create a basic Us vs Them structure. It's exactly what many players and tables want.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-18, 05:04 AM
Interesting, that's not how I learned it... If that is truly the official scenario, I am in agreement with Max_Killjoy, the dilemma is utterly pointless and contrived because the one who tied them up has all of the blood on their hands.

As demonstrated by empirical research that uses the trolley problem, the underlined part is not actually agreed upon by all peoples, nor is the point of the exercise to determine whether the person who tied the people on the tracks is guilty. Answering whether that person is guilty does not actually answer what you are supposed to do in the situation.

Tanarii
2018-01-18, 05:23 AM
The trolley problem is bad, and you should feel bad for either bringing it up, or engaging in a debate about it, instead of just dismissing it as bunk and moving on.

What it actually tells us about human morality is:
- some people mistakenly believe stupid hypotheticals tell us something about humanity morality
- some people mistakenly believe a contrived experiment will tell them something about their own, or another specific humans, morality
- some people are more than willing to let themselves get sucked into the morass of a discussion on a pointless hypothetical, especially in an online forum debate.

The latter is hardly surprising. And amusingly, also applies to Alignment threads and me. :smallamused: (edit: although I usually try to avoid the stupid extreme hypotheticals they often involve, as opposed to stuff that might actually happen at a table.)

Florian
2018-01-18, 05:46 AM
The trolley problem is bad, and you should feel bad for either bringing it up, or engaging in a debate about it, instead of just dismissing it as bunk and moving on.

What it actually tells us about human morality is:
- some people mistakenly believe stupid hypotheticals tell us something about humanity morality
- some people mistakenly believe a contrived experiment will tell them something about their own, or another specific humans, morality
- some people are more than willing to let themselves get sucked into the morass of a discussion on a pointless hypothetical, especially in an online forum debate.

Nah, debating the "Trolley Problem" in all of its forms (which really don't matter) actually has some merits. Either one has a grasp on what morality (and the interplay with law and punishment) is and can "solve" it, or they're stuck debating the individual actions and results and try to weight these against each other, without the greater context of actual morality. So what it does is separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to having a serious discussion.

Even when used in its harshest form (Decide: You kill 1 or I kill 5, you have 3 seconds), it´s senseless to discuss the action before discussing the fundamental morality to weight the action. This, and the mix-up that follows, makes alignment discussions at once worthwhile (people reveal a lot about themselves) and totally fruitless.

Mordaedil
2018-01-18, 05:46 AM
The trolley problem is less about morality and more about humans panicking in high stress situations.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-18, 05:55 AM
Regarding the orc babies thing, it should be noted that Orcs are not an "always evil" race or even "usually evil". Their alignment tendency is merely "often chaotic evil"

Maybe, maybe not. It's not actually important whether "evil" is prefaced by this adjective or that, when it is the "baby" part that is misleading. That's why I keep mentioning xenomorphs. Xenomorph facehugger fits the technical definition of a "monster baby", and it grows up to be a fairly intelligent, non-supernatural creature, that's still "always evil" for all intents and purposes. Normal people will not mistake a facehugger for a human, or even animal baby, nor draw any conclusions from in-game treatment of facehuggers for how to treat real human or animal babies.

If someone starts worrying about xenomorph rights because someone from PETA might mistake them for advocating actual animal abuse, they are being ridiculous. Replace xenomorphs with pokemon if the example sounds too hypothetical.

---

@Florian: sounds like an interesting show. Would like to see it, just for the trivia about your local laws.

---

@Tanarii: the trolley problem does tell us about human morality. The empirical research exists and is easy to find. What it doesn't do is tell us who is good or evil.

Tanarii
2018-01-18, 05:57 AM
Even when used in its harshest form (Decide: You kill 1 or I kill 5, you have 3 seconds), it´s senseless to discuss the action before discussing the fundamental morality to weight the action. This, and the mix-up that follows, makes alignment discussions at once worthwhile (people reveal a lot about themselves) and totally fruitless.All this "harshest form" will tell you is people will blather on about what they think they will do, and what they think the moral thing is, and then when it comes to crunch time a real person will freeze up. What the trolley problem really a hypothetical that shows you that what we believe & thinking and has nothing to do with reality, and that 'hypotheticals' are frequently useless because they're so disconnected from reality.

Florian
2018-01-18, 06:17 AM
The trolley problem is less about morality and more about humans panicking in high stress situations.

But that is the point of why you use it to discuss morality, along with the different between objective morality and subjective morality (and why punishment is an important indicator here).

To discuss it, you must set it aside and discuss morality first and establish how that should be expressed, then you analyze the scenario itself, from there on going to analyze the actions and decisions of the participants testing the scenario, weighting their decisions and actions.

Example: Topic - Causing death. (aka crime)

Capital Crime - no mitigating factors.
A - Planned murder, ordered murder
B - Willfull murder
Non-Capital Crime - mitigating factors (up or down).
C - Causing death due to willful neglect, accepting causing death as an outcome
D - Causing death due to neglect, causing death due to unavoidable outside factors
Non-Capital Crime - mitigating factors (down)
E - Causing death due to avoidable outside factors, causing an accident that results in causing death
.... and so on, going over to mitigating factors and discussion punishment as an expression of it.

So, the prep work to handle the scenario is way more telling than the scenario itself.