Alignment labeling, why any disputes?

[2D8HP]

That the Moon today is in a Waxing Crescent Phase may explain why I'm seeing "Alignment" threads popping up again, and seeing them makes me ponder this post from last month:


I know this is a really really hard think for some people on this forum to grasp but:

Alignments not being mechanically enforced doesn't =/= alignment don't matter. If your DM decides alignment is important at the table, it's important at the table. I continue to be bemused by the people who claim alignment doesn't matter, who are then the same people who make rage threads about the DM who wrote "evil" on the player's sheet after the second orphanage burned tot he ground "for the greater good". Much like certain real world socially unacceptable behavior, the perpetrator seems to be angrier at their behavior being identified then any honest belief that the identification is actually unjust.

I don't really understand it, so you want to play a selfish murdering so-and-so who leaves a trail of misery in their wake... but you want to have good on your sheet?


Because a lot of DMs also have houserules like "evil characters are NPCs" so if they alignment shift you to Evil your character is effectively dead.

This becomes an issue when your DM has vastly different ideas of what an evil character is like than you or how fast a good character can fall.


That's why you have a session zero where you talk to your DM about things what their expectations for alignment are. Particularly if they use that kind of rule.


While @Naanomi compiled the very helpful

When Alignment Matters Mechanically (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically) thread

(and I also admire @Tanarii's excellent

5e Alignment Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545215-5e-Alignment-quot-Guide-quot-amp-end-of-2017-argument-thread), and I may as well plug me own

D&D Alignment, a history (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history))

with the caveat that, other than the DM requiring certain Alignments be or not be written on player character record sheets at the start of the game, I've never actually seen any rulings on Alignment in play, so I'm puzzled by the importance people place on what letters go into the line for "Alignment".

If the DM insists that the entry be changed so what?

Likewise whatever the player puts on their characters sheet (I've played a character with "cranky inebriated" for Alignment)?

Does this really come up at the table,

How often and why?

[mephnick]

I'm puzzled by the importance people place on what letters go into the line for "Alignment".

If the DM insists that the entry be changed so what?


It used to matter a lot more with abilities, magic items and classes gated off depending on alignment changes. D&D players have been raised to think it matters. 5E basically says it doesn't.

But I haven't played with alignment for 20 years so it's not really my problem.

[Unoriginal]

When confronted by a wide spectrum of complexe possibilities, people often yearn for absolutes, no matter how inaccurate said absolutes are.

Same reasons why there is so much debates about who would win between X and Y fictional characters in a fight: there are hundreds of factors and thousands of variables hidden in a deceptively simple question, so there is always some argument that can be made to dispute a result. So people try to find an absolute answer and, not finding one, pretend that the approximation is absolute.

Alignments used to be big things that pretended being absolute. Now in 5e the writers have been clear they're neither that big a thing (about as important as a character's Flaw or Bond) nor absolute, so people are trying to re-establish the previous status quo, perhaps without even realizing it.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

There are two alignment-specific things I can think of. The first is that AL has some requirements here - neutral evil and chaotic evil are banned, and lawful evil is restricted to players in specific factions. If a DM decides that your chaotic neutral PC is actually chaotic evil, that character isn't AL-legal anymore.

The second is Tomb of Annihilation-specific, so spoilers:

The overarching quest in Tomb of Annihilation is to turn off the Soulmonger, a soul trapping device. It's located in a lost city, which the characters can't find. The intent is for them to wander around following breadcrumbs until they can find the lost city. There are guides available for hire to help with this. One of the guides is a disguised coatl who can lead the party directly to the city, and will do it for free if they offer to help her with something. She's the only guide who comes with knowledge of the city's location and importance baked in. She'll also refuse to work with neutral or evil adventurers, so the party has to be 100% good to get her assistance.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm with Mephnick, I don't really play with alignment, I just try to tell people not to make murderhobos or characters that will immediately try to kill each other out the gate. Smiting demons is fun and all, but having the ability/artifact just work on demons to begin with seems to be simpler.

I have tried to come up with the worst alignment possible to write down on the sheet, just to see what the DM does. I might have tried to use 'elf' as an alignment.

[DMThac0]

Back in the old days of D&D alignment had a greater impact, for a few reasons and many of those reasons have been phased out of the books over the last handful of editions.

What is an alignment today? An arbitrary term used to fill out a line on a character sheet. There are no mechanical reasons to use/worry about alignment beyond fluff.

What was alignment? Alignment was a way to define your character so that the dieties in the pantheons would have the ability to interact with the world and your players' characters. The alignment would limit what dieties your cleric/paladin could follow. The alignment could have an effect on whether you could use certain items. The alignment would also help the DM decide how the world viewed your characters, and give the players a way of helping define motivation and decision making.

Without delving into speculation, theology, religion, and politics, it's easier to say that because no one wants to offend someone else's views/beliefs, the idea of alignment and dieties has gone the way of the dodo. At least that's my take on the subject.

---
In my games alignment is a fluid thing, the players give an idea of what their alignment is, and I keep a sliding scale going based on their actions and interactions. Their alignment does have an effect on what dieties they choose, and they may fall out of grace with their diety if their alignment shifts enough. I also use alignment to help describe how the world sees them, as well as what decisions open up to them as they come across different scenarios.

[Naanomi]

Just to be clear, alignment still has a small number of mechanical effects tied to it... mostly easy to navigate if you decide not to bother with it, but it does still exist conceptually:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

(Not updated with newer material)

[krugaan]

Alignment issues are common because politics and the nature of good and evil nowadays.

Some people are confused as to what being a "good" person really is.

Some people aren't confused. They're just wrong.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I have tried to come up with the worst alignment possible to write down on the sheet, just to see what the DM does. I might have tried to use 'elf' as an alignment.

I'm a fan of "vertical, usually".

[2D8HP]

Just to be clear, alignment still has a small number of mechanical effects tied to it... mostly easy to navigate if you decide not to bother with it, but it does still exist conceptually:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

(Not updated with newer material)


Oh yes, I mentioned that thread in my original post:


....@Naanomi compiled the very helpful

When Alignment Matters Mechanically (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically) thread....


Alignment issues are common because politics and the nature of good and evil nowadays.

Some people are confused as to what being a "good" person really is.

Some people aren't confused. They're just wrong.


I may imagine that people get defensive about how their actions and beliefs are labelled, but I'm wondering about why they're alleged arguments about what's written on the sheets of fictional characters for a game?

[Sigreid]

In my game the main effect of alignment is to give whoever is currently DMing a quick shorthand for how creatures in the MM usually act.

[krugaan]

I may imagine that people get defensive about how their actions and beliefs are labelled, but I'm wondering about why they're alleged arguments about what's written on the sheets of fictional characters for a game?

Well ... it's sort of an "official" judgement. It's literally staring that person in the face.

Evil. I'm evil.

Wait what? How can I be evil? I was doing it for the greater good!

No, the DM is just wrong and doesn't know what evil is! HE'S evil.

I'm going to go seek the opinion of others.



To be fair, I think the alignment system in 5E is stupid, mostly because it doesn't apply in real life. And a lot of the dissonance comes from the different value systems between game world and real world.

[smcmike]

In my game the main effect of alignment is to give whoever is currently DMing a quick shorthand for how creatures in the MM usually act.

Yeah, it’s a good shorthand for DMs. It’s also fine as shorthand for players, particularly if they aren’t looking to create some sort of deep fully-realized characters and mostly want to smash stuff. My Paladin accepts the Mayor’s Quest because that is the Lawful and Good Thing To Do. My buddy the Ranger accepted it because he wanted to save lives, but he’s deeply suspicious of the Mayor’s motives. Our companion the Rogue is tagging along for the shinies.

[KorvinStarmast]

To be fair, I think the alignment system in 5E is stupid, mostly because it doesn't apply in real life. And a lot of the dissonance comes from the different value systems between game world and real world. it is no stupider than it was in previous editions, from 1e AD&D to present. The current edition has the benefit of some authorial statements that it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The reason AL does not allow evil alignments is due to a different piece of reality meeting the game world.
Too many players have, over the years, used "alignment" as an excuse for being an utter asshat at the table. That's bad for public play: keep the stupid at the home tables, if stupid is going to be involved.

As to the original alignment system: it was very easy to work with.
In the original game, there was Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Pick one. This was before the two axis grid that began the mire alignment into the mess that it too often became in the hands of people who tried to game the system.

[Unoriginal]

In my game the main effect of alignment is to give whoever is currently DMing a quick shorthand for how creatures in the MM usually act.

It's basically what it's intended as.

[Sigreid]

In AD&D alignment also helped with communication since every alignment had it's own magic language. Assuring that you could communicate with like minded intelligent critters.

[krugaan]

it is no stupider than it was in previous editions (Except in that the original game, there was Law, Neutrality, and Chaos which made it easier to deal with) and has the benefit of some authorial statements that it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The reason AL does not allow evil alignments is due to a different piece of reality meeting the game world. Too many players have, over the years, used "alignment" as an excuse for being an utter asshat at the table.

Stupid might have been a strong word, I should have said "clunky". And it's nice that alignments are descriptive now.

But as Naanomi has pointed out elsewhere, because DnD has a strict cosmology and that cosmology is predicated on alignment, we will always have the alignment problem.

Because DnD Gods are both fallible and infallible: fallible because it's the DM, and infallible because it's a god.

[Naanomi]

It's basically what it's intended as.
Yeah, unless you are bumping around the Outer Planes (where it is intentionally supposed to be weird and alien that alignment matters) that is the most practical use most campaigns see out of alignment

[krugaan]

In AD&D alignment also helped with communication since every alignment had it's own magic language. Assuring that you could communicate with like minded intelligent critters.

I remember that and always thought that was the weirdest, most illogical thing ever.


Yeah, unless you are bumping around the Outer Planes (where it is intentionally supposed to be weird and alien that alignment matters) that is the most practical use most campaigns see out of alignment

So, I heard the next sourcebook is going to be Spelljammer...

[Naanomi]

But as Naanomi has pointed out elsewhere, because DnD has a strict cosmology and that cosmology is predicated on alignment, we will always have the alignment problem.

Because DnD Gods are both fallible and infallible: fallible because it's the DM, and infallible because it's a god.
Note: in DnD Cosmology, Gods don’t define alignment... alignment is more important than Gods, they are largely bound by the strictures of alignment... in many ways moreso than mortals. And they are supremely fallible


So, I heard the next sourcebook is going to be Spelljammer...
Spelljammer doesn’t care about alignment really, it is all on the Prime after all

[Sigreid]

I remember that and always thought that was the weirdest, most illogical thing ever.



So, I heard the next sourcebook is going to be Spelljammer...

It worked because the way AD&D was set up I believe mortal creatures such as the players were supposed to be actually bound by cosmic ideals.

[Unoriginal]

Because DnD Gods are both fallible and infallible: fallible because it's the DM, and infallible because it's a god.

D&D Gods are not infallible, and never presented as such.

They're powerful, and have access to the knowledge and experience of thousands of years and many worlds, but they're not perfect or infallible by any means.

[krugaan]

It worked because the way AD&D was set up I believe mortal creatures such as the players were supposed to be actually bound by cosmic ideals.

The 1980's were a weird time.

[Sigreid]

The 1980's were a weird time.

Pretty fun though.

[krugaan]

Note: in DnD Cosmology, Gods don’t define alignment... alignment is more important than Gods, they are largely bound by the strictures of alignment... in many ways moreso than mortals. And they are supremely fallible


D&D Gods are not infallible, and never presented as such.

They're powerful, and have access to the knowledge and experience of thousands of years and many worlds, but they're not perfect or infallible by any means.

What I meant is that in game they can determine a souls alignment with perfect regularity. They're not omniscient, but souls can't trick their way into heaven, AFAIK.


Spelljammer doesn’t care about alignment really, it is all on the Prime after all

Ah, I thought you could hop between planes with that. I should read about Spelljammer.

[RedMage125]

To be fair, I think the alignment system in 5E is stupid, mostly because it doesn't apply in real life. And a lot of the dissonance comes from the different value systems between game world and real world.

I don't even understand this kind of objection.

OF COURSE alignment does not apply to real life. Real Life does not have objective forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. D&D does. That some people have trouble grasping this basic principle is beyond me. I've heard so many people object because they don't agree with some of the things D&D asserts are Evil. Take something from 3.xe, for example. Animation of undead, by any means, is an Evil act. Some people have a personal perception of that act that they think means it should be Neutral. To them, this is "dissonance".

Here's why that dissonance is ridiculous. D&D is a construct of FANTASY. It has dragons, wizards, psionics, mimics, mind flayers and more. But some people can't grasp that objective Good & Evil are a thing. Not even with creatures like Celestials and Fiends - beings literally made of Good/Evil, and they STILL have trouble with the idea. Furthermore, since D&D IS a construct of fantasy, the developers have EVERY right to say "by the default RAW, X is Good, Y is Evil". The mechanics usually support that.

So really, a lot of the "dissonance" is actually cognitive dissonance from people who can't separate their own notions of "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" from what the RAW says those things mean, and are too narcissistic to even CONSIDER changing their own mind, and assume that the RAW are somehow "problematic". Sorry, but there's no way for D&D to actually consider and comply with any and all possible metrics of morality and ethics from the real world. But fortunately, it's fantasy, so it doesn't need to.

I have been on these and the WotC forums for almost 2 decades. And in 100% of the stories I have heard from anti-alignment posters about why alignment is bad, SOMEONE is deviating from the RAw in the way they are used. DMs who substitute their own notions of Good/Evil/etc, but enforce them with the RAW mechanics for them; Players who try and use alignment labels to justify Jerkbag behavior; DMs who try and use "gotcha" traps to make paladins of past editions fall (ESPECIALLY scenarios that make falling dependent on the consequence, and not the action); those who insist that alignment changes after a single act. All of these are examples of deviating from RAW.

And the worst part, to me? Experienced, knowledgeable, and INTELLIGENT people who play this game sometimes got their first taste of alignment mechanics from the early groups they played with, that deviated from RAW in bad ways, and got a bad taste in their mouth from it. And they assumed at the time that the people they were playing with were using alignment mechanics correctly, and never questioned it. And later, they never actually went and read the rules with an open mind to understand them, they just decided "I don't like alignment rules, I'll just do without them". And so these good, smart people just go on assuming that all their former prejudices are actually a problem with the rules, and with all the alignment detractors that abound on forums, they see enough commonality, that they have never once felt like they should ever re-examine the RAW, or be open-minded about it ever again

[krugaan]

I don't even understand this kind of objection.

So really, a lot of the "dissonance" is actually cognitive dissonance from people who can't separate their own notions of "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" from what the RAW says those things mean, and are too narcissistic to even CONSIDER changing their own mind, and assume that the RAW are somehow "problematic". Sorry, but there's no way for D&D to actually consider and comply with any and all possible metrics of morality and ethics from the real world. But fortunately, it's fantasy, so it doesn't need to.


The word choice was entirely intentional, I assure you. And calling it "narcissism" is a tad harsh, yo.

Some people are simply bad at pretending and deep alignment RP is bound to cause friction or one sort or another.

[Willie the Duck]

I may imagine that people get defensive about how their actions and beliefs are labelled, but I'm wondering about why they're alleged arguments about what's written on the sheets of fictional characters for a game?

Alignment in D&D appears to have traits akin to a sacred cow (yes, the dreaded 'sacred cows' of gaming), or even of a currency-- it is important because people think it is important (so much so that when the people in charge of the thing said, 'it's really not important' people promptly ignore them and keep on arguing over the thing).

As for why care about what's written on fictional game character stat sheets, well, why care about these characters at all? We're all choosing to be invested in them. TT RPGs are a nihilist's perfect playground-nothing has any inherent meaning beyond what you give it.

[Sigreid]

Some of us simply don't believe alignment adds to our game experience. And since it is entirely our own experience no one can tell us it's wrong or invalid. I think the narcissism finger got pointed the wrong way...

[Naanomi]

What I meant is that in game they can determine a souls alignment with perfect regularity. They're not omniscient, but souls can't trick their way into heaven, AFAIK.
Oh, yeah they can do that (although unless you are a devout follower of a specific God... or a child... or a few other circumstances... the Universe decides where you go when you die, not the Gods). Heck, a lowly sprite can do so with decent regularity as well.


Ah, I thought you could hop between planes with that. I should read about Spelljammer.
Spelljammer takes you from one Prime world to another (most campaign settings are on distinct Prime worlds) while never leaving the Prime Material Plane itself (usually, there are of course exceptions)

[krugaan]

Oh, yeah they can do that (although unless you are a devout follower of a specific God... or a child... or a few other circumstances... the Universe decides where you go when you die, not the Gods). Heck, a lowly sprite can do so with decent regularity as well.


Yeah, and when the Universe says your bad, and you feel differently, that has a decidedly unsettling effect, even if it's just a pretend world. I suppose "god" was another technically incorrect word choice.

/grumble

The POINT BEING...


Spelljammer takes you from one Prime world to another (most campaign settings are on distinct Prime worlds) while never leaving the Prime Material Plane itself (usually, there are of course exceptions)

Ah, I knew about the crystal spheres stuff, but I figured that the phlog-stuff flowed everywhere, including the astral planes and whatnot. I thought SpellJammer was more or less a gimmicky way to bring together campaign settings.

[RedMage125]

The word choice was entirely intentional, I assure you. And calling it "narcissism" is a tad harsh, yo.

Some people are simply bad at pretending and deep alignment RP is bound to cause friction or one sort or another.


Some of us simply don't believe alignment adds to our game experience. And since it is entirely our own experience no one can tell us it's wrong or invalid. I think the narcissism finger got pointed the wrong way...

Allow me to clarify...I did not mean to imply that anyone who doesn't like alignments is a narcissist. But anyone who is so attached to their own pre-conceptions that they refuse to re-examine them with an open mind (about any subject)...yes. There is narcissism there. And it leads to cognitive dissonance. But I would argue that ALL cognitive dissonance stems from a degree of narcissim. It's one thing to take in and understand all the facts, and continue to believe what one used to, and another to not even be open to the idea that one even COULD be mistaken.

I've been in and out of alignment threads for years. And I don't care about changing people's OPINIONS about alignment. But all too often, most alignment detractors show up in a thread and start saying "alignment is bad because X", where X is actually untrue according to the RAW, and X is only a result of some deviation from RAW. Since all houserules are impossible to account for, in a rules discussion, only RAW can ever be considered "True". And THAT is what I object to and was calling out. People who think things about alignment RAW that simply aren't true.

Play with alignment, don't play with alignment, I don't care. Like or don't, doesn't matter to me, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion.

And I never said anyone was "wrong" for not liking it, Sigreid. So get off your cross, pretend martyrdom doesn't look good on anyone. And making a Straw Man just reflects poorly on the builder...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "D&D is a game that thrives on house rules and customization. The only "Wrong" way to play is when the people at your table are not having fun."

[Sigreid]

Yeah, and when the Universe says your bad, and you feel differently, that has a decidedly unsettling effect, even if it's just a pretend world. I suppose "god" was another technically incorrect word choice.

/grumble

The POINT BEING...



Ah, I knew about the crystal spheres stuff, but I figured that the phlog-stuff flowed everywhere, including the astral planes and whatnot. I thought SpellJammer was more or less a gimmicky way to bring together campaign settings.

I think spelljammer was just an excuse to get weird without hosing over the various settings.

[Naanomi]

I think spelljammer was just an excuse to get weird without hosing over the various settings.
Spelljammer was created, at least in part, as a way to ‘connect’ the main campaign settings of the time so the same adventurers could go on adventures in many different campaign settings. In the first conception, Spelljammer wasn’t necessarily tied to the Great Wheel (or... the proto-Great Wheel pre-Planescape); and products were still undecided if the different campaign worlds even shared the same inner/Outer Planes with eachother to begin with.

Planescape was mostly intended to stay off the Prime altogether, adventures largely in the Inner and/or Outer Planes; stuff from the Prime worlds from various campaign settings more about cameos or (later) explicitly crossover rather than an expectation of the Planescape ‘meta-setting’.

Planescape dealt a lot with alignment, belief, philosophy... Spelljammer no more than any other campaign settings (arguably less actually)

[2D8HP]

In AD&D alignment also helped with communication since every alignment had it's own magic language. Assuring that you could communicate with like minded intelligent critters.


I remember that and always thought that was the weirdest, most illogical thing ever....


Sure,
"Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

- page 12, the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons Book 1: Men & Magic

And then AD&D added more details:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M97l7AtQvG4/WvtCBLYSOBI/AAAAAAAAADY/seIe-A9gPWIL2pR3rAXam-c_QfgXOYo-ACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/Alignment%2BLanguages.jpg


"Alignment language is a handy game tool which is not unjustifiable in real terms. Thieves did employ a special cant. Secret organizations and societies did and do have certain recognition signs, signals, and recognition phrases- possibly special languages (of limited extent) as well. Consider also the medieval Catholic Church which used Latin as a common recognition and communication base to cut across national boundaries. In AD&D, alignment languages are the special set of signs, signals, gestures, and words which intelligent creatures use to inform other intelligent creatures of the same alignment of their fellowship and common ethos. Alignment languages are NEVER flaunted in public. They are not used as salutations or interrogatives if the speaker is uncertain of the alignment of those addressed. Furthermore, alignment languages are of limited vocabulary and deal with the ethos of the alignment in general, so lengthy discussion of varying subjects cannot be conducted in such tongues.

Each alignment language is constructed to allow recognition of like-aligned creatures and to discuss the precepts of the alignment in detail. Otherwise, the tongue will permit only the most rudimentary communication with a vocabulary limited to a few score words. The speaker could inquire of the listener's state of health, ask about hunger, thirst, or degree of tiredness. A few other basic conditions and opinions could be expressed, but no more. The specialty tongues of Druidic and the Thieves' Cant are designed to handle conversations pertaining to things druidical on the one hand and thievery, robbery and the disposal of stolen goods on the other. Druids could discuss at length and in detail the state of the crops, weather, animal husbandry and foresting; but warfare, politics, adventuring, and like matter would be impossible to detail with the language.

Any character foolish enough to announce his or her alignment by publicly crying out in that alignment tongue will incur considerable social sanctions. At best he or she will be thought unmannerly, rude, boorish, and stupid. Those of the same alignment will be inclined to totally ignore the character, not wishing to embarass themselves by admitting any familiarity with the offender. Those of other alignment will likewise regard the speaker with distaste when overhearing such an outburst. At worst, the character will be marked by those hostile to the alignment in which he or she spoke.

Alignment language is used to establish credentials only after initial communications have been established by other means. Only in the most desperate of situations would any creature utter something in the alignment tongue otherwise. It must also be noted that alignment does NOT necessarily empower a creature to actually speak or understand the alignment language which is general in the ethos. Thus, blink dogs are intelligent, lawful good creatures who have a language of their own. A lawful good human, dwarf, or brownie will be absolutely at a loss to communicate with blink dogs, however, except in the most limited of ways (non-aggression, non-fear, etc.) without knowledge of the creatures' language or some magical means. This is because blink dogs do not intellectually embrace the ethos of lawful good but are of that alignment instinctually; therefore, they do not speak the tongue used by lawful good. This is not true of gold dragons, let us say, or red dragons with respect to their alignment, who do speak their respective alignment language"

- page 24 of the 1979 Dungeon Masters Guide
but Gygax later changed his mind:

"As D&D was being quantified and qualified bu the publication of the supplemental rules booklets. I decided that Thieves' cant should not be the only secret language. thus alignment languages come into play, the rational being they were akin to Hebrew for Jewish and Latin for Roman Catholic persons.

I have since regretted the addition, as the non-cleric user would have only a limited vocabulary, and luttle cound be conveyed or understoon by the use of an alignment language between non-clerical users.

Cheers,
Gary" (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20641&start=126)
- May 20, 2002

Never stated, but the implication was that there was a "Church of Law" and "Cult of Chaos" in conflict (with Druids being Neutral), but the expantion of the three Alignments into nine made that idea wonky.


The 1980's were a weird time.


Of course they were, I was a teenager!


Alignment in D&D appears to have traits akin to a sacred cow (yes, the dreaded 'sacred cows' of gaming), or even of a currency-- it is important because people think it is important (so much so that when the people in charge of the thing said, 'it's really not important' people promptly ignore them and keep on arguing over the thing).....


Sorry to say that I didn't watch all of it again, but I think that in either

this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yqjLO6YNKV0)

or

this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pFbCxuvknWM)

video Mike Mearls says something close to that Alignment is still part of D&D because "people enjoy discussing it", I know that I do, even though other than as a way to guess how NPC's are likely to react to the PC's I don't see it used in play much.

[krugaan]

Alignment language is a handy game tool which is not unjustifiable in real terms.

Secret languages and shared identities are fine. A secret language you learn just by being a bad or good person? Uh...


video Mike Mearls says something close to that Alignment is still part of D&D because "people enjoy discussing it", I know that I do, even though other than as a way to guess how NPC's are likely to react to the PC's I don't see it used in play much.

He was trolling us!

"Should we take alignment out? It's not really internally consistent."

"Leave it in, the fires on the forums will keep me warm on many a cold night, meh heh heh."

[2D8HP]

..."Should we take alignment out? It's not really internally consistent."

"Leave it in, the fires on the forums will keep me warm on many a cold night, meh heh heh."


By Crom that's sig-worthy!

Anyway, I swear by Lolth's sweet embrace that I didn't see this till after I started the thread, but http://www.dorktower.com/files/2018/07/DorkTower1473-674x1024.jpg

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm a fan of "vertical, usually".

You might think I'm kidding, but I am going to write this as my next alignment. Or horizontal if the character is particularly lazy.

Through saying that people particularly enjoy discussing it seems a bit disingenuous. I remember a thread where people argued about colors associated with the ability scores. It was all in good fun, but...Well, it's hard to have a forum without people trying to argue something. I don't think many people here don't enjoy it on some level, and those who don't aren't going to be as common on the interwebs.

[Luccan]

There are, I think, three sides to alignment in D&D. There is the players' perceptions, a character's perception, and what the rules are in the game. Let's say that D&D says any form of slavery is evil (including ancient practices for repaying debt, not just conquering/invading a place and taking unwilling prisoners). A player might believe that allowing a merchant who cheated them and now owes them money to work for their character for a period of time for free and then be forgiven of that debt is justified and their character feels the same. To the player and character, their action is likely, at worst, neutral. But if D&D says all forms of slavery are evil, then what the character has done pushes them towards evil. Making a habit of it would, therefore, make them evil (probably LE, as long as they stuck to their agreement). And here the problem emerges: Other players may agree with D&D, their characters might agree with D&D, and according to the values system in the game, that act is evil. But now the player feels attacked, because they're playing a game with a fairly absolute morality they don't agree with. So people argue that Alignment is bad, because they didn't understand what they signed up for. Add in the fallibility of DMs and players and you get a mess when people don't understand the system of values their character's alignment is being judged by.

On the other hand, characters can absolutely believe what they're doing is good, even if it's evil by game standards. Most PCs have no objective measure of alignment anymore, so they can't just ask their paladin buddy to scan them every now and then to make sure they're still the good guys.They have to go with their gut.

And of course, whether or not you agree with the official stance on Good/Evil and Law/Chaos in 5e is irrelevant. If you're a DM or your DM is willing to listen to your ideas, change it as you see fit. Just make sure everyone knows what rules they're playing by when it comes to alignment* and there will (hopefully), be no hurt feelings.

*This includes not using it, but I personally feel like D&D becomes less like D&D if we just throw the whole system out.

[krugaan]

By Crom that's sig-worthy!

Relevant?

Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

#lawfulgood #conandidnothingwrong

[Sigreid]

No crosses here Red, just an allergic reaction to condescension.

[smcmike]

OF COURSE alignment does not apply to real life. Real Life does not have objective forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. D&D does. That some people have trouble grasping this basic principle is beyond me. I've heard so many people object because they don't agree with some of the things D&D asserts are Evil. Take something from 3.xe, for example. Animation of undead, by any means, is an Evil act. Some people have a personal perception of that act that they think means it should be Neutral. To them, this is "dissonance". . . Here's why that dissonance is ridiculous. D&D is a construct of FANTASY.

This is a silly argument. There is nothing wrong with a feeling of dissonance between your personal moral code and that expressed by a game or a work of art that you are interacting with.

Imagine I go to a movie. Let’s say it’s Birth of a Nation, and I walk out and say “man, I found that really objectionable.” Does that make me a NARCISSIST? Would you respond “It was a construct of (historical) FANTASY,” and dismiss my objections out of hand? I hope not!



People who think things about alignment RAW that simply aren't true.

Now, I’m not saying that every complaint about alignment is well-founded. Maybe you’re right that the average forum complainer is simply mistake about the RAW. Maybe the RAW is actually much better aligned with most people’s personal code than they even realize. This is a totally different argument, though. It’s a reasonable expectation that when you label something EVIL, that label has some relation to evil as we understand it.

[MaxWilson]

I don't even understand this kind of objection.

OF COURSE alignment does not apply to real life. Real Life does not have objective forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. D&D does.

Note that even D&D doesn't have objective forces of good/evil/law/chaos. It only has objective forces of "Good"/"Evil"/"Law"/"Chaos".

Nothing obliges a D&D player, PC or NPC to agree with the PHB about what actually constitutes good and evil, let alone law and chaos.

[2D8HP]

#lawfulgood #conandidnothingwrong



Totally! :amused:


NARCISSIST?


But of course!

How could I not be?

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thereturnofthekinganimated/images/8/81/GreatGoblin1.png/revision/latest?cb=20120531012154

[MeeposFire]

Personally while I have been playing D&D from 1e (with older D&D mixed in without knowing it) through today I do not bother with alignment in the game. Sure you may play a character and be a good guy or maybe evil but I do not feel like it needs or even should be on your character sheet. I do not feel that it serves any purpose (well any good purpose) and just causes more trouble than it helps. I do find it helpful to talk to new players about whether they may want to play a good guy or someone a bit shadier (and then how are they shady) but I do not feel that codifying it on a sheet.

I also get really annoyed in these discussions that some people come at morality based on the results of an action (more akin to a utilitarian) while others come from the idea that certain actions are just wrong no matter what the reason (more like a Kant theory of ethics) and that you get people arguing this as if it has been proven in some way that either is right when both ideas have been argued for some time and are still being argued (though the wide population does not care). They all have their faults but here all you get is people arguing essentially these points of view with little care and with little desire to have a real discussion (and even if they do it is often still annoying and I leave the thread since it really has lost its novelty I swear if I never hear the trolley problem again it will be too soon). It especially sucks because you know that certain posters are going to get involved every single time and ruin it for everybody.

If they kept alignment around for discussions and it is not a joke I am really not happy with them. Let alignment die the death it deserved so many years ago. It really was not interesting then (and I even like Planescape and I hated alignment how crazy is that?) and I find it tiresome now.

Sorry for the rant alignment is one of the few things I really wish would go away. Thankfully it really is not much of an issue in game it is more an issue in places like this.

[Honest Tiefling]

How could I not be?

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thereturnofthekinganimated/images/8/81/GreatGoblin1.png/revision/latest?cb=20120531012154

Nothing a little contouring can't fix.

And Meeposfire really does mention the only time alignments, from my experience, have actually helped: Determining the tone of the game and if the characters are likely to work together. Through at that point, you could probably replace the alignments with 'Batman', 'Superman', 'Lex Luthor' or 'Joker' and it'll work just as well.

Through you'd either need no Lobos or all Lobos.

[MeeposFire]

Nothing a little contouring can't fix.

And Meeposfire really does mention the only time alignments, from my experience, have actually helped: Determining the tone of the game and if the characters are likely to work together. Through at that point, you could probably replace the alignments with 'Batman', 'Superman', 'Lex Luthor' or 'Joker' and it'll work just as well.

Through you'd either need no Lobos or all Lobos.

Even then I prefer to think of what a character is like (and using other characters as a guide is helpful since you can play like somebody but not have to worry that is exactly like the character since you are not playing that character unlike with some with alignments where yea this action does not fit this alignment but it fits what this character would do) rather than using alignments and certainly I do not use them anymore as anything specific. At best I use them very broadly as he tends to emphasize rules or he is not a guy you want to meet in an alley.

[GreyBlack]

Alignment is.... weird and outdated nowadays but useful in creating a character.

If we look back at the history of D&D, the Law/Chaos spectrum is pretty well defined. Chaos was basically defined as "The Monster Alignment" in 1st edition. The players were kind of assumed to be in defense of society against the forces which attempted to overtake it, or at the very least self-interested enough to want to prevent such a thing from happening (how else will they get paid?).

In my opinion, a lot of confusion stems from that basic assumption and the change to the biaxial alignment system we all know and loathe/love today. The reason the system today seems incoherent comes from a rejection of the idea that the players should be acting in defense of society against the forces of corruption and instability. Player freedom of choice actually made the system more untenable and confusing to the average player.

Tl;dr: In order to make sense of the alignment system, I think we need to recalibrate our expectations of the players role in the game, and our expectations of what the system itself means.

[Willie the Duck]

If we look back at the history of D&D, the Law/Chaos spectrum is pretty well defined. Chaos was basically defined as "The Monster Alignment" in 1st edition.

Slightly incorrect. The law-chaos 3 alignment scale existed in oD&D (with and without supplements), B/X, and BECMI forms of basic D&D. The five alignment scale existed in Holmes D&D and 4e. AD&D (both 1 and 2), along with 3e and 5e, use the nine alignment scale.

[Naanomi]

Slightly incorrect. The law-chaos 3 alignment scale existed in oD&D (with and without supplements), B/X, and BECMI forms of basic D&D. The five alignment scale existed in Holmes D&D and 4e. AD&D (both 1 and 2), along with 3e and 5e, use the nine alignment scale.
And even under the ‘law/chaos’ model... illithid and djinn were both called out very early as ‘lawful but still evil’ and ‘chaotic but still good’ examples

[GreyBlack]

And even under the ‘law/chaos’ model... illithid and djinn were both called out very early as ‘lawful but still evil’ and ‘chaotic but still good’ examples

My greater point is that realignment of expectation. Chaos is not just antipathy towards social order; it's actively being against it, for good or ill.

I borrowed the term "Monster alignment" from Matt Colville during discussion of character creation throughout the years.

[Hecuba]

Note that even D&D doesn't have objective forces of good/evil/law/chaos. It only has objective forces of "Good"/"Evil"/"Law"/"Chaos".

Nothing obliges a D&D player, PC or NPC to agree with the PHB about what actually constitutes good and evil, let alone law and chaos.

For DMing long-term tables with significant roleplaying, I've made it a standing habit to simply address it directly by noting that I'll treat it as:

Law\Chaos = Order\Freedom*
Good\Evil = Charitablity\Selfishness

*specifically, "freedom to" and not "freedom from"

It isn't an exact match, but it does enough of a job of cutting away the more vague and charged words to make the operating framework both less contentious and less vague.

Since 5e makes mechanical alignment effects less ubiquitous, my threshold for how much alignment relevant role play and how long I expect a table to run before I have the conversation have both increased. But I still have it before, by way of example, running starting a campaign I expect to run for a year.

[2D8HP]

And even under the ‘law/chaos’ model... illithid and djinn were both called out very early as ‘lawful but still evil’ and ‘chaotic but still good’ examples


Sure but IIRC those monsters came in the April 1976 Eldrich Wizardry supplement which was after the THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976 (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) article, which introduced the "two-axis alignment system"

...1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but while Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, but in later works he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought, so Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelon wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment in an article that I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg....

[Tectorman]

I may imagine that people get defensive about how their actions and beliefs are labelled, but I'm wondering about why they're alleged arguments about what's written on the sheets of fictional characters for a game?

Because my assertion that my character that I've labeled as "Good" or "Lawful" or whichever IS my assertion that the actions and behaviors that I have my alleged "Good" or "Lawful" fictional character do or portray are what I believe to be good or lawful. There's no such thing as me being defensive about how my own actions and beliefs are being labeled and me not being defensive about those same actions and beliefs just because of the proxy of a character sheet.

[Contrast]

Snip

I feel if this were the case then changing Good and Evil to Positive and Negative or Farl and Larf (literally any made up words) would 'solve' then problem.

This wouldn't change me disliking the system though. The reason I dislike a game slapping an alignment system on is that in order to actually enforce it at some point the DM is going to have to turn to a player and effectively say 'I've decided you're playing your character wrong'. To me the alignment system is worse than having no system at all, I'm not sure I've ever played another RPG with an alignment system and I've literally never once felt its loss.

[Tectorman]

I feel if this were the case then changing Good and Evil to Positive and Negative or Farl and Larf (literally any made up words) would 'solve' then problem.

This wouldn't change me disliking the system though. The reason I dislike a game slapping an alignment system on is that in order to actually enforce it at some point the DM is going to have to turn to a player and effectively say 'I've decided you're playing your character wrong'. To me the alignment system is worse than having no system at all, I'm not sure I've ever played another RPG with an alignment system and I've literally never once felt its loss.

Precisely this.

If I want to play what I think qualifies as a Lawful Good character, and I put LG on the character sheet, then what I am communicating (and indeed, the only thing I can be expected to be communicate) is that, in my judgment, the character overall qualifies as more lawful than not and more good than not. The character has lawful traits AND neutral and chaotic traits and good traits AND neutral and evil traits, but in terms of how often anything is getting expressed or how important to the character it's supposed to be once expressed, the bulk is supposed to fall in the LG category more than anything else. The example from the 3.5 PHB was Tordek, a mostly lawful Fighter who nevertheless had a touch of larceny in his heart. So no matter how often said larceny was expressed, it is supposed to be understood that Tordek otherwise falls squarely on the lawful side.

That's what I'm communicating, but it isn't what's being communicated. Instead, you hear that I'm playing a LG character according to your unquantifiable gut judgments of what does and doesn't qualify as "lawful", what does and doesn't qualify as "good", and what does and doesn't qualify as "an outlier behavior meant to be a token expression of alignment traits other than LG and not meant to be taken as a sign of a necessary alignment shift". It's understandable, really; it is the only thing you can be expected to have heard. And then, when I end up playing my LG character in a way that doesn't fit your judgment of "still LG enough to be LG, not other-alignment enough to need an alignment shift", it must be because I'm playing my character wrong.

Which is, of course, absurd. It's my character. I am, in fact, the first, final, and utmost authority on what the correct way to play this character is, and you are only a spectator with NO SAY in the matter. And no, there is no amount of Session Zero that can either put us on the exact same page regarding what does and does not qualify as this or that alignment or what is and isn't an outlier, nor can any amount of Session Zero make my quality judgments the same as yours.

Sure, one of us can agree to just go with whatever the other is defining as "good" or "lawful", but that, to me, completely ruins any investment I have in the character's well-being or the setting. I need to be able to relate to the main characters of the story, and if what's being laughingly passed off as "good" or "evil" doesn't fit my idea of what good and evil are, then I don't have it in me to care. The game, setting, developers, and DM can say "casting an Evil descriptor spell is an evil act" all they want, but if I don't agree that, to use a Pathfinder example, casting Infernal Healing automatically counts as evil, then as far as I'm concerned, your setting doesn't have good and evil. It has a "something" opposed by a "something else". The "something" is being called "good", and maybe it occasionally coincides with what good really is. The "something else" is being called "evil", and maybe it occasionally coincides with what evil really is. That sort of "unrelateability" is why I was rooting for the demons at the end of The Rod of Seven Parts; the so-called "protagonists" just didn't stand for any paradigm that I wanted to see survive.

The only solution, then, is to make it something that doesn't require an agreement. Sure, Tordek is a Fighter and so isn't really affected whether he remains LN or if you think his touch of larceny is enough to put him at TN, but there's no such thing as a Schrodinger's Paladin, who has simultaneously fallen and stayed in grace. As an example of something not requiring an agreement, imagine I describe a character as "decisive" on some "decisive-neutral-wishywashy" axis. I then portray that character in a manner that I believe qualifies as decisive enough to count as "decisive". You, also at that table, see how I portray this character and you don't believe he is decisive enough to be "decisive" (the character isn't wishywashy in your judgment, just not assertive enough to get out of neutral). We disagree. But it wouldn't go any further than that. Why? Because there are no classes, no feats, no class features, no spells, no anything that require the two of us to have the same understanding and the same judgments regarding decisiveness versus wishywashy-ness. Look through all the RPG gaming forums you care to, and you won't find a thread where "decisiveness versus wishywashy-ness" is being argued like alignment has been.

Contrast has the right of it. As long as nothing's being enforced, alignment doesn't have these issues. Look at OotS. The guy that plays Belkar (the Giant) is 100% in agreement with the guy that plays Roy (also the Giant), who has the same outlook on alignment as the guy playing V (still the Giant). No enforcing because they're all the same person and will naturally have the same value judgments. Otherwise, any amount of enforcing is far too much.

[Naanomi]

In practice, the only time I really see conflict around alignment stuff is forced alignment changes... in a way comparable to any ‘mind control’/your PC is charmed effects. There is an expectation that your now-Chaotic-Evil werewolf PC act differently than they did when they were Neutral Good... and if you refuse to act differently (or differently enough by the GM’s assessment)... what do you do about it at the table?

[GreyBlack]

Precisely this.

If I want to play what I think qualifies as a Lawful Good character, and I put LG on the character sheet, then what I am communicating (and indeed, the only thing I can be expected to be communicate) is that, in my judgment, the character overall qualifies as more lawful than not and more good than not. The character has lawful traits AND neutral and chaotic traits and good traits AND neutral and evil traits, but in terms of how often anything is getting expressed or how important to the character it's supposed to be once expressed, the bulk is supposed to fall in the LG category more than anything else. The example from the 3.5 PHB was Tordek, a mostly lawful Fighter who nevertheless had a touch of larceny in his heart. So no matter how often said larceny was expressed, it is supposed to be understood that Tordek otherwise falls squarely on the lawful side.

That's what I'm communicating, but it isn't what's being communicated. Instead, you hear that I'm playing a LG character according to your unquantifiable gut judgments of what does and doesn't qualify as "lawful", what does and doesn't qualify as "good", and what does and doesn't qualify as "an outlier behavior meant to be a token expression of alignment traits other than LG and not meant to be taken as a sign of a necessary alignment shift". It's understandable, really; it is the only thing you can be expected to have heard. And then, when I end up playing my LG character in a way that doesn't fit your judgment of "still LG enough to be LG, not other-alignment enough to need an alignment shift", it must be because I'm playing my character wrong.

Which is, of course, absurd. It's my character. I am, in fact, the first, final, and utmost authority on what the correct way to play this character is, and you are only a spectator with NO SAY in the matter. And no, there is no amount of Session Zero that can either put us on the exact same page regarding what does and does not qualify as this or that alignment or what is and isn't an outlier, nor can any amount of Session Zero make my quality judgments the same as yours.

Sure, one of us can agree to just go with whatever the other is defining as "good" or "lawful", but that, to me, completely ruins any investment I have in the character's well-being or the setting. I need to be able to relate to the main characters of the story, and if what's being laughingly passed off as "good" or "evil" doesn't fit my idea of what good and evil are, then I don't have it in me to care. The game, setting, developers, and DM can say "casting an Evil descriptor spell is an evil act" all they want, but if I don't agree that, to use a Pathfinder example, casting Infernal Healing automatically counts as evil, then as far as I'm concerned, your setting doesn't have good and evil. It has a "something" opposed by a "something else". The "something" is being called "good", and maybe it occasionally coincides with what good really is. The "something else" is being called "evil", and maybe it occasionally coincides with what evil really is. That sort of "unrelateability" is why I was rooting for the demons at the end of The Rod of Seven Parts; the so-called "protagonists" just didn't stand for any paradigm that I wanted to see survive.

The only solution, then, is to make it something that doesn't require an agreement. Sure, Tordek is a Fighter and so isn't really affected whether he remains LN or if you think his touch of larceny is enough to put him at TN, but there's no such thing as a Schrodinger's Paladin, who has simultaneously fallen and stayed in grace. As an example of something not requiring an agreement, imagine I describe a character as "decisive" on some "decisive-neutral-wishywashy" axis. I then portray that character in a manner that I believe qualifies as decisive enough to count as "decisive". You, also at that table, see how I portray this character and you don't believe he is decisive enough to be "decisive" (the character isn't wishywashy in your judgment, just not assertive enough to get out of neutral). We disagree. But it wouldn't go any further than that. Why? Because there are no classes, no feats, no class features, no spells, no anything that require the two of us to have the same understanding and the same judgments regarding decisiveness versus wishywashy-ness. Look through all the RPG gaming forums you care to, and you won't find a thread where "decisiveness versus wishywashy-ness" is being argued like alignment has been.

Contrast has the right of it. As long as nothing's being enforced, alignment doesn't have these issues. Look at OotS. The guy that plays Belkar (the Giant) is 100% in agreement with the guy that plays Roy (also the Giant), who has the same outlook on alignment as the guy playing V (still the Giant). No enforcing because they're all the same person and will naturally have the same value judgments. Otherwise, any amount of enforcing is far too much.

So.... I would argue that there has to be a collaborative effort to understand what makes a character their alignment. When I DM, and the feel an action is sufficiently outside of the player's alignment, I might signal to the player by saying, "So, your character sheet says that you are LG. Why do you feel that beggar deserves death?" If I disagree with the reasoning, I won't disallow the action but I might warn the player that they might be starting down a dark path which could have ramifications in the long term. If that LG character continually lies, cheats, steals, murders, and attempts to bring down the lawful government, I would tell the player that, based on the rules set out in session 0 (I always inform my players up front that alignment has ramifications in my games) that they need to change alignment.

Note: I'm not disallowing the actions at all. What I'm signaling here is that the character's choices have shown a change in priority and a shift in how the greater Powers of the multiverse will judge their soul. Also, if you have a good reason for why your LG character killed Old Man Jenkins who visits the orphans, I might not even consider this out of alignment. However, your justification is needed.

[RedMage125]

No crosses here Red, just an allergic reaction to condescension.

Actually...saying that I was labeling anyone's experience as "wrong" or "invalid" (something I never said, by the way), while emphatically using 1st person plural pronouns of "our" and "us" IS putting yourself up on a false cross. Unless you don't understand how language works. It was an attempt to frame yourself as being victimized by the Straw Man you'd constructed of my statement in order to paint me as some kind of "one true way"-spouting gaming fascist, which would make you, by means of an appeal to pity (Argumentum Ad Miserecordium), the one who was painted as "in the right".

Your continued accusations of condescension are hypocritical in that regard.

This is a silly argument. There is nothing wrong with a feeling of dissonance between your personal moral code and that expressed by a game or a work of art that you are interacting with.

Imagine I go to a movie. Let’s say it’s Birth of a Nation, and I walk out and say “man, I found that really objectionable.” Does that make me a NARCISSIST? Would you respond “It was a construct of (historical) FANTASY,” and dismiss my objections out of hand? I hope not!
Apples and oranges.

It's one thing to object to something you perceive as an observer. That's just having an opinion on something. It's another to say "this rule of a game I choose to play says X, for Y reason, and it affects Game Mechanic Z. Although these are consistent with each other, my personal belief is that X is wrong, for N reason. Because that makes Game Mechanic Z no longer resonate with the reason, I say the rules are flawed".

It's narcissistic to posit that one's own founding ASSUMPTIONS and OPINIONS are so vital and universal that they hold the weight of a universal Truth that even the RAW laid down by the developers of a fantasy world must be incorrect or flawed.


Now, I’m not saying that every complaint about alignment is well-founded. Maybe you’re right that the average forum complainer is simply mistake about the RAW. Maybe the RAW is actually much better aligned with most people’s personal code than they even realize. This is a totally different argument, though. It’s a reasonable expectation that when you label something EVIL, that label has some relation to evil as we understand it.
It usually does. Murder, Rape, Torture, Consorting With Fiends...these are things that still have resonance with us as "Evil". It often comes down to other things that have even less parallel with the real world, such as Animation of Mindless Undead, which some people perceive as little different than animated objects, and others do not (the RAW that I was referencing in 3.Xe, by the way, say that they are not)

And, to be fair, I DID quantify that I was sharing anecdotal experience. Which is also not the same as declaring something "fact". Granted, it's 100% of all anecdotes I have seen over the course of close to 17 years on this and other forums. But it's still anecdotal, and in the frame of judging something as Factual or Not, makes it Circumstantial Evidence.


Note that even D&D doesn't have objective forces of good/evil/law/chaos. It only has objective forces of "Good"/"Evil"/"Law"/"Chaos".

Nothing obliges a D&D player, PC or NPC to agree with the PHB about what actually constitutes good and evil, let alone law and chaos.

But that right there is one of the points I often bring up against alignment detractors. PCs and NPCs don't necessarily have the same understanding of how those objective forces are judged. Which is why alignments do not force anyone into "cookie cutter" personalities like some people claim. A man could very well believe he is Neutral, or even Good, for committing atrocity in the name of the greater good. Let's say he was aware of a prophecy that an orphan will unleash Demogorgon into the world when they come of age. So he goes around, slaughtering all the baby orphans, trying to prevent this. He commits no other evil acts. He may think he's doing the world a service. But his actions are judged objectively by the dispassionate forces of Good/Evil, and his alignment would be Evil.

For me, as a DM, I believe in being as fair as possible (probably because in a D&D setting I would be Lawful Neutral). I try and stick very closely to the RAW, and the very few house rules that I implement are all spelled out very clearly to my players in advance. To me, it is important to my personal values, that I judge alignment by RAW. I do this because my priority is fairness. If my players have access to the very same books that I am using to make such a judgment call about alignment (because these things ARE in the hands of the DM), then they can have a reasonably fair and accurate expectation of what my judgment calls on those matters will be. So they're never surprised and/or angry at any kind of "unfair" call, nor do they ever have "gotcha" tactics sprung on them. The only times I have ever changed a character's alignment based on how they were behaving, I mentioned to the player the trend that their actions were taking, and he thought about it and nodded and said "you're probably right. I'm going to keep playing him like I feel he should be, and if I do finally cross over to the other alignment, just let me know when that happens, and I'll change it on my sheet". Alignment should only ever be changed as a result of actions the players CHOOSES to take. Or by powerful magicks. In fact, the only alignment-affecting magic item I have EVER introduced was a fragment of the Rod of Seven Parts when I ran Age of Worms. The players (in and out of character) knew that it was a powerful artifact of Law, and they even made sure to only have Lawful characters touch it at first. Then they decided one of the non-lawful characters should carry it, and still got a Will save (fairly low DC for their level) and he failed THAT. So his alignment moved one step closer to Lawful, and I discussed what that meant for him, in and out of character.


Personally while I have been playing D&D from 1e (with older D&D mixed in without knowing it) through today I do not bother with alignment in the game. Sure you may play a character and be a good guy or maybe evil but I do not feel like it needs or even should be on your character sheet. I do not feel that it serves any purpose (well any good purpose) and just causes more trouble than it helps. I do find it helpful to talk to new players about whether they may want to play a good guy or someone a bit shadier (and then how are they shady) but I do not feel that codifying it on a sheet.
I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but there ARE benefits to knowing what alignment something counts as. Alignment mechanics allow for giving voice to classic fantasy tropes. The paladin enters the recently-abandoned shrine of a demon cult and can sense the lingering taint of evil, like a stink in the air. A Holy weapon that is more effective against all with evil in their hearts, from the least orc to the mightiest demon. Things like that. That's where clear alignment distinctions can be productive. Maybe your game doesn't use those elements, so YMMV, but if there wasn't a clear distinction, then who would take extra damage from a Holy weapon? Would it be based entirely on DM fiat? My personal preference is that codified rules protect the players from such arbitrary decisions.


If they kept alignment around for discussions and it is not a joke I am really not happy with them. Let alignment die the death it deserved so many years ago. It really was not interesting then (and I even like Planescape and I hated alignment how crazy is that?) and I find it tiresome now.
And others like it. Some DO find it productive, coherent, and helpful. Is your opinion any more valid than theirs?

Personally, I like 5e's model, where they are still present, but don't have such deeply-rooted tentacles as 3e, so they're easier to remove/ignore for those who don't like it.


Precisely this.

If I want to play what I think qualifies as a Lawful Good character, and I put LG on the character sheet, then what I am communicating (and indeed, the only thing I can be expected to be communicate) is that, in my judgment, the character overall qualifies as more lawful than not and more good than not. The character has lawful traits AND neutral and chaotic traits and good traits AND neutral and evil traits, but in terms of how often anything is getting expressed or how important to the character it's supposed to be once expressed, the bulk is supposed to fall in the LG category more than anything else. The example from the 3.5 PHB was Tordek, a mostly lawful Fighter who nevertheless had a touch of larceny in his heart. So no matter how often said larceny was expressed, it is supposed to be understood that Tordek otherwise falls squarely on the lawful side.
...except that such is ENTIRELY within the bounds of 3.xe alignment. Re-read chapter 6 of the 3e PHB sometime. I'm paraphrasing here, but it even says a Lawful good character can have a larcenous streak, and an evil person may occasionally act selflessly. Also, that no one acts 100% in accordance with their alignment all the time, or even from day to day.

So...I'm not seeing any kind of "dissonance" here.

[War_lord]

As the person who is quoted in the OP here's my suggestion.

A lot of current gamers on this forum started with 3.0 or 3.5. 3.X was heavily focused on builds and also on magic items, at least some of those magic items could have alignment restrictions. That edition also had Paladins running around who could tell your alignment just by looking at you. So in 3.X an unwanted alignment shift was very much a mechanical punishment, possibly weakening a character mechanically as well as opening them up to attacks from over-zealous holy warriors. So I think a lot of the knee jerk reaction to alignment shifts is a case of old habits dying hard, much like players accepting gold rewards for quests despite gold in this edition not actually being that useful past a certain threshold.

EDIT: Also, Tordek having a "touch" of larceny in his heart doesn't give him carte blanche to go around robbing people without an alignment shift. There's a difference between occasionally letting greed or circumstances get the better of you, and just plain robbery. Which goes back to my quoted assertion in the OP that some people just like to write "Lawful Good" on their sheet because they like the idea, without actually wanting to play Lawful Good.

[Tanarii]

I love the 5e Alignment system as a roleplaying tool. It works wonderfully as shorthand for "this is my planned typical behavior for my N/PC, barring specific overriding personality traits coming into play." A nice broad motivation to overlay more specific motivations on top of.

Disputes usually happen because someone (a DM or another player) is tryin to use it both as a label after the fact (which is fine) of specific actions (which is against RAW) and demanding their interpreation of the facts is right (generally a bad idea, but none of us ever let that stop us. ;) )

[krugaan]

I love the 5e Alignment system as a roleplaying tool. It works wonderfully as shorthand for "this is my planned typical behavior for my N/PC, barring specific overriding personality traits coming into play." A nice broad motivation to overlay more specific motivations on top of.


It's pretty much always been that way, hasn't it?

Now it just doesn't shoehorn the PCs into acting a certain a way. I still think the way it's laid out is unintuitive, though.


For DMing long-term tables with significant roleplaying, I've made it a standing habit to simply address it directly by noting that I'll treat it as:

Law\Chaos = Order\Freedom*
Good\Evil = Charitablity\Selfishness

*specifically, "freedom to" and not "freedom from"

It isn't an exact match, but it does enough of a job of cutting away the more vague and charged words to make the operating framework both less contentious and less vague.


This is pretty much exactly how I've always envisioned it. Very simple, easy to understand.

[smcmike]

Apples and oranges.

It's one thing to object to something you perceive as an observer. That's just having an opinion on something. It's another to say "this rule of a game I choose to play says X, for Y reason, and it affects Game Mechanic Z. Although these are consistent with each other, my personal belief is that X is wrong, for N reason. Because that makes Game Mechanic Z no longer resonate with the reason, I say the rules are flawed".

Forgive me, but I don’t see how your algebra makes film criticism totally different from game criticism. Can you make the distinction you are drawing clearer? What makes game rules different from other media, other than the fact that playing groups are free to edit the rules to fit their preferences?



It's narcissistic to posit that one's own founding ASSUMPTIONS and OPINIONS are so vital and universal that they hold the weight of a universal Truth that even the RAW laid down by the developers of a fantasy world must be incorrect or flawed.

Capitalization, like algebra, fails to convince me (sorry for the snark! I can’t help it tbh). Having beliefs about what is good and what is evil does not make one a narcissist. It makes one human.



It usually does. Murder, Rape, Torture, Consorting With Fiends...these are things that still have resonance with us as "Evil". It often comes down to other things that have even less parallel with the real world, such as Animation of Mindless Undead, which some people perceive as little different than animated objects, and others do not (the RAW that I was referencing in 3.Xe, by the way, say that they are not)

Right! Yes, like I said, this is a different argument! Defending the RAW as actually pretty reasonable is a different position than claiming that criticism of RAW equals narcissism.



I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but there ARE benefits to knowing what alignment something counts as. Alignment mechanics allow for giving voice to classic fantasy tropes. The paladin enters the recently-abandoned shrine of a demon cult and can sense the lingering taint of evil, like a stink in the air.

This doesn’t actually need alignment, per se. A theoretical Good vampire or demon would still be detectable by the paladin’s divine sense.



A Holy weapon that is more effective against all with evil in their hearts, from the least orc to the mightiest demon.

This . . . isn’t a thing in 5e?

[Tanarii]

It's pretty much always been that way, hasn't it?Nope. At various times its been about individual actions determing alignment, including an aggregate score that actions shift you towards law, good, chaos, or evil.

And its almost always been about individual intersection of a law/chaos and good/evil axis (when both were used). As opposed to nine discrete alignments, each of which has its own generally described behavior, that is easily used as a broad motivation.

[krugaan]

Nope. At various times its been about individual actions determing alignment, including an aggregate score that actions shift you towards law, good, chaos, or evil.

And its almost always been about individual intersection of a law/chaos and good/evil axis (when both were used). As opposed to nine discrete alignments, each of which has its own generally described behavior, that is easily used as a broad motivation.

I meant more like "DMs have regularly used them as shorthand for npc motivation, but otherwise disregarded them unless mechanics called for it."

Damn, alignment has changed a lot over the years.

[Unoriginal]

Also sometime the "is X evil?" threads show up when the OP has felt empathy/sympathy for a thoroughly malevolent being (generally fictional) and try to see if others shared that.

Some people don't want to deal with the fact that they're feeling something positive for the bad guy, so consciously or not they try to re-imagine said being as not-so-bad.

Which results in people asking if serial killer nobles who kill their servants for no reason or universe-wide tyrants who slaughter billions but still cry are *really* classified as evil by the game.

[Honest Tiefling]

Which results in people asking if serial killer nobles who kill their servants for no reason or universe-wide tyrants who slaughter billions but still cry are *really* classified as evil by the game.

Nah, it's okay if they are wearing earth tones. Only good guys do that!

Sometimes, I think a few of those threads are about people trying to justify loony actions or DMs trying to find any justification not to boot their friend.

[Tanarii]

Some people don't want to deal with the fact that they're feeling something positive for the bad guy, so consciously or not they try to re-imagine said being as not-so-bad.
Happens a lot IRL too.

[GreyBlack]

Happens a lot IRL too.

This may be the key point. A player who does monstrous things in game and who feels attached to their character may just feel attacked if there's a suggestion that their actions may not be consistent with the alignment on their character sheet.

To which I say the best thing to do is just relax and realize that this is just a game. No one is implying that YOU are an evil person, just that the character is doing evil things in game. Embrace it and have fun with it!

[Tanarii]

To which I say the best thing to do is just relax and realize that this is just a game. No one is implying that YOU are an evil person, just that the character is doing evil things in game. Embrace it and have fun with it!As a DM, I like the the 5e method for telling someone not to be "evil" in your game as well. You point to the typical behaviors, which aren't complicated or hard to understand unless you intentionally want to parse or willfully misinterpret them, and say "don't act like that typical behavior regularly".

[tomandtish]

Relevant?

Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

#lawfulgood #conandidnothingwrong

Actually, this quote here shows quite well how alignment can be interpreted differently. I'd never have movie Conan (whom you are quoting) as good. Neutral, probably chaotic neutral. But none of his actions in the move indicate goodness.

[krugaan]

Actually, this quote here shows quite well how alignment can be interpreted differently. I'd never have movie Conan (whom you are quoting) as good. Neutral, probably chaotic neutral. But none of his actions in the move indicate goodness.

It pretty much boils down to motivation.

Which, in DnD as in life, is never really clear, at least for the PCs.

edit: hmmmmmmm, just had a profound realization (well, I think it's profound).

Probably starting a new alignment thread (I know, I know).

Eh, screw it.

Anyway, the Conan quote was there to point out that a lot of people consider motivation to be central to alignment discussions because a persons "goodness" IRL is heavily dependant on it, right?

Every culture values things differently, particularly fictional ones: the Ferengi value cleverness and trickery, dwarves value hard work, elves are tree hugging hippies, halflings are stoners, drow are crazy sadomasochists, whatever. A bunch of stereotypes.

If we apply moral relativism to each of those cultures, we'd simply get a chaotic jumble of competing alignment systems. DnD alignment is set from a firmly Western human viewpoint as a point of reference. From a design standpoint, it's the only way that makes sense, particularly since the cosmology has literally defined good and evil acts regardless of motivation. Again, because you can never really know motivations of people, for the most part.

DnD alignment is the way it is because otherwise Drow would be "good" according to their viewpoint, which is much more offputting than the occasional murderhobo complaining about being labeled "evil" for burning down more than one orphanage.

[GreyBlack]

It pretty much boils down to motivation.

Which, in DnD as in life, is never really clear, at least for the PCs.

edit: hmmmmmmm, just had a profound realization (well, I think it's profound).

Probably starting a new alignment thread (I know, I know).

Eh, screw it.

Anyway, the Conan quote was there to point out that a lot of people consider motivation to be central to alignment discussions because a persons "goodness" IRL is heavily dependant on it, right?

Every culture values things differently, particularly fictional ones: the Ferengi value cleverness and trickery, dwarves value hard work, elves are tree hugging hippies, halflings are stoners, drow are crazy sadomasochists, whatever. A bunch of stereotypes.

If we apply moral relativism to each of those cultures, we'd simply get a chaotic jumble of competing alignment systems. DnD alignment is set from a firmly Western human viewpoint as a point of reference. From a design standpoint, it's the only way that makes sense, particularly since the cosmology has literally defined good and evil acts regardless of motivation. Again, because you can never really know motivations of people, for the most part.

DnD alignment is the way it is because otherwise Drow would be "good" according to their viewpoint, which is much more offputting than the occasional murderhobo complaining about being labeled "evil" for burning down more than one orphanage.

In certain philosophical circles, there is a division between ethics and morality. Where morality describes the universal qualities of good and evil (those actions which, in the Kantian sense, are universalizable), ethics is the attempt to describe what actions you should undertake to live a good life as opposed to actions which cause you to lead a bad life. Where ethics can be subjective, morality is universal, and it's in that union of the universal and particular that allows us to participate in discussions of how to live a good life.

Now, what's this got to do with D&D? Well, we can apply that template to the alignment system. A character's ethics is represented in their TBIF, whereas their alignment represents their morality. One is the universal order of the cosmos and universal, while one is character centered and represents their particular way to live a good life.

[Tanarii]

DnD alignment is set from a firmly Western human viewpoint as a point of reference. From a design standpoint, it's the only way that makes sense, particularly since the cosmology has literally defined good and evil acts regardless of motivation.
5e has a grand total on one literally defined good or evil "act", and even the actual evilness is really couched in terms of overal behavior.

I also question how "objective" the default 5e cosmology really is supposed to be. I mean, it's certainly objective at the DM / player / table level. They assign the labels to monsters/NPCs and their characters, and that's their "real" alignment, regardless of what the creatures believe about themselves, their behavior, or the actions that take in game. But they still choose how to apply any given Alignment's behaviors. And Alignments are still about overall behavior, not a given action, and individuals explicitly will vary within and from them.

[RedMage125]

Forgive me, but I don’t see how your algebra makes film criticism totally different from game criticism. Can you make the distinction you are drawing clearer? What makes game rules different from other media, other than the fact that playing groups are free to edit the rules to fit their preferences?
Because the first is recognizing that one's own opinion. The second is saying "Because my opinion is the most important one, the rules based on any other assumptions are bad rules". And you don't see why that's narcissism?

But groups are absolutely free to edit to their own preferences. It's what makes D&D such a great game. I always advocate that the only "wrong" way to play is one where the people at your table are not having fun

But when discussing rules in the forums, whether it is a question about how rules work, clarification, or even a value judgement about the rules, only RAW are valid for discussion. Why? Because there are so many permutations of house rules, that only the core, printed rules we all have access to are valid for discussion. Ergo when people discuss what is or is not true about alignment, there ARE right and wrong statements. To be clear, just because someone's statement about their play experience reflects an incorrect use of alignment RAW does not make their EXPERIENCE "wrong" or "less valid". But it does undermine any point they may be trying to make using that experience as some kind of evidence of a flaw in alignment RAW.

To wit: If the only times a rule set is problematic stem from when the RAW are deviated from, how are the RAW of those rules "bad"?


Capitalization, like algebra, fails to convince me (sorry for the snark! I can’t help it tbh).
My old computer didn't always like it when I used italics and such, and it became a bad habit of showing emphasis. Even though I'll mix Caps and italics in the same posts. Sometimes I'm falling into old habits, sometimes I'm paying more attention.
But the "algebra" was my attempt to make the point more general than just alignment rules.


Having beliefs about what is good and what is evil does not make one a narcissist. It makes one human.

Agreed.


Right! Yes, like I said, this is a different argument! Defending the RAW as actually pretty reasonable is a different position than claiming that criticism of RAW equals narcissism.
Full Stop, there, because I never said that.

I said people who can't step outside themselves to recognize the difference between their opinions and actual facts were narcissistic. If a person disagrees with the RAW and wants to make a change for their game, I say go for it. But if they claim that the RAW are actually "bad" just because they think their opinion should have more weight than that of the actual developer of the fantasy world...yeah, that's not the same as just "having a different opinion". Especially when they come to the forums and claim that all their criticisms are "facts" of the system (because remember, only RAW is "fact" for a forum discussion).

[Malifice]

If the DM insists that the entry be changed so what?

People dont like being called evil.

As a lawyer IRL I deal with evil people all the time. Child molesters, rapists, violent criminals, murderers etc.

Nearly none of them think they're evil. None of them. Almost to a man, they justify their crimes and evil. Externalise it. Rationalise it. Frame it as the victims or the world that is evil, and they're only reacting to that.

I think I've had one person who acknowledges they're evil and doesnt care. It happens, but denial is far more common.

When you label a PC as 'evil' you're also vicariously labelling the actor behind that PC (i.e. the player) as evil because its the player themselves who doesnt think their actions are evil. Often the player genuinely and honestly thinks that his PCs [murder, rape, necromancy, diabolism, genocide, infanticide, torture] is justified given the context.

People dont like hearing that. They will invarably argue the point with you, attempting to justify their actions.

In game, I dont care. Your PC kills a person needlessly (i.e not in self defence or the defence of others), reacts with arbitrary violence, engages in torture, rape, diabolism or necromancy etc, then expect to get a verbal warning from the DM, followed not long afterwards by an erasor rubbing out whatever you wrote on the character sheet in the alignment section, and a pencil writing in what you are (according to the Gods, via the DM).

Play your character however you want. The Gods judge you accordingly. Thats how it works IMG.

[Tectorman]

...except that such is ENTIRELY within the bounds of 3.xe alignment. Re-read chapter 6 of the 3e PHB sometime. I'm paraphrasing here, but it even says a Lawful good character can have a larcenous streak, and an evil person may occasionally act selflessly. Also, that no one acts 100% in accordance with their alignment all the time, or even from day to day.

So...I'm not seeing any kind of "dissonance" here.

Okay, how do you know when the player is just having their character portray the standard accepted deviation on their alignment and how do you know when it's the player saying he wants his character's alignment to change (or worse, when the character's alignment needs to change "never mind the player")?

No, not "guess". Not "eh, flip a coin, moving on, no skin off my teeth". I need you to KNOW. As surely as I do. No, it's not as much of an issue for Tordek; he's a Fighter and wouldn't get screwed over by an alignment change. But if I'm playing a class that has things at stake, then nothing short of you and I being on the exact same page will suffice.

Are you as the DM just going to go along with whatever I say? If I tell you "Oh, yeah, this is totally one of his outlier behaviors, not meant to be an alignment shift", will you accept that, period?

Remember, I don't consider there to be any amount of Session Zero that can suffice to put us on the same page. Enough for a player to agree to settle for/put up with whatever good decision/arbitrary whim the DM comes up with (which I'm sure the DM will think perfectly in line with his interpretation of the book)? Sure, that happens. I will never consider alignment to have any benefit that even comes close to outweighing such a steep cost, though.

And really, those are the only two outcomes. The player subsumes his views or part of his views on good and evil to the DM's, or the DM gives the player 100% carte blanche on his character's alignment, no questions asked (and in so doing, has his own views on good and evil subsumed by the player's). Neither of which I believe the game, nor its developers, has any business asking any of its participants to do.

Ergo, my comparison to a "decisiveness-neutral-wishywashy-ness" axis that isn't in the game and therefore, the game doesn't require the players and the DM to be on the same page. I can declare my character "decisive", and in good faith think both that the character would best be classified as "decisive" and that I am correctly or at least sufficiently portraying said "decisiveness". And you, either a fellow player or the DM, can observe how I'm portraying said so-called "decisive" character, and in good faith disagree with either or both of my description or portrayal. I don't have to be right and you don't have to be wrong. You don't have to be right and I don't have to be wrong.

The dissonance is that, unless we're the same person, we cannot be honestly expected to 100% agree on alignment, either how it's described in the book or how the in-book description is interpreted at the table. And without that 100% agreement, for alignment to function as an unquantifiable construct with quantifiable in-game consequences, someone has to let their views on good and evil get trampled. Which the game has no right to ask of anyone.

[Malifice]

Remember, I don't consider there to be any amount of Session Zero that can suffice to put us on the same page.

Session zero:

'I define evil to mean the harming [and killing] of others when not done in reasonable self defence or the defence of others from similar harm, when no other option reasonably presents itself, and not in a manner that is proportionate to the threat or harm. I define good as showing mercy, compassion, kindness, empathy and selfless self sacrifice.

As DM I reserve the right to change your alignmnent, and for determining what your actual objective alignment is, as determined by the Gods, and having an effect on any Game rule stuff that ties into alignment such as good/ evil Robes of the Archmagi, what happens in a Unicorns lair etc, and where your soul travels on death.

You as player only get to determine what alignment you subjectively think your character is, and what your characters subjective view of his actions are.

Alignment arguments otherwise will othwerwise not be tolerated, and as with anything, I'll show the door to anyone sooking or being an argumentative ****.'

Sorted.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, this quote here shows quite well how alignment can be interpreted differently. I'd never have movie Conan (whom you are quoting) as good. Neutral, probably chaotic neutral. But none of his actions in the move indicate goodness. He is the story's protagonist. He is on a quest to avenge the death of his father, and to find the answer to the riddle of steel. The story form is a little bit like a vision quest tale, and a little like a "growing up/growing" tale. Campbell treats narratives like this as a very traditional form of quest story. Your attempt at applying an AD&D specific restriction / label to this story form is IMO part of the problem with how people deal with alignment in D&D. Granted, those same people had a lot of help. :smalltongue: From AD&D's authors.

I just tripped over an article from dragon 163, that begins like this
Since the AD&D® game was introduced, “there has been no end to the controversy ver alignment. It seems that many players and DMs don't know how the alignment classifications in the various AD&D 1st Edition volumes should affect a character'’s style of play. Granted, the rulebooks’ are somewhat vague and lack detail, but numerous articles, editorials and letters in DRAGON® Magazine have addressed the problem. The result of this confusion is that many players ignore this aspect of the game because they aren'’t sure what constitutes proper behavior regarding their characters alignments. Sound familiar? The people in 5e who toss up their hands and let alignment go are not alone in their distaste for using it mechanically. It leads up to this exam question, which the author tries to answer.

So what is good or evil? What constitutes chaotic or lawful behavior in a player character?Prescriptive, rather than descriptive alignment. We then see a line of discussion similar to what goes on in various GiTP alignment threads.

Good, evil, law, and chaos exist as universal balancing forces. Without all four, neutrality would not exist, humans and demi-humans could not make moral and ethical choices. Without opposing forces, there would be no measure by which virtue and sin could be rewarded or atoned for in the afterlife.

But the multiverse is neither good nor evil, ordered nor chaotic. The choices of its intelligent creatures, both mortal and immortal, create the circumstances of life on any given plane, world, or specific society. And, since the majority of AD&D game societies have already manifested a world view of good, PCs and NPCs will be under severe constraints and biases when they attempt to define their own good. Nonetheless, many will choose to scorn good or at least think of it as irrelevant when they seek places in the social order. But such conflict is, after all, what makes the AD&D game interesting and viable. Without conflict between good and evil, or law and chaos, what would be the point of adventuring? Bolding mine. This is an inherent assumption built into the game in AD&D 1e, that has finally been rolled back a little bit in 5e.

And after an exhaustive examination of what behavior typifies a (pick one of the nine) alignment types, this in closing:

Lastly, it must always be kept in mind that, when dealing with human or demi-human foibles and imperfections, there is no such thing as pure “goodness” or “badness.” A reasonable DM should see nothing wrong with, say, a paladin having a bad day wherein he snaps at everybody, kicks his dog for soiling his favorite suit of armor, or even loses his temper and yells at a persistent beggar. And the world isn'’t likely to end if a chaotic-evil thief helps an old lady across the street without thereafter mugging her, or gives a copper to a blind man. After all, nobody’s perfect. yeah

Yes, I much preferred the looser Law/Neutral/Chaos of the original game. I found it easier to work with.

[Tectorman]

Session zero:

'I define evil to mean the harming [and killing] of others when not done in reasonable self defence or the defence of others from similar harm, when no other option reasonably presents itself, and not in a manner that is proportionate to the threat or harm. I define good as showing mercy, compassion, kindness, empathy and selfless self sacrifice.

As DM I reserve the right to change your alignmnent, and for determining what your actual objective alignment is, as determined by the Gods, and having an effect on any Game rule stuff that ties into alignment such as good/ evil Robes of the Archmagi, what happens in a Unicorns lair etc, and where your soul travels on death.

You as player only get to determine what alignment you subjectively think your character is, and what your characters subjective view of his actions are.

Alignment arguments otherwise will othwerwise not be tolerated, and as with anything, I'll show the door to anyone sooking or being an argumentative ****.'

Sorted.

That falls under "the player having to subsume all or some of his views on good and evil when no one, not the game, not its developers, and not the current DM (you) have the right to ask that". Yes, you're making that demand anyway. And yes, throughout this game's history, there have been many players that knuckle under to ultimatums like that thinking it's simply their lot in life or "the way things should be". That I disagree that I should have to do that under any circumstance, I will never agree qualifies as "being an argumentative ****".

But I'll certainly grant you that this sorts things very quickly.

[krugaan]

That falls under "the player having to subsume all or some of his views on good and evil when no one, not the game, not its developers, and not the current DM (you) have the right to ask that". Yes, you're making that demand anyway. And yes, throughout this game's history, there have been many players that knuckle under to ultimatums like that thinking it's simply their lot in life or "the way things should be". That I disagree that I should have to do that under any circumstance, I will never agree qualifies as "being an argumentative ****".

But I'll certainly grant you that this sorts things very quickly.

Malifice is pretty polar in his opinions, but a simple "for the purposes of DnD and this campaign, alignment will be handled thus..." is fine, while pointing out that real life "good and evil" isn't the same as "DnD good and evil".

[Waterdeep Merch]

Alignment only ever comes up at a table when someone is either acting like a complete jerk or is using it as a weak justification for doing something that cannot be reasonably done in-character under normal circumstances, typically so that they may utilize out of game knowledge. And you can argue that the latter case is just the former case in a funny hat. This is also not restricted to bad players; bad DM's do this, too.

No one's really got the time to have a morality debate at a table like we tend to have out here on the internet in forums, not when they're busy playing a game.

[Tectorman]

Malifice is pretty polar in his opinions, but a simple "for the purposes of DnD and this campaign, alignment will be handled thus..." is fine, while pointing out that real life "good and evil" isn't the same as "DnD good and evil".

But by having DnD "good and evil" explicitly called out as not compatible with real life "good and evil", as opposed to leaving it undefined (as in, again, what does and does not qualify as "decisive" versus "wishy-washy"), I lose any capacity to relate to the characters in the story, PC or NPC. So, not fine for me.

[krugaan]

But by having DnD "good and evil" explicitly called out as not compatible with real life "good and evil", as opposed to leaving it undefined (as in, again, what does and does not qualify as "decisive" versus "wishy-washy"), I lose any capacity to relate to the characters in the story, PC or NPC. So, not fine for me.

Well, it doesn't, really.

I'm sorry that it's not fine for you, but you're already playing a fantasy game with magic and beasts of myth, perhaps you could suspend your disbelief a little higher and cover a bit of ... regressive morals?

[Tectorman]

Well, it doesn't, really.

I'm sorry that it's not fine for you, but you're already playing a fantasy game with magic and beasts of myth, perhaps you could suspend your disbelief a little higher and cover a bit of ... regressive morals?

I could. I could also ... not compromise my principles. That's also a thing, and probably closer to (or, at least, not getting further away from) the reason why I'm even in this hobby. Yeah, I'ma go with that second choice.

What do you mean by "regressive morals"?

[krugaan]

I could. I could also ... not compromise my principles. That's also a thing, and probably closer to (or, at least, not getting further away from) the reason why I'm even in this hobby. Yeah, I'ma go with that second choice.


It's not a matter of compromising principles, it's a matter of definition. "Good" and "evil" in the real world are defined by the people who live in it. "Good" and "evil" in DnD are defined by Wizards of the Coast.




What do you mean by "regressive morals"?

Like older beliefs, where certain actions were explicitly evil and you would go to hell. Eating meat on sunday, buggery, telling a lie to your father, stuff like that.

[Malifice]

That falls under "the player having to subsume all or some of his views on good and evil when no one, not the game, not its developers, and not the current DM (you) have the right to ask that".

Allow me to point to the rule in the PHB that expressly gives me (the DM) the right to adjudicate and narrate player actions.

Oh; you're engaging in genocide and rape? You're evil sayeth the Gods; now allow me to fix that mistake you made on your character sheet when you wrote 'good' there. It's important because we might one day need to know if you qualify for the Oathbreaker archetype, what happens to you in a Unicorns lair, what robes of the Archmagi you can attune to and so forth.'

There are mechanical implications to alignment, even in 5E. As the DM I am the one that adjudicated player actions, and narrates results (including mechanical results).

If the player walks through a portal that changes his gender, alignment, race or even class, so be it. Change it on your character sheet; I'm the DM.


But I'll certainly grant you that this sorts things very quickly.

My players trust me, and I trust them. We dont have these kinds of shennanigans often. Its only with new players who have come from tables with bad DMs that I see it.

They're also the ones that might try and murder a NPC for talking funny or some other silly reason in session 1.

They're the ones with characters you'll find hanging from the gallows at the end of the session.

Usually the players either dont come back (no loss) or they do come back, but as better players (win).

[Tectorman]

Allow me to point to the rule in the PHB that expressly gives me (the DM) the right to adjudicate and narrate player actions.

Oh; you're engaging in genocide and rape? You're evil sayeth the Gods; now allow me to fix that mistake you made on your character sheet when you wrote 'good' there. It's important because we might one day need to know if you qualify for the Oathbreaker archetype, what happens to you in a Unicorns lair, what robes of the Archmagi you can attune to and so forth.'

There are mechanical implications to alignment, even in 5E. As the DM I am the one that adjudicated player actions, and narrates results (including mechanical results).

If the player walks through a portal that changes his gender, alignment, race or even class, so be it. Change it on your character sheet; I'm the DM.

I'm aware that rule is there. My acknowledgement of its existence is not my agreement that it should be there. My point this whole time was how I believe the game is improved when this sort of "subsuming of other's views on good and evil" is nonexistent; obviously (I thought), that was me praising 5E for its greater strides in that regard compared to prior editions while simultaneously saying it didn't go far enough. Which means that rule in the PHB giving you that authority (in the case of just outright declaring what good and evil objectively are, anyway) is not one I agree with or feel I should have to (again, with regards to the outright declaring of universal objective good and evil; gender-changing portals and what happens if I walk through one are another story).


My players trust me, and I trust them. We dont have these kinds of shennanigans often. Its only with new players who have come from tables with bad DMs that I see it.

They're also the ones that might try and murder a NPC for talking funny or some other silly reason in session 1.

They're the ones with characters you'll find hanging from the gallows at the end of the session.

Usually the players either dont come back (no loss) or they do come back, but as better players (win).

Yep, that sounds like something to run, not walk, away from.

[Tectorman]

It's not a matter of compromising principles, it's a matter of definition. "Good" and "evil" in the real world are defined by the people who live in it. "Good" and "evil" in DnD are defined by Wizards of the Coast.

That's what compromises the principles, though, the defining itself. I don't hold that objective "good and evil" can be known or defined. That's not "there can't be an objective 'good and evil'"; it's "such a thing cannot be knowable". I believe it diminishes the concepts so thoroughly that any universe with such a hackable so-called morality is anathema to me.

I don't have a problem with WotC defining this or that or the other NPC's views on good and evil. He's not an objective source, he can be wrong, ignorant, or possibly even right and simply not know it for an objective scientific fact. Ditto any other fallible entity you care to name (military organizations, religions, nations, even deities), and I don't find it to be an issue. If anything, it makes them relatable and engage-able.


Like older beliefs, where certain actions were explicitly evil and you would go to hell. Eating meat on sunday, buggery, telling a lie to your father, stuff like that.

Ah. Sorry, but I'm going to have to chalk those up as "other things that also don't resonate with me in the slightest".

[Malifice]

I'm aware that rule is there. My acknowledgement of its existence is not my agreement that it should be there. My point this whole time was how I believe the game is improved when this sort of "subsuming of other's views on good and evil" is nonexistent.

Im not subsuming your views on good and evil. Im telling you what good and evil are in the game world I run.

Maybe you think genocide is perfectly good and moral. Heck; maybe your character does as well. Thats fine, go nuts. In my game world, it isnt.

That has no bearing on what your character (or you) think or what their views are, or the real world accuracy of those views. Only that in the objective reality of the game world, you're wrong.


Yep, that sounds like something to run, not walk, away from.

Good. We're on the same page here.

I play RPG's where players actions (senseless murder of a NPC) has ramifications. That's generally becoming a wanted man, with a capital sentence hanging over your head. A quick speak with dead spell from the local Sherriff (supported by the local town priest) finds who done it, and then several Guards, a Veteran (the Sherriff) and the Priest rock up to arrest (and hang) the PC.

It only ever happens the once.

[Tectorman]

Im not subsuming your views on good and evil. Im telling you what good and evil are in the game world I run.

Maybe you think genocide is perfectly good and moral. Heck; maybe your character does as well. Thats fine, go nuts. In my game world, it isnt.

That has no bearing on what your character (or you) think or what their views are, or the real world accuracy of those views. Only that in the objective reality of the game world, you're wrong.

It's those bolded parts that go too far for me.

You telling me what good and evil objectively are in any capacity IS subsuming my views on good and evil, though. Like I was telling krugaan, my capacity to relate to a given story as a reader or a player participating at the table depends on good and evil not being objectively known or knowable. You can have so-called "good and evil" be things that can scientifically measured and quantified in your game world all you want, but that will never be a thing I will agree I should be expected to participate in, rule from the PHB be damned.


Good. We're on the same page here.

I play RPG's where players actions (senseless murder of a NPC) has ramifications. That's generally becoming a wanted man, with a capital sentence hanging over your head. A quick speak with dead spell from the local Sherriff (supported by the local town priest) finds who done it, and then several Guards, a Veteran (the Sherriff) and the Priest rock up to arrest (and hang) the PC.

It only ever happens the once.

Literally everything you're saying in that second paragraph is not something I'm disagreeing with. Yes, actions have ramifications. Yes, wantonly killing an NPC can and should easily lead to other NPCs pursuing the PC until it leads to their death.

Exactly what part of that cannot be accomplished by "the NPCs doing the pursuing, or just the one in charge, or maybe even their entire justice department/religion/nation/deity believes [blank] about good and evil" and requires "good and evil objectively are this or that way and this is a knowable thing"?

I wouldn't be leaving a table because of actions having consequences doled out by other in-universe entities that can be agreed with or disagreed with; that's only to be expected. Having to accept good and evil as things that anyone can knowingly be objectively right about? Heck no.

[Willie the Duck]

Im not subsuming your views on good and evil. Im telling you what good and evil are in the game world I run.

Maybe you think genocide is perfectly good and moral. Heck; maybe your character does as well. Thats fine, go nuts. In my game world, it isnt.

That has no bearing on what your character (or you) think or what their views are, or the real world accuracy of those views. Only that in the objective reality of the game world, you're wrong.

Why did you do that (to be clear, I am talking about how, while you did not state that your conversational opposition believed that genocide was moral, but you used it as a theoretical example, subtly implying that they might)? It literally added nothing to the argument, yet made it look like you could not deal with a conversational opponent who was a reasonable individual who disagreed with you on a rational point, but instead had to mentally paint them as a straw genocide-loving nutjob. This actively hurts your ability to convince others reading the thread, so I am mystified.

[smcmike]

Why did you do that (to be clear, I am talking about how, while you did not state that your conversational opposition believed that genocide was moral, but you used it as a theoretical example, subtly implying that they might)? It literally added nothing to the argument, yet made it look like you could not deal with a conversational opponent who was a reasonable individual who disagreed with you on a rational point, but instead had to mentally paint them as a straw genocide-loving nutjob. This actively hurts your ability to convince others reading the thread, so I am mystified.

That’s the patented Malifice style of argumentation.

[Malifice]

It's those bolded parts that go too far for me.

You telling me what good and evil objectively are in any capacity IS subsuming my views on good and evil, though. Like I was telling krugaan, my capacity to relate to a given story as a reader or a player participating at the table depends on good and evil not being objectively known or knowable. You can have so-called "good and evil" be things that can scientifically measured and quantified in your game world all you want, but that will never be a thing I will agree I should be expected to participate in, rule from the PHB be damned.



Literally everything you're saying in that second paragraph is not something I'm disagreeing with. Yes, actions have ramifications. Yes, wantonly killing an NPC can and should easily lead to other NPCs pursuing the PC until it leads to their death.

Exactly what part of that cannot be accomplished by "the NPCs doing the pursuing, or just the one in charge, or maybe even their entire justice department/religion/nation/deity believes [blank] about good and evil" and requires "good and evil objectively are this or that way and this is a knowable thing"?

I wouldn't be leaving a table because of actions having consequences doled out by other in-universe entities that can be agreed with or disagreed with; that's only to be expected. Having to accept good and evil as things that anyone can knowingly be objectively right about? Heck no.

Cool. Super weird position to take, but you'd be weeded out in session zero.

Which brings me back to my initial point, it is possible to set the standards and outline your alignment policy in session zero.

[Sigreid]

Just had a thought that there could be another problem with changing someone's alignment. If you write a big Evil on a player's character sheet the player may decide "screw it, if I'm evil when I'm not trying to be, I may as well go all in on it". Now, your notes on the DM side of the screen about the character are whatever you think you need.

[Malifice]

Why did you do that (to be clear, I am talking about how, while you did not state that your conversational opposition believed that genocide was moral, but you used it as a theoretical example, subtly implying that they might)? It literally added nothing to the argument, yet made it look like you could not deal with a conversational opponent who was a reasonable individual who disagreed with you on a rational point, but instead had to mentally paint them as a straw genocide-loving nutjob. This actively hurts your ability to convince others reading the thread, so I am mystified.

Dozens of people have actively advocated genocide as being morally acceptable for a Good PC to engage in on this very sub forum. On a galactic scale even.

Genocide is common enough that anecdotally they're not alone.

I've seen threads arguing that the punisher is good aligned, Rick (from Rick and Morty) are good aligned etc.

I've seen baby murder, torture, mass murder, necromancy, cannibalism, slavery and worse similarly argued to be morally good in certain circumstances. Again on this very forum.

About the only thing that everyone agrees to be evil seems to be rape.

Barring one person, who was also of the view that having sex with a mind controlled person was something a good person could engage in. He was using Rick Sanchez as his example (purveyor of galactic genocide).

Seriously man, as absurd as it might be for a rational human being to believe that people could make those arguments, they the made here all the time. Weekly even.

Its madness. Almost no depravity is beyond the 'forces of good'.

You expect that in a RPG forum that is likely made up of teenage boys with low social skills who regularly escape to a fantasy world via a sock puppet PC, but still.

[Malifice]

Just had a thought that there could be another problem with changing someone's alignment. If you write a big Evil on a player's character sheet the player may decide "screw it, if I'm evil when I'm not trying to be, I may as well go all in on it". Now, your notes on the DM side of the screen about the character are whatever you think you need.

They're already playing evil if they get an evil on the character sheet.

You're saying they start to play their character like a deranged psychopath beyond even Charles Manson, randomly murdering everyone they meet for no appreciable reason.

They do that, and they get pointed the door, unless they've been actively working towards portraying a descent into absolute psychopathic madness.

Dare say such a PC has a very short life span in any event.

[Sigreid]

They're already playing evil if they get an evil on the character sheet.

You're saying they start to play their character like a deranged psychopath beyond even Charles Manson, randomly murdering everyone they meet for no appreciable reason.

They do that, and they get pointed the door, unless they've been actively working towards portraying a descent into absolute psychopathic madness.

Dare say such a PC has a very short life span in any event.

Not necessarily. Could be as simple as stealing no longer being an occasional quirk to stealing the copper pieces from beggars.

[Unoriginal]

Dozens of people have actively advocated genocide as being morally acceptable for a Good PC to engage in on this very sub forum. On a galactic scale even.

Genocide is common enough that anecdotally they're not alone.

I've seen threads arguing that the punisher is good aligned, Rick (from Rick and Morty) are good aligned etc.

I've seen baby murder, torture, mass murder, necromancy, cannibalism, slavery and worse similarly argued to be morally good in certain circumstances. Again on this very forum.

About the only thing that everyone agrees to be evil seems to be rape.

Barring one person, who was also of the view that having sex with a mind controlled person was something a good person could engage in. He was using Rick Sanchez as his example (purveyor of galactic genocide).

Seriously man, as absurd as it might be for a rational human being to believe that people could make those arguments, they the made here all the time. Weekly even.

Its madness. Almost no depravity is beyond the 'forces of good'.

You expect that in a RPG forum that is likely made up of teenage boys with low social skills who regularly escape to a fantasy world via a sock puppet PC, but still.

While I don't support using those instances as example of people who disagree with you in a general sense, I have to confirm that everything in this list was indeed defended as being good by one or several posters.

It's just there is no need to associate persons who dispute your game's alignment with those instances, Malifice. Not unless they express those views.

[2D8HP]

Dozens of people have actively advocated genocide as being morally acceptable for a Good PC to engage in on this very sub forum. On a galactic scale even.....


While I don't support using those instances as example of people who disagree with you in a general sense, I have to confirm that everything in this list was indeed defended as being good by one or several posters.

It's just there is no need to associate persons who dispute your game's alignment with those instances, Malifice. Not unless they express those views.


I haven't noticed any of those views advocated by anyone who's done more than a handful of posts.

For example:

Is it REALLY evil??? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539675-Is-it-REALLY-evil)


Is it evil to ambush some orcs? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540446-Is-it-evil-to-ambush-some-orcs)


Both times the OP does "hit-and-run" posts of some morally sketchy IC actions and asks "Is it evil" and soon disappears from the Forum.

Malifice, can you cite anyone who stays active in the Forum?

[Unoriginal]

Also, 2D8HP, I think I found a way to answer your OP in a complete yet general enough to be applicable manner:

Alignments disputes happen because some people have strong opinions on the topics related to the question, and when strong diverging opinions meet dispute occurs.

[Naanomi]

I’ve never advocated genocide as Good; but I’ll freely admit that I’ve had threads supporting the idea of some forms of cannibalism as neutral, and started a thread asking (among other things) can a character who in one instance supported slavery be considered Lawful Neutral (I think so, but opinions varied wildly in the conversation)

[Sigreid]

I could argue that any good deity who accepts sending souls to the lower planes is, in fact, supporting unrelenting torture.

Edit: So long as someone else actually does the dirty work.

[Unoriginal]

I could argue that any good deity who accepts sending souls to the lower planes is, in fact, supporting unrelenting torture.

Edit: So long as someone else actually does the dirty work.

It's not like the good deities have a choice in it, you know?

I mean, a good deity can't claim a mortal's soul unless they somehow dedicated themselves to said deity.

[KorvinStarmast]

No one's really got the time to have a morality debate at a table like we tend to have out here on the internet in forums, not when they're busy playing a game. Yeah, I wish more folks would appreciate that, but it is worth conceding that part of the play can be the difficult choices/moral dilemmas in the story, just as they can enrich a story, play, or film. (So what do I do now? is a problem that confronts a lot of protagonists in a lot of stories).
I could argue that any good deity who accepts sending souls to the lower planes is, in fact, supporting unrelenting torture.

Edit: So long as someone else actually does the dirty work.
You are incorrect. Each deity in standard D&D 5e cosmology has a limited sphere of influence, generally strongest on their plane. See the various afterlife / plane locations in the back of the PHB. Also, I will ask you to please stop porting real world religion into this discussion. It's not kosher, and for D&D 5e it's flat out wrong. Ao doesn't get involved in all this. Ao is as close to the "omniscient creator" deity as 5e gets. The rest of the deities, divided up into their various zones of control and provenance, are the deities of the pantheons that resemble greatly the Norse, Mayan, Norse, Greek, Amerind, Hindu, and other polytheistic pantheons.

In the general case of D&D cosmology, you go to the afterlife of your alignment. (It can of course vary by table). The good gods don't get to break the rules and save everyone; evil gets its due as a matter of cosmological imperative.

There thus isn't any case of "good deities sending you to torture" since if you are good you end up in the good afterlife. If you aren't good you end up in the afterlife that matches your alignment. (See also Kelemvor, that wall, and more ... ).

But at that point, unless your party chooses to come and bring you back from the afterlife, you've rolled up another PC and it doesn't matter where that soul/being/spirit went.

Roll initiative, adventurer.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, I wish more folks would appreciate that, but it is worth conceding that part of the play can be the difficult choices/moral dilemmas in the story, just as they can enrich a story, play, or film. (So what do I do now? is a problem that confronts a lot of protagonists in a lot of stories). You are dead wrong. Each deity in standard D&D cosmology has a finite sphere of influence. See the various afterlife / plane locations in the back of the PHB. Also, I will ask you to please stop porting real world religion into this discussion. It's not kosher, and for D&D it's flat out wrong.

In the general case of D&D cosmology, you go to the afterlife of your alignment. (It can of course vary by table). There isn't "good deities sending you to torture" since if you are good you end up in their afterlife, but if you aren't good you end up in the afterlife that matches your alighment. (See also Kelemvor, that wall, and more ... ).

I didn't say or consider any real world religion in my statement. My thought was that a deity who isn't working to end the damming of souls is complacent. Working to end it could be as simple as providing some means of deathbed redemption or sanctuary. Heck, even providing a cemetary where the spirit rests unclaimed.

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't say or consider any real world religion in my statement. My thought was that a deity who isn't working to end the damming of souls is complacent. Working to end it could be as simple as providing some means of deathbed redemption or sanctuary. Heck, even providing a cemetary where the spirit rests unclaimed. Yes, you did, it's an argument I've seen for decades about a particular real world religion that I will not digress into. What you alluded to was a system wherein a good deity sends various souls to torment. That isn't how D&D cosmology works. The deities have limited powers. Mechanically, the simple answer is how Malifice describes it: you may have written good on your char sheet, but the DM has a nice big Evil on that char sheet because that is the PC's alignment. (And so that's the afterlife for that PC).

My thought was that a deity who isn't working to end the damming of souls is complacent. They have cleric to do their work for them. It's why that class exists, in some ways. But there are also evil deities who are actively working to damn those very same souls. The "cosmic" conflict is eternal.

PS: see Naanomi's post for a better look at the detail.

[Naanomi]

In the general case of D&D cosmology, you go to the afterlife of your alignment. (It can of course vary by table). There isn't "good deities sending you to torture" since if you are good you end up in their afterlife, but if you aren't good you end up in the afterlife that matches your alighment. (See also Kelemvor, that wall, and more ... ).
Technically it goes something like...


Your Soul may be destroyed or somewhere in the Planes where it cannot ascend to the Outer Planes on death. If so, no afterlife for you. Also Your Soul may be unable or refuse to ascend, becoming an Undead or something similar on death

If you ascend, your ultimate destination depends on three factors:

-if a single pantheon dominates the plane you are from/die on, they may have rules in place that decide where you end up. Kelemvor’s Wall, for example, or a system of reincarnation. The inhabitants of the worlds fully ensnared in Lolth’s demon web pits end up in her realm on death regardless of piety or alignment. Some pantheons create ‘afterlife’ domains on the Outer Planes shared between several Gods for to use in this way; including the possibility of building a ‘Hell’ to send their dishonored dead to

-if no such rules are in place, a God may intervene to take you to their divine realm regardless of your alignment. Some pantheons do this as a default (like Faerun), where as some reserve their divine realm for only their clergy and the exceptionally devout. Note that this may not be in the Outer Planes, Gods can construct Divine Realms in the Inner Planes, Transitive Planes, and even on the Prime. There are a few places no God can build a Divine Realm though

-if no God intervenes, other souls in the Outer Planes find themselves drawn to the place that naturally resonates with their alignment in the Outer Planes

[Sigreid]

Yes, you did, it's an argument I've seen for decades about a particular real world religion that I will not digress into. What you alluded to was a system wherein a good deity sends various souls to torment. That isn't how D&D cosmology works. The deities have limited powers. Mechanically, the simple answer is how Malifice describes it: you may have written good on your char sheet, but the DM has a nice big Evil on that char sheet because that is the PC's alignment. (And so that's the afterlife for that PC).
They have cleric to do their work for them. It's why that class exists, in some ways. But there are also evil deities who are actively working to damn those very same souls. The "cosmic" conflict is eternal.

PS: see Naanomi's post for a better look at the detail.

Your perceptions are on you, not me.

[2D8HP]

it is no stupider than it was in previous editions, from 1e AD&D to present. The current edition has the benefit of some authorial statements that it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The reason AL does not allow evil alignments is due to a different piece of reality meeting the game world.
Too many players have, over the years, used "alignment" as an excuse for being an utter asshat at the table. That's bad for public play: keep the stupid at the home tables, if stupid is going to be involved.

As to the original alignment system: it was very easy to work with.
In the original game, there was Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Pick one. This was before the two axis grid that began the mire alignment into the mess that it too often became in the hands of people who tried to game the system.


....I much preferred the looser Law/Neutral/Chaos of the original game. I found it easier to work with.


I've banged on this drum before:


Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame: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

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Chaos as well as Neutral, Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes can be Neutral as well as Law, and Men may be any Alignment)

The terms "Good" and "Evil" have emotional baggage attached to them (as helpfully pointed out up thread), that "Law" and "Chaos" don't (as much), and I think that adding Tolkien to Anderson's (by way of Moorcock) is a mistake for player characters because of that.

But I'm Lawful Neutral
"Lawful Neutral" has been the most common result of an*Alignment Test (http://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html) so I probably would think that.

KorvinStarmast, you're Neutral Good
Most of those on line alignment'tests' code me as neutral good, and you played more D&D when it was "single-axis" were there less Alignment disputes without the "good" and "evil" labels, or did enough people take umbrage with an implicit Chaos = Evil (since "Evil High Priests" had Chaos as their Alignments, though Mind Flayers had Law) that there were still disputes?

[KorvinStarmast]

Your perceptions are on you, not me. Given that you are a favorite poster of mine, I think I'll accept that such wasn't your intention. (Bullet point number 37 of why alignment threads can be toxic) .

[Sigreid]

Given that you are a favorite poster of mine, I think I'll accept that such wasn't your intention. (Bullet point number 37 of why alignment threads can be toxic) .

Bullet point 37 is as close to an inarguable truth as we are likely to get. 😁

[Malifice]

I could argue that any good deity who accepts sending souls to the lower planes is, in fact, supporting unrelenting torture.

Edit: So long as someone else actually does the dirty work.

Deities of Good dont want to see souls tortured in the lower planes; thats whey they go to great length to attract followers in the first place, and they almost universally advocate for mercy, compassion, kindness and redemption (and atonement).

Killing an evil-doer on the Prime material does nothing but send his soul to the afterlife to be closer to his God and strengthen the evilly aligned lower planes. And by extension, a goodly aligned devout person isn't too concerned about dying seeing as it does nothing other than send him to paradise.

Its why (IMG's anyway) the good aligned churches are more about saving souls (offering them a chance to atone, redeem themselves and 'see the light') and are preachers of compassion, kindness and mercy.

Killing evil-doers doesnt really achieve anything, and more often than not actually damns the killer, adding yet another soul to Hell (or Hades or the Abyss or wherever).

Mercy and redemption saves a soul. Killing and violence likely just leads to an extra soul (the killers) going to Hell.

[RedMage125]

Okay, how do you know when the player is just having their character portray the standard accepted deviation on their alignment and how do you know when it's the player saying he wants his character's alignment to change (or worse, when the character's alignment needs to change "never mind the player")?

No, not "guess". Not "eh, flip a coin, moving on, no skin off my teeth". I need you to KNOW. As surely as I do. No, it's not as much of an issue for Tordek; he's a Fighter and wouldn't get screwed over by an alignment change. But if I'm playing a class that has things at stake, then nothing short of you and I being on the exact same page will suffice.

Are you as the DM just going to go along with whatever I say? If I tell you "Oh, yeah, this is totally one of his outlier behaviors, not meant to be an alignment shift", will you accept that, period?
Since that's a 3e example, I point you to the 3.5e DMG, page 134. Wherein a series of consistent behaviors over a period of in-game time to be no less than one week (ideally more) that are more in keeping with a different alignment, would predicate a shift in alignment. That's the RAW answer for that edition.



Remember, I don't consider there to be any amount of Session Zero that can suffice to put us on the same page. Enough for a player to agree to settle for/put up with whatever good decision/arbitrary whim the DM comes up with (which I'm sure the DM will think perfectly in line with his interpretation of the book)? Sure, that happens. I will never consider alignment to have any benefit that even comes close to outweighing such a steep cost, though.
I bolded your statement here which shows just how deeply opinion-based your stance is. Not facts, opinions. And opinions are fine, I'm not trying to change yours. But just recognize that your opinions are not shared by everyone.

But think on this, when your entire stance starts off with "hey, you need to remember that I'm not open to the idea that anyone could ever make me see eye-to-eye with them", you have given the perception that you are extremely closed-minded and that everyone you play with (whether you are the DM or not) somehow "must" accept that it's your way or the highway. I'm not accusing you of this, I want to make you aware that this is the perception you are starting to give off. If this is incorrect, please elucidate.


And really, those are the only two outcomes. The player subsumes his views or part of his views on good and evil to the DM's, or the DM gives the player 100% carte blanche on his character's alignment, no questions asked (and in so doing, has his own views on good and evil subsumed by the player's). Neither of which I believe the game, nor its developers, has any business asking any of its participants to do.
...
...
...
Except that this is a FANTASY world. A world with wizards and dragons and illithids. And yes, objective forces of Good and Evil. So the developers actually DO have the right to say "x is Good, y is Evil" within the parameters of the default RAW of the game. Individual DMs are, of course, free to edit how they want, and so YES, players ARE going to have to understand that for the purposes of the game, what the DM says, goes. My personal belief is that if the DM's view is going to deviate from the RAW, that he owes it to the players to tell them such at Session Zero.



Ergo, my comparison to a "decisiveness-neutral-wishywashy-ness" axis that isn't in the game and therefore, the game doesn't require the players and the DM to be on the same page. I can declare my character "decisive", and in good faith think both that the character would best be classified as "decisive" and that I am correctly or at least sufficiently portraying said "decisiveness". And you, either a fellow player or the DM, can observe how I'm portraying said so-called "decisive" character, and in good faith disagree with either or both of my description or portrayal. I don't have to be right and you don't have to be wrong. You don't have to be right and I don't have to be wrong.

The dissonance is that, unless we're the same person, we cannot be honestly expected to 100% agree on alignment, either how it's described in the book or how the in-book description is interpreted at the table. And without that 100% agreement, for alignment to function as an unquantifiable construct with quantifiable in-game consequences, someone has to let their views on good and evil get trampled. Which the game has no right to ask of anyone.
Incorrect. My personal beliefs do not 100% agree with the RAW on Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. But when I DM, I set my views aside, to run a game that abides by an objective value for those that my players can also access and reference the selfsame books that I am using to adjudicate such.

Anyone can do that. Anyone can-for the purposes of playing a fantasy game-set aside their own notions of "possible/impossible", "normal/weird", and even "good/evil". People who are unwilling to step outside their own personal views to do this are the ones I was calling narcissistic.



Ah. Sorry, but I'm going to have to chalk those up as "other things that also don't resonate with me in the slightest".
This is what I don't understand.

Dragons resonate with you. Wizards resonate with you. Demons and Devils-beings literally made of Evil resonate with you. As do angelic beings literally made of Good.

And yet you say objective, cosmic forces of Good and Evil...do not? What makes Celestia any different from Baator in your perspective, then?


It's those bolded parts that go too far for me.

You telling me what good and evil objectively are in any capacity IS subsuming my views on good and evil, though. Like I was telling krugaan, my capacity to relate to a given story as a reader or a player participating at the table depends on good and evil not being objectively known or knowable. You can have so-called "good and evil" be things that can scientifically measured and quantified in your game world all you want, but that will never be a thing I will agree I should be expected to participate in, rule from the PHB be damned.
You seem to have missed the part where subjective ideas about Good/Evil/etc can still exist. That the objective ruling is only from the metagame perspective. Like the example I gave earlier. A man is privy to a prophecy about an orphan who will come of age and usher Demogorgon into the world. So he travels the world, killing young orphans. he commits no other Evil acts, but he kills a LOT of orphans. He may believe he is Good (or Neutral), as what he does serves "the greater good". But with objective alignment, he is for sure Evil, due to the unrepentant slaughter of so many innocent children. Nothing precludes him from BELIEVING he is not Evil, but his character sheet would say "Evil".


Literally everything you're saying in that second paragraph is not something I'm disagreeing with. Yes, actions have ramifications. Yes, wantonly killing an NPC can and should easily lead to other NPCs pursuing the PC until it leads to their death.

Exactly what part of that cannot be accomplished by "the NPCs doing the pursuing, or just the one in charge, or maybe even their entire justice department/religion/nation/deity believes [blank] about good and evil" and requires "good and evil objectively are this or that way and this is a knowable thing"?

I wouldn't be leaving a table because of actions having consequences doled out by other in-universe entities that can be agreed with or disagreed with; that's only to be expected. Having to accept good and evil as things that anyone can knowingly be objectively right about? Heck no.

Most individuals are not 100% objectively right about them, though. That's why moral ambiguity and gray areas can still exist in D&D with alignment. The cosmic forces of alignment are things even the gods are subject to.

[Sigreid]

Deities of Good dont want to see souls tortured in the lower planes; thats whey they go to great length to attract followers in the first place, and they almost universally advocate for mercy, compassion, kindness and redemption (and atonement).

Killing an evil-doer on the Prime material does nothing but send his soul to the afterlife to be closer to his God and strengthen the evilly aligned lower planes. And by extension, a goodly aligned devout person isn't too concerned about dying seeing as it does nothing other than send him to paradise.

Its why (IMG's anyway) the good aligned churches are more about saving souls (offering them a chance to atone, redeem themselves and 'see the light') and are preachers of compassion, kindness and mercy.

Killing evil-doers doesnt really achieve anything, and more often than not actually damns the killer, adding yet another soul to Hell (or Hades or the Abyss or wherever).

Mercy and redemption saves a soul. Killing and violence likely just leads to an extra soul (the killers) going to Hell.

Everything in this post is a reasonable position IMO. Thanks for these thoughts.

Wackey idea just occured to me. If I remember right the twin paradises have an environmental effect that slowly converts people to a good alignment. It could be a fun campaign to have the party be members of a secret society that kidnaps villains and transports them to the twin paradises for forced redemption.

[hamishspence]

Wackey idea just occured to me. If I remember right the twin paradises have an environmental effect that slowly converts people to a good alignment. It could be a fun campaign to have the party be members of a secret society that kidnaps villains and transports them to the twin paradises for forced redemption.

Elysium actually, not Bytopia. However, it doesn't change the being's alignment - it (eventually, given enough time) traps them there, making it impossible for them to leave of their own volition.

And, according to MoTP, Elysium's residents attack Evil beings.

[Unoriginal]

I didn't say or consider any real world religion in my statement. My thought was that a deity who isn't working to end the damming of souls is complacent. Working to end it could be as simple as providing some means of deathbed redemption or sanctuary. Heck, even providing a cemetary where the spirit rests unclaimed.

Good deities in 5e accepted to help the Prince of Ghouls when he begged them, having been left to die by Orcus. They're not gatekeeping redemption.

On the other hand, you can't lead a life of malevolence and get a "get out of hell" free card via last minute deathbed confession. Redemption needs to be sincere.

The good deities DO actively try to end the damning of souls by proposing a good path of life. They cannot "provide a cemetary where spirit rests unclaimed", nor can they force people to be good. If you end up in the Lower Planes, it's because you repeatedly refused the alternatives. Or just insulted in their vices without considering the alternative. Granted some are hindered by conditioning, their cultures working against that, or even quirks in their biology put there by their creators to make them stay in line, but ultimately all mortals have the choice to not go the evil path.

[Naanomi]

Without a setting-objective alignment...

A sprite walks up to someone, does their mojo, and detects their alignment... what do they get? Whether the person thinks of themselves as good or evil? What the sprite would think? If an equalizer blade is based on my perception of evil, it should always get maximum bonuses to the ‘evil’ foes I attack... it isn’t a blade that rewards neutrality, it is a sword that rewards zealotry in its weilder!

Yes, 5e has few mechanics dealing with alignment... and yes, it is easy to ‘homebrew’ and strip them out with minimal or no disruption... but as long as those mechanics exist, there *must* exist some way of knowing alignment in some objective sense. You may not like it, you may remove it at your whim, but ultimately as a default it exists

[Sigreid]

Elysium actually, not Bytopia. However, it doesn't change the being's alignment - it (eventually, given enough time) traps them there, making it impossible for them to leave of their own volition.

And, according to MoTP, Elysium's residents attack Evil beings.

Could have sworn there was about 3 sentances in ther for some higher plane where every 1 to 4 days non good entities had to make a save or experience an alignment shift. Could easily be wrong.

[2D8HP]

Could have sworn there was about 3 sentances in ther for some higher plane where every 1 to 4 days non good entities had to make a save or experience an alignment shift. Could easily be wrong.


You saw it in the DMG, and not just for an upper plane.


Bytopia (LG, NG)

Mechanus (LN)

The Abyss (CE)

and

The Nine Hells (LE)

All may change a visitors Alignment to match that of the Plane they're in, but it say "Optional Rule" for each one.

[hamishspence]

Could have sworn there was about 3 sentances in ther for some higher plane where every 1 to 4 days non good entities had to make a save or experience an alignment shift. Could easily be wrong.

Hades (a lower plane) has the "Become a petitioner of Hades" consequence for failing a weekly Will Save (that gets harder every week).

EDIT: MOTP version of Elysium (as opposed to DMG 3.5 version) may be what you're thinking of - it has the "become a petitioner of Elysium" bit, but the 3.5 version does not.

[Naanomi]

Elysium’s aura isn’t a magical mind-influencing effect... it is a mechanical representation of the utter contentment and satisfactions beings have while there. Your will to leave fades not because the plane is changing you, but because of just how perfect and fulfilling the place is. The dark aura of The Grey Wastes is similar... utter despair creeping in, you giving up all hope; but not ‘mind control’

That being said, many of the Outer Planes will change your alignment when spending time there... the place is literally *made* of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos/Neutrality... you can’t help but be effected by spending time literally walking on... breathing in... the essence of morality; mortals were not meant to dwell there and they cannot resist the raw alignment influences present

[hamishspence]

You saw it in the DMG, and not just for an upper plane.


Bytopia (LG, NG)

Mechanus (LN)

The Abyss (CE)

and

The Nine Hells (LE)

All may change a visitors Alignment to match that of the Plane they're in, but it say "Optional Rule" for each one.
Good point - it also appears to be "5e only" though.


mortals were not meant to dwell there and they cannot resist the raw alignment influences present

I don't think that was a thing in past editions. However, it is possible that this is the source of fiendish, axiomatic, celestial, and anarchic creatures in 3.0-3.5 - over generations, the templates became applied to the descendants of migrants.

[Sigreid]

Good point - it also appears to be "5e only" though.



I don't think that was a thing in past editions. However, it is possible that this is the source of fiendish, axiomatic, celestial, and anarchic creatures in 3.0-3.5 - over generations, the templates became applied to the descendants of migrants.

Yes, I was referring to the 5e DMG.

Still, even if it wasn't true it could make for an entertaining setup. The party is tasked with kidnapping and transporting the BBEG to a point where he could be taken to a good plane and hold him there until he has a change of heart. All with as little collateral damage as possible.

[krugaan]

Yes, I was referring to the 5e DMG.

Still, even if it wasn't true it could make for an entertaining setup. The party is tasked with kidnapping and transporting the BBEG to a point where he could be taken to a good plane and hold him there until he has a change of heart. All with as little collateral damage as possible.

That does sound kinda funny, almost like one of those "destroy the artifact" quests.

- a greater demon must donate the Hoobyjoobab of Evil Evilness to a church of Torm of his own free will.

[Naanomi]

Oh, I forgot... a few caveats to what I said before:

*unincarnated souls, such as those who die before birth, are returned to the Well of Souls to be reborn
*children who are young enough to ‘be innocent’ have a dwelling place in the bottom layers of Celestia, but usually don’t last long before fading
*the ‘anima’ of animals all go to the beastlands regardless of the animal’s alignment under the care of their respective Animal Lord (unless sacred animals bound to a specific God)
*Those who are so insane as to return to innocence go to Limbo or Pandemonium, but again rarely last long there
*Those who are erased from the timestream via Temporal stuff usually cease to exist, but sometimes linger in the Temporal Prime or Temporal Energy Plane

Also note that with very few exceptions, no afterlife is very ‘eternal’... of those that make it to the afterlife:
-some souls become Gods (which of course are not immortal)
-some become exemplar races of the plane they reside on, either artificially or naturally. Mostly, the resulting exemplar has little memory or connection to the soul that made it (and of course are not immortal)
-most fade over time, possibly dependent on if living people ‘still remember them’; but also on their own spiritual development and the specifics of the plane itself (some planes have their own rules... Acheron can be quick and brutal for most who end up there). They either fade into the plane they inhabit, or merge into their God if existing in their divine realm
-a small few escape the known planes somehow, with fates completely unknown... most notably those who fully ascend Celestia
-A few planes have ways of ‘preserving’ a soul indefinitely; like the ‘King Arthur’ type heroes stored in Elysium... details vary and it probably still isn’t ‘eternal’

[Willie the Duck]

That’s the patented Malifice style of argumentation.

He is free to accept or ignore my advice, as he sees fit. However, I think that it is a really good tactic to never actually change anyone's minds. I might be completely wrong, and everyone who has not spoken up one way or the other completely agree with him. However, my perspective is that in all the race- and ethics- related threads he has taken part in, he's never successfully changed any minds. Assuming he's not just here to listen to the sound of his own (written) voice, one would think that would matter to him. But again, his call.


You expect that in a RPG forum that is likely made up of teenage boys with low social skills who regularly escape to a fantasy world via a sock puppet PC, but still.

Again, you declare that the rest of us are things we know for a fact that we aren't. This does nothing to convince anyone except yourself of the virtue of your cause (and detracts from your arguments).

[krugaan]

He is free to accept or ignore my advice, as he sees fit. However, I think that it is a really good tactic to never actually change anyone's minds. I might be completely wrong, and everyone who has not spoken up one way or the other completely agree with him. However, my perspective is that in all the race- and ethics- related threads he has taken part in, he's never successfully changed any minds. Assuming he's not just here to listen to the sound of his own (written) voice, one would think that would matter to him. But again, his call.

Again, you declare that the rest of us are things we know for a fact that we aren't. This does nothing to convince anyone except yourself of the virtue of your cause (and detracts from your arguments).

Malifice waffles between strict logic and wildly illogical. If you just ignore the wildly illogical parts you get ... uh ... something.

Not sure where I was going with this. Absent minded professor? He's not technically wrong, usually, as much as that galls people.

[Willie the Duck]

Malifice waffles between strict logic and wildly illogical. If you just ignore the wildly illogical parts you get ... uh ... something.

Not sure where I was going with this. Absent minded professor? He's not technically wrong, usually, as much as that galls people.

Pretty sure he's wrong that <anyone here and actually reading> advocates genocide or that everyone is a bunch of socially inept teenage boys.

As to the uh... something, it reminds me of way back when I was a teenage boy and in debate club. There was that one boy who lost matches and always responded with 'my debate was best, the judges just didn't realize it.' Even the coach was exasperated and sputtered out stuff along the lines of 'but... actually convincing others is the skill we are working to perfect here' and not getting how that wasn't getting through.

One certainly hopes that, if he is a lawyer as he says (and has to argue a case in court), that he doesn't use the same techniques he uses here. But again, his call.

[MaxWilson]

He is free to accept or ignore my advice, as he sees fit. However, I think that it is a really good tactic to never actually change anyone's minds. I might be completely wrong, and everyone who has not spoken up one way or the other completely agree with him.

Or maybe they just have him on Ignore and didn't even see the post.


As to the uh... something, it reminds me of way back when I was a teenage boy and in debate club. There was that one boy who lost matches and always responded with 'my debate was best, the judges just didn't realize it.' Even the coach was exasperated and sputtered out stuff along the lines of 'but... actually convincing others is the skill we are working to perfect here' and not getting how that wasn't getting through.

As an aside, this is why I dislike debate club. It's all about persuasion/communication/rhetoric and not analytical correctness. E.g. you get no points at all for realizing that your side of the argument is wrong and defecting to the other side; but in real life, knowing when you're wrong and need to change your mind is very important.

[GlenSmash!]

Pretty sure he's wrong that <anyone here and actually reading> advocates genocide or that everyone is a bunch of socially inept teenage boys.

As to the uh... something, it reminds me of way back when I was a teenage boy and in debate club. There was that one boy who lost matches and always responded with 'my debate was best, the judges just didn't realize it.' Even the coach was exasperated and sputtered out stuff along the lines of 'but... actually convincing others is the skill we are working to perfect here' and not getting how that wasn't getting through.

One certainly hopes that, if he is a lawyer as he says (and has to argue a case in court), that he doesn't use the same techniques he uses here. But again, his call.

Arguably a court lawyer doesn't have to have as good a technique as you would think since Jury selection is agreed upon by both legal parties.

They can "stack the deck" as it were.

[krugaan]

One certainly hopes that, if he is a lawyer as he says (and has to argue a case in court), that he doesn't use the same techniques he uses here. But again, his call.

A lawyer is supposed to win cases for his client. That's not really the same as a debate.

The majority of people on this particular forum, *especially* the ones engaged in alignment debates, are incredibly unlikely to be "teenage boys". "Low social skills", maybe, escapists, probably.

[krugaan]

Or maybe they just have him on Ignore and didn't even see the post.


Awww, cmon, he's a sort of "get off my lawn you damn kids" crotchety. I think he even made a joke (once).



As an aside, this is why I dislike debate club. It's all about persuasion/communication/rhetoric and not analytical correctness. E.g. you get no points at all for realizing that your side of the argument is wrong and defecting to the other side; but in real life, knowing when you're wrong and need to change your mind is very important.

Yeah, debate is different than logic and philosophy.

[Willie the Duck]

The majority of people on this particular forum, *especially* the ones engaged in alignment debates, are incredibly unlikely to be "teenage boys". "Low social skills", maybe, escapists, probably.

And that's really what I was focusing on. We know we aren't teenage boys, or advocates of genocide, so these ad hominems don't even work, which is why I find it so perplexing.


As an aside, this is why I dislike debate club. It's all about persuasion/communication/rhetoric and not analytical correctness. E.g. you get no points at all for realizing that your side of the argument is wrong and defecting to the other side; but in real life, knowing when you're wrong and need to change your mind is very important.

Different goals. Convincing others is a different, but also valuable, skill. Neither should be ignored. As an aside to the aside, debate club has gotten weird in the last 25 years (apparently). There was a Radiolab NPR show on it sometime last year that had a clip--it sounded like some bizarre auctioneer trying to speak as fast as possible--like if you got out more words in your favor, you would win. It was surreal.

[krugaan]

As an aside to the aside, debate club has gotten weird in the last 25 years (apparently). There was a Radiolab NPR show on it sometime last year that had a clip--it sounded like some bizarre auctioneer trying to speak as fast as possible--like if you got out more words in your favor, you would win. It was surreal.

Ah, the "Infowars" style of debate.

[GlenSmash!]

Ah, the "Infowars" style of debate.

Soon it will be all about the volume of your voice.

[krugaan]

Soon it will be all about the volume of your voice.

Yay Citizens United. /s

But this is clearly wandering into politics, so I'll stop right there.


And that's really what I was focusing on. We know we aren't teenage boys, or advocates of genocide, so these ad hominems don't even work, which is why I find it so perplexing.


I wonder why he said that too, but I'm just wrote it off as another "lawn" incident, rofl.

[MaxWilson]

Different goals. Convincing others is a different, but also valuable, skill. Neither should be ignored. As an aside to the aside, debate club has gotten weird in the last 25 years (apparently). There was a Radiolab NPR show on it sometime last year that had a clip--it sounded like some bizarre auctioneer trying to speak as fast as possible--like if you got out more words in your favor, you would win. It was surreal.

Yeah, it just irks me that they dare to call it "debate club" instead of "rhetoric club" or "communication club."

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, it just irks me that they dare to call it "debate club" instead of "rhetoric club" or "communication club."

Oh, they should really call it 'Oral Argument Club'-- I see no downsides to some of the nerdier people in High School being given that moniker. :smalltongue:

<no, please don't do that in reality. I have some concern for the next generation>

[krugaan]

Oh, they should really call it 'Oral Argument Club'-- I see no downsides to some of the nerdier people in High School being given that moniker. :smalltongue:

<no, please don't do that in reality. I have some concern for the next generation>

Boy, does THAT sound like a dirty euphemism.

Seriously though, it sounds like a symptom of the times.

[2D8HP]

the Hoobyjoobab of Evil Evilness...


Totally in the tank for Raiders of the Hoobyjoobab of Evil Evilness :amused:


Oh, I forgot... a few caveats to what I said before...


In case I haven't said so before, thank you Naanomi


Malifice waffles between strict logic and wildly illogical. If you just ignore the wildly illogical parts you get ... uh ... something.

Not sure where I was going with this. Absent minded professor? He's not technically wrong, usually, as much as that galls people.


I think some of it is sarcasm, especially on some previous Alignment threads.


Pretty sure he's wrong that <anyone here and actually reading> advocates genocide or that everyone is a bunch of socially inept teenage boys.

As to the uh... something, it reminds me of way back when I was a teenage boy and in debate club.....


...this is why I dislike debate club. It's all about persuasion/communication/rhetoric and not analytical correctness. E.g. you get no points at all for realizing that your side of the argument is wrong and defecting to the other side; but in real life, knowing when you're wrong and need to change your mind is very important.


I did "Debate' as a teenager as well, and what unnerved me about it was that the less that I agreed with a side the more convincing I was.


Anyway, perhaps it does me shame, but distinguishing Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil from each other is easy for me, but the Alignments that cause me trouble telling apart are:

"Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes..
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else."


The differences between "conscience", "personal code", and "whims" is murky for me, though I sometimes think of a "code" as something that may be verbalized, while "conscience" and "whim" are felt instead.

[krugaan]

In case I haven't said so before, thank you Naanomi


Yeah, thanks... NERD!



I think some of it is sarcasm, especially on some previous Alignment threads.


Sarcasm is fine, if used sparingly, but half the time it's difficult to tell when he's using it, which is a problem.



I did "Debate' as a teenager as well, and what unnerved me about it was that the less that I agreed with a side the more convincing I was.


I swear there's a technical term for that. Like Stockholm syndrome, except in your own head.



Anyway, perhaps it does me shame, but distinguishing Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil from each other is easy for me, but the Alignments that cause me trouble telling apart are:

"Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes..
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else."


The differences between "conscience", "personal code", and "whims" is murky for me, though I sometimes think of a "code" as something that may be verbalized, while "conscience" and "whim" are felt instead.

Right there is the main problem I have with objective alignments. The arguments that "if you murder people, you're evil" sort of get thrown out of the window when WotC writes "well, you're chaotic good if you act as your conscience directs".

[RedMage125]

Pretty sure he's wrong that <anyone here and actually reading> advocates genocide or that everyone is a bunch of socially inept teenage boys.


Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?547441-Is-Rick-Sanchez-CE-according-to-5e-standards-Sure-he-is) is the thread Malifice was referencing. Yes, there WAS a poster who (I am NOT joking) advocated that Rick Sanchez's mass murder of all those innocent Mortys during the episode "The Rickshank Redemption" was a Chaotic Good act, and that Rick himself is Chaotic Good. That same poster was the one that argued that sex with a mind-controlled person was something a good person could engage in, and he did so by arguing that none of us really "own" our own bodies due to cellular replacement, so sex with a mind-controlled individual was no different than consensual sex.

Back on topic, I came across this little gem when I was looking for the link to that last thread:


If the sole reason you argue against Alignment is because game definitions of good and evil don't match your real life beliefs, you may have made a valid statement of your preferences, but as criticism of game rules your opinion is close to useless. There are other, better reasons for realism in games than that.

Nevermind that this attitude again creates the perceived problem. When people insist importing their real beliefs into game morality, they create the impression that in-game morality must reflect real beliefs of the players, creating ground for bad faith accusations and the sort of moral alarmism I describe.

[krugaan]

Back on topic, I came across this little gem when I was looking for the link to that last thread:

I... don't find anything wrong with that statement.

[2D8HP]

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?547441-Is-Rick-Sanchez-CE-according-to-5e-standards-Sure-he-is) is the thread Malifice was referencing. Yes, there WAS a poster who....


Well, since I've never seen Rick & Morty I completely ignored and missed that thread, but yeah it blows out of the water my contention that the ideas that Malifice decries are only from "hit-and-run" Forum-ites with few posts.

A guess that there's some meat inside the straw man after all.

[hamishspence]

I've been contending similar things to Malifice (perhaps phrased more gently) for the last 10 years or so.

I can agree that yes, posters do argue that "X should not qualify as an evil act" for exceptionally repulsive acts, for page after page after page.

[Naanomi]

I've been contending similar things to Malifice (perhaps phrased more gently) for the last 10 years or so.

I can agree that yes, posters do argue that "X should not qualify as an evil act" for exceptionally repulsive acts, for page after page after page.
Of course, the acts that I personally was defending are not repulsive at all, as anyone should clearly see :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

That same poster was the one that argued that sex with a mind-controlled person was something a good person could engage in, and he did so by arguing that none of us really "own" our own bodies due to cellular replacement, so sex with a mind-controlled individual was no different than consensual sex.

"It provided a needed function of diversifying the human gene pool" is probably the creepiest description of sex slavery I've seen here - by a different poster in a different thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?560055-Pathfinder-How-views-on-Slavery-influences-character-alignment/page2

[RedMage125]

Well, since I've never seen Rick & Morty I completely ignored and missed that thread, but yeah it blows out of the water my contention that the ideas that Malifice decries are only from "hit-and-run" Forum-ites with few posts.

A guess that there's some meat inside the straw man after all.

That guy's title is "Bugbear in the Playground", same as mine, and I know I post a lot...

[krugaan]

"It provided a needed function of diversifying the human gene pool" is probably the creepiest description of it I've seen here - by a different poster in a different thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?560055-Pathfinder-How-views-on-Slavery-influences-character-alignment/page2

Well, that dude is disturbing. True, slaves did a lot of ****. Cheap labor is indeed a way of getting a lot of **** done. Probably not the best way.

But "enslavement improves lives" and "spread of DNA"? I cruise reddit a lot and, seriously, that would have hit negative karma instantly.

Or, you know, garnered a ton of upvotes, depending where it was posted.

[hamishspence]

I cruise reddit a lot and, seriously, that would have hit negative karma instantly.

Or, you know, garnered a ton of upvotes, depending where it was posted.

Or the

"is it evil to attack intelligent Neutral monsters without provocation" thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?477591-Is-it-evil-to-kill-neutral-monsters

with some arguing that no, it isn't Evil.

[krugaan]

Or the

"is it evil to attack intelligent Neutral monsters without provocation" thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?477591-Is-it-evil-to-kill-neutral-monsters

with some arguing that no, it isn't Evil.

General concensus in the thread seemed to have been "duh, it's evil". Then, as is usually the case, it wandered off into hypotheticals and everyone seemed to be arguing different case scenarios.

This wasn't as bad as the "spreading DNA" guy. Jesus.

[hamishspence]

Either way - the point is that Malifice isn't entirely strawmanning.

[krugaan]

Either way - the point is that Malifice isn't entirely strawmanning.

True enough. We should come up with a hollow-object-related name for "weakly true assertion"...

What's hollow and disappointingly not full?

Amazon boxes?

[Unoriginal]

What's hollow and disappointingly not full?


My life.


For example.

[krugaan]

My life.


For example.

Ouch.

Sorry, but "Malifice, stop Unoriginal-ing" isn't, er ... fluid sounding.

[2D8HP]

....wasn't as bad as the "spreading DNA" guy....


He keeps an http://thumbs.gfycat.com/MajorThatBronco-small.gif

http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/peter-sellers-as-dr-strangelove.jpg


True enough. We should come up with a hollow-object-related name for "weakly true assertion"...

What's hollow and disappointingly not full?


"That's a styrofoam boulder".

[krugaan]

He keeps an http://thumbs.gfycat.com/MajorThatBronco-small.gif

http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/peter-sellers-as-dr-strangelove.jpg


hah, bazing!



"That's a styrofoam boulder".

Ah, but it can't be completely empty. It has to have the promise of content, but be really fall short of expection, like how burgers in the TV ads always look juicy and delicious, but aren't when you buy them from the dollar menu at the drive-thru.

And also be hollow. Like a ... I dunno, like a meat pie that's actually a veggie burger inside or something.

[2D8HP]

it can't be completely empty. It has to have the promise of content, but be really fall short of expection, like how burgers in the TV ads always look juicy and delicious, but aren't when you buy them from the dollar menu at the drive-thru.

And also be hollow. Like a ... I dunno, like a meat pie that's actually a veggie burger inside or something.


"A tofu steak"?

[Unoriginal]

If an argument has more weight than a strawman, but is hollow and lacks heart, just call it a tinman.


http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/32600000/The-Wizard-of-Oz-the-wizard-of-oz-32641087-400-300.jpg

[krugaan]

If an argument has more weight than a strawman, but is hollow and lacks heart, just call it a tinman.


http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/32600000/The-Wizard-of-Oz-the-wizard-of-oz-32641087-400-300.jpg

Damn, good one. I overcomplicated it.

This thread can now die the death it deserves.

[Unoriginal]

Damn, good one. I overcomplicated it.

This thread can now die the death it deserves.

Ding dong the thread is dead.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ding dong the thread is dead.
We represent, the Thready Death Guild, the Thready Death Guild ...

[krugaan]

WHAT IS DEAD MAY NEVER DIE!

/gurgle

[Tanarii]

A sprite walks up to someone, does their mojo, and detects their alignment... what do they get? Whether the person thinks of themselves as good or evil? What the sprite would think? A sprite gets whatever Alignment the Player and/or DM assigned to the PC/NPC. That's what 'objective' is in the D&D universe: the alignments assigned by the group to things, however they want to make that work.

Nothing says that has anything to do with how the in-game characters think of themselves, or some cosmic reality, or a yardstick of behavior, or even what we on the forum think. It just has to do with what the group decides. Based on a one sentence description of typical but not required behavior associated with each Alignment. And quiet likely, based on things said quite regularly in alignment threads by people about how THEY rule in their campaigns, their own preconceptions about Morality, that have nothing to do with 5e Alignment.

[Pharaon]

Anyway, perhaps it does me shame, but distinguishing Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil from each other is easy for me, but the Alignments that cause me trouble telling apart are:

"Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes..
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else."


The differences between "conscience", "personal code", and "whims" is murky for me, though I sometimes think of a "code" as something that may be verbalized, while "conscience" and "whim" are felt instead.

The only way I've been able to rationalize the "personal code" part of LN is to consider it not an individual personal code but a group personal code. Something like taking a vow of poverty or Bushido; something outside of governmental law but still greater than one person's desires. Otherwise, you can get into "serial killers are lawful neutral, they follow a personal code!" conundrums.

CG and CN are much closer to each other, with CN's "holding their personal freedom above all else" clause being the difference. I read CG in the light of LG and NG (interpretive and not textual, I know) and consider CG to be interested in helping other people "with little regard for what others expect."

[Naanomi]

A sprite gets whatever Alignment the Player and/or DM assigned to the PC/NPC. That's what 'objective' is in the D&D universe: the alignments assigned by the group to things, however they want to make that work.

Nothing says that has anything to do with how the in-game characters think of themselves, or some cosmic reality, or a yardstick of behavior, or even what we on the forum think. It just has to do with what the group decides. Based on a one sentence description of typical but not required behavior associated with each Alignment. And quiet likely, based on things said quite regularly in alignment threads by people about how THEY rule in their campaigns, their own preconceptions about Morality, that have nothing to do with 5e Alignment.
A subjective representation of what, in universe, is an objective character trait. Every sprite is going to get the same alignment from the guy, every magic item and spell that can key off of alignment will agree. Whether different tables may call it different things... meh, the presumed internal consistency is what makes it objective in-setting; not infer-table variance out of game

[krugaan]

A sprite gets whatever Alignment the Player and/or DM assigned to the PC/NPC. That's what 'objective' is in the D&D universe: the alignments assigned by the group to things, however they want to make that work.


Yeah, but the issue is when Player and DM don't agree.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, but the issue is when Player and DM don't agree.
For sure. That's why a DM needs to establish ground rules for how a players Alignment is determined.

Some methods:
- the player writes down their alignment, and uses the typical behavior as another motivation for the PC, like any personality trait. If the alignment changes due to forced change (planar affect, lycanthrope) they use the new alignment behavior the same way.
- the player and DM negotiate any alignment based on PC's behavior so far in game.
- the DM dictates alignment based on PC's behavior so far.

IMC I mostly go with the first. With the caveat that PCs should not regularly behave like any of the Evil alignments, in my judgment. So a bit of 'dictate' coming into play.

[Naanomi]

Yeah, but the issue is when Player and DM don't agree.
Sounds like a potential pitfall in a lot of things in the game, not just alignment. Luckily the mechanical effects of alignment have gotten so sparse that it may never come up ever in most games even if there is a substantial disagreement

Generally: I let players write down what they want, I’ll point out times I think they grossly act otherwise, and I’ll change it (on my paperwork) if they keep it up. I inform players of this before the game starts.

If Alignment is forcefully changed by magic, I expect them to role play it noticeably; or I may take full or partial control over the character. I’d do the same for mind-control magic or similar effects

[Malifice]

Without a setting-objective alignment...

A sprite walks up to someone, does their mojo, and detects their alignment... what do they get? Whether the person thinks of themselves as good or evil? What the sprite would think? If an equalizer blade is based on my perception of evil, it should always get maximum bonuses to the ‘evil’ foes I attack... it isn’t a blade that rewards neutrality, it is a sword that rewards zealotry in its weilder!

Yes, 5e has few mechanics dealing with alignment... and yes, it is easy to ‘homebrew’ and strip them out with minimal or no disruption... but as long as those mechanics exist, there *must* exist some way of knowing alignment in some objective sense. You may not like it, you may remove it at your whim, but ultimately as a default it exists

The Sprite detects their objective aligment.

Which in many cases differs from what the person thinks they are.

Plenty of righteous people would be shocked to find out they register as evil to the senses of a Sprite. They'd likely be in denial even if the Sprite told them, and would remain so all the way up to finding themselves in Hell upon death.

[Darth Ultron]

Yeah, but the issue is when Player and DM don't agree.

I think the problem is Alignment brings up shades of ''Real World Stuff'' and people can't let that stuff go....and it has only gotten worse over the years.

[Malifice]

Pretty sure he's wrong that <anyone here and actually reading> advocates genocide or that everyone is a bunch of socially inept teenage boys.


Pretty sure he's wrong that <anyone here and actually reading> advocates genocide or that everyone is a bunch of socially inept teenage boys.

Dont put words in my mouth. As a lawyer I choose my words carefully. I didnt say everyone here are teenage boys who advocate genocide as being good.

I said that many on a RPG forum are likely adolescents with poor social skills. I obviously have no way of knowing that for sure, other than anecdotal experience with roleplaying games for 35 years since BECMI (where I started).

Overwhelmingly our hobby is comprised of young men. Overwhelmingly many of those young men are 'nerds' or socially ostrasized or are maladjusted in some way or another. From neckbeards with cheeto stains on the fingers, to overweight guys that live in their mothers basement and rarely get off the computer; that's the main members of the hobby in my anecdotal experience.

Thats not all of us. There are plenty of women, well adjusted people, and others that engage in our hobby as well.

But I bet you if I got all of us in a room together it's going to be overwhelmingly young men, neckbeards, overweight nerds, dudes with poor social skills, comic reading computer geeks and the likes. Some idiot will be droning on about katanas for several hours. Some guy wont have showered for weeks. There will be at least one guy with long black hair, a death metal T-shirt and wearing something studded. Maybe a furry as well.

Again; only anecdotal from personal experience of attending conventions, rocking up to roleplaying social clubs, hanging out in local gaming stores and advertising for players.

Lets be honest here people. We are who we are.

Re players views on genocide: See above. Im not accusing the poster I've quoted of being down with genocide. Simply stating that I see frequent threads on this forum (and others) expressly condoning gencoide as something perfectly acceptable for a 'good' person to engage in 'if done for the right reasons/ greater good'.

Again - posters in this very sub forum have advocated the following acts as 'Good' acts, or acts done by people they define as being 'Good' people: genocide, slavery, necromancy, infanticide, murder, serial killing, torture, sex with a mind controlled person, canabalism, diabolism and child abuse.

I can provide examples to any of the above.

Like I said, considering the general demographic of our hobby (anecdotally noted by me over 35 years in the hobby) I cant say I'm surprised.

[Contrast]

The Sprite detects their objective aligment.

Without a setting objective alignment you reveal their objective alignment? What does that even mean in the context of not having a setting objective alignment?

The DMs interpretation of the one sentence descriptions in the PHB? So objective means DM subjective? That feels a very misleading way to phrase that if that is what you were trying to say.

[Malifice]

So objective means DM subjective?

Yes.

Just like if the DM tells you a person walks into a bar, then a person walks into a bar. Or that the sky suddenly turns green. Or gravity suddenly reverses. Or whatever.

The DM sets objective reality for your PCs.

You might not subjectively agree with what the DM sets as that reality but that doesnt make it not be so.

You can always vote with your feet however.

[Tanarii]

The DMs interpretation of the one sentence descriptions in the PHB? So objective means DM subjective? That feels a very misleading way to phrase that if that is what you were trying to say.
"Objective" alignments in D&D means group / table subjective, based on their interpretation of whatever the rules provide. It always has. It's just that some versions have tried to provide more detail to their rules for Alignment than others.

[Naanomi]

Again - posters in this very sub forum have advocated the following acts as 'Good' acts, or acts done by people they define as being 'Good' people: genocide, slavery, necromancy, infanticide, murder, serial killing, torture, sex with a mind controlled person, canabalism, diabolism and child abuse.
I’d still advocate cannibalism (the act itself, not the Evil ‘hunting and killing sentient beings’ part) as being at least potentially neutral in some contexts, though last time we engaged in the discussion I racked up a huge number of forum infractions defending my view with real-world examples.

(Also, I’m a middle aged woman who teaches social skills in a Special Ed setting if demographics matter)

[Unoriginal]

In 5e, the Djinn are chaotic good, and support slavery.


Mortal slaves serve to validate a genie's power and high self-opinion. A hundred flattering voices are music to a genie's ears, while two hundred mortal slaves prostrated at its feet are proof that it is lord and master. Genies view slaves as living property, and a genie without property amounts to nothing among its own kind. As a result, many genies treasure their slaves, treating them as honored members of their households. Evil genies freely threaten and abuse their slaves, but never to the extent that the slaves are no longer of use. In contrast to their love of slaves, most genies loathe being bound to service themselves. A genie obeys the will of another only when bribed or compelled by magic.



The djinn believe that servitude is a matter of fate, and that no being can contest the hand of fate. As a result, of all the genies, djinn are the ones most amenable to servitude, though they never enjoy it. Djinn treat their slaves more like servants deserving of kindness and protection, and they part with them reluctantly.

How is that possible, you ask? Well, think about it: if a D&D character was acting like Disney's Aladdin, they'd probably be chaotic good, right?

And how did Aladdin treat the Genie in the first movie?

[hamishspence]

Badly. And the Genie called him out on it. And eventually, Aladdin finally kept his promise and freed the Genie - showing that he's become a better person.

[Unoriginal]

Badly. And the Genie called him out on it.

Indeed. He kept a slave just to have someone to make himself appear grander than he was.



And eventually, Aladdin finally kept his promise and freed the Genie - showing that he's become a better person.

And as the text says:


Djinn treat their slaves more like servants deserving of kindness and protection, and they part with them reluctantly.

So essentially, if you want to portray a chaotic good Djinni despite them being slavers, picture the Aladdin/Genie relationship, except with the position reversed between the human and the blue supernatural being with magic powers.

Though "Parting with them reluctantly" can be interpreted as the Djinni agreeing to let their slaves leave if they really insist, because the Djinni is kind but doesn't get why anyone would consider "being the Djinni's slave and tell the Djinni they're great" to be the best thing ever unless it's impressed on them. Which is a bit different from Aladdin's situation, because while Aladdin had an ego problem and considered himself worthless without the services the Genie provided him too, it was more about the immense powers the Genie had access to rather than just ego-boosting.

[2D8HP]

.....posters in this very sub forum have advocated....



....I can provide examples to any of the above....


Yes they have, it's a big world with billions of people in it, and fans of D&D with internet access who like to read a certain free webcomic number in the thousands if not millions, so the odds that a small number will express outlandish views is high, but even though I acknowledge that the number expressing those views is higher than I first thought, it is still a small number amongst the total Forum, and I really haven't noted any in this thread.


....I bet you if I got all of us in a room together it's going to be overwhelmingly young men...


Define "young".

Judging by when folks say that they started playing D&D they're at least three that have posted to this thread that are older than me.


...Like I said, considering the general demographic of our hobby (anecdotally noted by me over 35 years in the hobby) I cant say I'm surprised.


I share the same prejudices about who is likely to be expressing those outlandish views, but I have no proof of that.


...(Also, I’m a middle aged woman who teaches social skills in a Special Ed setting if demographics matter)


And I'm a 50 year-old plumber/city worker/father of two, so based on the total sample of three people (2DHP, Malifice, and Naanomi) who are "out" with their ages, I'd say that the thread is mostly middle-aged, and males outnumber females, but both are outnumbered by "decine to state".

Also, my favorite song of the moment is "Death is a Star" by The Clash, so judging by the sample of one (me), the overwhelming majority of this thread are fans of cabaret music and/or The Clash.


"...By chance or escaping from misery
By suddenness or in answer to pain
Smoking in the dark cinema
See the bad go down again..."

Oh by Crom lets go further!

Based on my sample of well me, favorite deceased authors are John Steinbeck, and Fritz Leiber, favorite living authors are Susanna Clarke and Michael Moorcock, and the most re-watched motion pictures are Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, and Things to Come.

And based on my sample of me, the overwhelming majority don't watch anime or play video games.

http://78.media.tumblr.com/3e676417a041ce1b03fb7df0a7572a27/tumblr_nlom0gOXdx1u48hg0o4_500.gif

[Malifice]

The last time we engaged in the discussion I racked up a huge number of forum infractions defending my view with real-world examples.

Same here.


(Also, I’m a middle aged woman who teaches social skills in a Special Ed setting if demographics matter)

People are fixating on this point a little.

Again, I'm not saying that all in our hobby are young male nerds with poor social skills, living in their mothers basement. It's just in my personal anecdotal experience across dozens of conventions and hobby stores, and across several countries and over 35 years, that does seem to form the bulk of the hobby.

Plus your occasional furry, death metal dude, neckbeards, some dude with ASD jabbering non stop about katanas, and so forth.

Admittedly as 'nerd' stuff has become a bit more mainstream, were seeing more gamer girls recently and a broader demographic among the hobby.

It was worse 30 years ago.

[Niek]

My issues with alignment as usually understood are

1) insists that a very particular philosophy is objectively true, and therefore all others objectively false. Now, characters up to and including gods claiming such, fine, whatever. Those can be argued with. But questions of morality don't become any more objective or easily solvable because some cosmic force/the setting itself/the GM says they are.

2) In my experience it contributes to characters becoming caricatures. A villain whose motivation boils down to 'hes evil' or 'his god is evil' just rings hollow unless pulled off with an extraordinary amount of style.

[ZorroGames]

I think the problem is Alignment brings up shades of ''Real World Stuff'' and people can't let that stuff go....and it has only gotten worse over the years.

As I said on the other thread this has been discussed since the beginning and you statement zeroes in in the tension in the alignment threads

[Scripten]

Though "Parting with them reluctantly" can be interpreted as the Djinni agreeing to let their slaves leave if they really insist, because the Djinni is kind but doesn't get why anyone would consider "being the Djinni's slave and tell the Djinni they're great" to be the best thing ever unless it's impressed on them. Which is a bit different from Aladdin's situation, because while Aladdin had an ego problem and considered himself worthless without the services the Genie provided him too, it was more about the immense powers the Genie had access to rather than just ego-boosting.

There was that thread in the main Roleplaying forum where I kind of wish this had been brought up. (Not to re-litigate: the thread was closed and for good reason.)

This is the line where alignment disputes can pop up: a lot of people, myself included, wouldn't consider a creature that keeps slaves to be Good, but there's apparently, based on this MM entry, irrefutable evidence here that the 5E designers disagree with me. Granted, I would consider the use of the word "slave" here to be erroneous since the slaves have personal agency and are not considered property by the Djinn. However, that's adding my own personal baggage. A player encountering a Djinn might be motivated to kill them to free their slaves, but doing so would arguably be an Evil act, since Djinn are, RAW, Chaotic Good.

[Unoriginal]

2) In my experience it contributes to characters becoming caricatures. A villain whose motivation boils down to 'hes evil' or 'his god is evil' just rings hollow unless pulled off with an extraordinary amount of style.

I don't think any of the *motivations* of D&D's bad guys can be boiled down to "he's evil" or "his god is evil".

Being evil *informs and shapes* which actions they're going to take, it's not the motivation or origin of the action.

Even fiends, who are literally made of evil, aren't like that. Their motivation can be as simple as "it benefited my status" or "I enjoyed it" or so complexe that they could appear inscrutable to outsiders, but "being evil" isn't any more a motivation than "being good" is.

Take the Yuan-ti. Yes, a good share of them serve evil entities, some of which want the world destroyed. Why do those Yuan-ti go along with it? Because they've been promised they'll be on top of the next world, and they believe it.

Takes the Orcs. Yes, a good share of them are sadistic raiders who greatly enjoy beating down what is weaker than them. Why do they do that? Because the temperament they have and the body they got mean fighting is easier and more enjoyable than farming, making it easier/more profitable for them to take things from others, they have intense aggressivity they discharge on the available targets, and their culture is built around how your self-worth is linked to how strong you are, meaning they're encouraged during all their lives to kick down people in order to rise higher. Couple that with an high birth rate, and you have a big bunch of people who need ressources and have one favored way

In neither case, being evil is the motivation. It's just how they solve their issues and obtain what they want.


There was that thread in the main Roleplaying forum where I kind of wish this had been brought up. (Not to re-litigate: the thread was closed and for good reason.)

This is the line where alignment disputes can pop up: a lot of people, myself included, wouldn't consider a creature that keeps slaves to be Good, but there's apparently, based on this MM entry, irrefutable evidence here that the 5E designers disagree with me. Granted, I would consider the use of the word "slave" here to be erroneous since the slaves have personal agency and are not considered property by the Djinn. However, that's adding my own personal baggage. A player encountering a Djinn might be motivated to kill them to free their slaves, but doing so would arguably be an Evil act, since Djinn are, RAW, Chaotic Good.

Well, no doubt that some Djinn are evil. If the PCs encountered a Djinni and they outright refused to let their servants go no matter the servants' desires and treated them horribly, then the PCs wouldn't be the bad guys for freeing the servants.

On the other hand, if the PCs just see a Djinni lording around their household, with humanoids servants singing the Genie's praises, and murder them without checking if the servants are ok with that arrangement, yeah, there's a pretty big chance that they just murdered someone for no reason.

Perhaps you're right and the term "slave" is erroneous, but how would you call someone who's not paid, serve a master by taking care of their holdings, and can only leave if the master agrees to it?

Would you say that how Aladdin treated the Genie makes him evil?

Despite that, most Djinn are said to be benevolent and kind, and even if they're reluctant, the text DO mention they let their servants go.

[Sigreid]

At this point the thread needs this. https://youtu.be/R7jFcV1FZ3Y

[Naanomi]

1) insists that a very particular philosophy is objectively true, and therefore all others objectively false. Now, characters up to and including gods claiming such, fine, whatever. Those can be argued with. But questions of morality don't become any more objective or easily solvable because some cosmic force/the setting itself/the GM says they are.
Things can be arbitrary and still be objective... the speed of light appears to be arbitrary, it could easily be something else (and may be something else in a multiple-worlds model), but in our universe it is still objectively true

Just because the Eldest Ones set up the Great Wheel to have arbitrary definitions of Good and Evil (and a bunch of other stuff) doesn’t make those forces subjective, they are still the same for everyone in the Great Wheel; not matters of perspective

[smcmike]

My issues with alignment as usually understood are

1) insists that a very particular philosophy is objectively true, and therefore all others objectively false. Now, characters up to and including gods claiming such, fine, whatever. Those can be argued with. But questions of morality don't become any more objective or easily solvable because some cosmic force/the setting itself/the GM says they are.

2) In my experience it contributes to characters becoming caricatures. A villain whose motivation boils down to 'hes evil' or 'his god is evil' just rings hollow unless pulled off with an extraordinary amount of style.

I suspect that my temptation in dealing with a DM who cares very much about alignment and likes assigning characters EVIL marks would be to turn alignment into a dumb little meta game that I play against the DM. For example, after observing his triggers, maybe I play a LG Paladin and very carefully avoid doing anything that triggers his Evil stamp, while at the same time doing as much evil as I can. In Malifice’s case, it seems like presenting a solid self-defense case will always get you off the hook, so I’d make sure to escalate situations until the other side presents a credible threat before actually attacking.

I’m not saying this is a good way to play, just a temptation when faced with an alignment tyrant.

[Darth Ultron]

The DM sets objective reality for your PCs.


This is it right here.

In the game, the DM is in charge and control of everything in the game, except the PC. And part of that everything is the objective reality OF the game.

[Scripten]

Well, no doubt that some Djinn are evil. If the PCs encountered a Djinni and they outright refused to let their servants go no matter the servants' desires and treated them horribly, then the PCs wouldn't be the bad guys for freeing the servants.

The key point, I'd argue, is really only the first section of that. Refusing to let someone leave your household at-will is enough, in my estimate, to ping someone as Evil. That'd be my ruling at the table, at least. But that's not really the issue I'd expect to see so much as the players getting the wrong idea of the Djinn's alignment or contesting Djinn as (usually) Chaotic Good.


On the other hand, if the PCs just see a Djinni lording around their household, with humanoids servants singing the Genie's praises, and murder them without checking if the servants are ok with that arrangement, yeah, there's a pretty big chance that they just murdered someone for no reason.

When I wrote that, I was more leaning toward the players hearing the word "slave" thrown around and deciding to liberate the servants, assuming that they were under magic compulsion or something of the sort. If I were to run an evil Genie adventure, that kind of setup would be fairly run-of-the-mill, after all.


Perhaps you're right and the term "slave" is erroneous, but how would you call someone who's not paid, serve a master by taking care of their holdings, and can only leave if the master agrees to it?

There's a lot of variables here, but for me as a DM or as a player, the payment, treatment, etc. is less relevant than the compulsion to stay. Take that away and you don't have "slaves" but rather servants, hirelings, or some other, less loaded term.


Would you say that how Aladdin treated the Genie makes him evil?

If he'd kept to the plot arc at the climax of the movie and kept the Genie? Definitely. After all, that's a big part of what made him different from the BBEG, plot-wise.


Despite that, most Djinn are said to be benevolent and kind, and even if they're reluctant, the text DO mention they let their servants go.

Sure, but unless the players have some way to find that out (by having the Djinn release a servant, reading the MM, etc.) they really can't get a fair read on the situation. The problem being that it's cumbersome, mostly.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re players views on genocide: See above. Im not accusing the poster I've quoted of being down with genocide. In an effort to calibrate your attitude on the difference between a game and real life, are you going to accuse a checkers player of having an attitude supporting genocide since his objective is to remove all of the opponents playing pieces?

He's Killed Them All! (Yeah, I know, in checkers "captured" is a term)

Likewise with some of the old Avalon Hill games, where a victory condition might be "move 15 units off the board by turn 20" or might be "destroy all enemy units." Are these game players engaging in genocide if they use the latter victory condition? How about in Go?

At some point, I suggest that we need to acknowledge that as soon as someone uses the G word, genocide, in a discussion about a game, that they are not arguing in good faith. The real thing, genocide, is pretty damned nasty. It's meaning has been cheapened by its abuse and misuse for quite some time, and not just in game discussions.

OK, done. Back to the usual nonsense about alignment.

[Unoriginal]

The key point, I'd argue, is really only the first section of that. Refusing to let someone leave your household at-will is enough, in my estimate, to ping someone as Evil. That'd be my ruling at the table, at least. But that's not really the issue I'd expect to see so much as the players getting the wrong idea of the Djinn's alignment or contesting Djinn as (usually) Chaotic Good.

Eh, there are plenty of arrangement where you can't leave the "staff" at will, either (I meant "household" as in "household staff", sorry if it was unclear). Military service or vassalhood, for example.

Would you make a king "ping as Evil" if they needed convincing to let someone leave the army?



When I wrote that, I was more leaning toward the players hearing the word "slave" thrown around and deciding to liberate the servants, assuming that they were under magic compulsion or something of the sort. If I were to run an evil Genie adventure, that kind of setup would be fairly run-of-the-mill, after all.

Fair enough.




There's a lot of variables here, but for me as a DM or as a player, the payment, treatment, etc. is less relevant than the compulsion to stay. Take that away and you don't have "slaves" but rather servants, hirelings, or some other, less loaded term.

Well, I'm not sure what to say. Calling them "servants" or "hirelings" seems more like an euphemism, kind of like in Thor: Ragnarok where the Grandmaster prefers the term "prisoner with benefits".


If he'd kept to the plot arc at the climax of the movie and kept the Genie? Definitely. After all, that's a big part of what made him different from the BBEG, plot-wise.

But before that, he still kept him as a slave and refused to let him leave (until character growth). Was he evil then?




Sure, but unless the players have some way to find that out (by having the Djinn release a servant, reading the MM, etc.) they really can't get a fair read on the situation. The problem being that it's cumbersome, mostly.

Well as a DM I would have the Djinni actually act benevolently in a visible manner, if I wanted to establish them as a good person. Doesn't seem too cumbersome to me.

[hamishspence]

The distinction between being evil and doing evil may come into play here. Neutral people sometimes do evil, and sometimes good, after all.

[Scripten]

Eh, there are plenty of arrangement where you can't leave the "staff" at will, either (I meant "household" as in "household staff", sorry if it was unclear). Military service or vassalhood, for example.

Would you make a king "ping as Evil" if they needed convincing to let someone leave the army?


Military service would be provable with what amounts to a pledge or contract. Assuming that the contract isn't exploitative, then no, not in that case. But equivalently, a King who executes a draft but doesn't take exception for health/family needs/etc. would be in the wrong. Since this thread is on the Disney train anyway, that's a key plot point in Mulan - the snooty bureaucrat whose name I don't recall is Neutral at best.



Well, I'm not sure what to say. Calling them "servants" or "hirelings" seems more like an euphemism, kind of like in Thor: Ragnarok where the Grandmaster prefers the term "prisoner with benefits".


Sure, but there's demonstrable differences here, or else you've got a Djinn that is actually Evil. You shouldn't need an euphemism for something innocuous, right?



But before that, he still kept him as a slave and refused to let him leave (until character growth). Was he evil then?


It's certainly an Evil act. Unrepentant Evil acts make someone Evil. I'd probably, for the sake of argument, have Aladdin ping as Neutral in a D&D world, until the climax of the film where his actions make him Good.



Well as a DM I would have the Djinni actually act benevolently in a visible manner, if I wanted to establish them as a good person. Doesn't seem too cumbersome to me.

I'd do the same for a suitably Lawful Evil genie. :P They'd be working behind the scenes, of course.

[smcmike]

What is the point of categorizing a Djinni on a good/evil axis anyways?

[Malifice]

My issues with alignment as usually understood are

1) insists that a very particular philosophy is objectively true, and therefore all others objectively false. Now, characters up to and including gods claiming such, fine, whatever. Those can be argued with. But questions of morality don't become any more objective or easily solvable because some cosmic force/the setting itself/the GM says they are.

Thats totally false. The exact opposite is true.

Unlike in the real world where everything is subjective beyond knowledge of self existence (Cogito Ergo Sum), in the fantasy world we have an infallible arbiter who can determine what is objectively true or false (the DM).

If the DM says that it is objectively true that X happened, or that is is objectively true that action Y is 'evil' then it is objectively true.

You can argue all you want, but you're wrong. Subjectively you (and your character) might very well disagree. But that doesn't make it not so.

Compare to real world where you cant even establish the objective existence of the chair you're sitting on (you could be in the matrix, dreaming, being fooled by devils etc).

In the real world postmodernism has a place, and all knowledge outside of being aware you exist is subjective.

Now bear in mind, from your characters POV in the game world, this also holds true. Your character cant ever know for certain that an act is 'evil' or even that the chair he is sitting on is real (again; it could be an illusion, a trick of a devil, he could be in the matrix or dreaming and so forth). He can hold true to whatever beliefs he wants.

As to whether those beliefs are true or not, depends on the DM and his stance on objective reality. If the DM holds the position that alignment (or indeed the game reality) is objectively true or cleaves to objective standards, then those are the truths. No amount of argument, or subjective belief gets around that reality.

I suggest reading a bit on postmodernism and dualism to understand the above. If you dont have a philosophy degree the above takes a bit to wrap your head around.


2) In my experience it contributes to characters becoming caricatures. A villain whose motivation boils down to 'hes evil' or 'his god is evil' just rings hollow unless pulled off with an extraordinary amount of style.


Alignment has nothing to do with caricatures. Thats just bad characterization by the individual involved.

[Unoriginal]

What is the point of categorizing a Djinni on a good/evil axis anyways?

Indicating to DMs how much of a malevolent **** the average Djinni is in the default setting.

That's it.

The answer the 5e writers went with was "not a malevolent ****".

[Malifice]

In an effort to calibrate your attitude on the difference between a game and real life, are you going to accuse a checkers player of having an attitude supporting genocide since his objective is to remove all of the opponents playing pieces?

If the checkers player advised me that he holds the view that genocide is OK as he removed plastic playing pieces then yes I would.

We're not talking about removing bits of colored plastic here. We're talking about a person rationalizing genocide as being morally acceptable for a person (often his PC) to engage in.

If they don't hold that view, then stop arguing it.

[Malifice]

The distinction between being evil and doing evil may come into play here. Neutral people sometimes do evil, and sometimes good, after all.

Occasionally and for good reason. Generally speaking morally neutral people lack the compassion to go out of their way to help others, and they lack the malice to harm others. They generally try to avoid both.

They might steal from someone if desperate, or if its clearly in their interest to do so, but they wont hurt you if you catch them (instead simply trying to get away or lie their way out of it). They might help someone, but only if there is something in it for them. They work at a job in order to support themselves and their families, and for self satisfaction and fulfillment.

Most people are Neutral.

A neutral guy finds a wallet, they tend to keep it unless there is a reward. Sometimes they'll return the wallet if its not too much trouble, or if they know the person whose wallet it is, or there is something else in it for them (the wallets owner looks super hot based on their drivers licence and the N person wants to meet them), or they have nothing better to do.

A good person generally goes out of his way to actively look for the owner, and refuses to accept a reward.

An evil person probably took the wallet, and there is no chance he is returning it afterwards. If you caught him stealing it in the first place, he will probably attempt to harm you, or possibly even kill you if that's his best method of keeping the wallet, and he thinks he can get away with it.

[Willie the Duck]

Dont put words in my mouth. As a lawyer I choose my words carefully. I didnt say everyone here are teenage boys who advocate genocide as being good.

I said that many on a RPG forum are likely adolescents with poor social skills. I obviously have no way of knowing that for sure, other than anecdotal experience with roleplaying games for 35 years since BECMI (where I started).

Overwhelmingly our hobby is comprised of young men. Overwhelmingly many of those young men are 'nerds' or socially ostrasized or are maladjusted in some way or another. From neckbeards with cheeto stains on the fingers, to overweight guys that live in their mothers basement and rarely get off the computer; that's the main members of the hobby in my anecdotal experience.

Thats not all of us. There are plenty of women, well adjusted people, and others that engage in our hobby as well.

But I bet you if I got all of us in a room together it's going to be overwhelmingly young men, neckbeards, overweight nerds, dudes with poor social skills, comic reading computer geeks and the likes. Some idiot will be droning on about katanas for several hours. Some guy wont have showered for weeks. There will be at least one guy with long black hair, a death metal T-shirt and wearing something studded. Maybe a furry as well.

Again; only anecdotal from personal experience of attending conventions, rocking up to roleplaying social clubs, hanging out in local gaming stores and advertising for players.

Lets be honest here people. We are who we are.

Re players views on genocide: See above. Im not accusing the poster I've quoted of being down with genocide. Simply stating that I see frequent threads on this forum (and others) expressly condoning gencoide as something perfectly acceptable for a 'good' person to engage in 'if done for the right reasons/ greater good'.

Again - posters in this very sub forum have advocated the following acts as 'Good' acts, or acts done by people they define as being 'Good' people: genocide, slavery, necromancy, infanticide, murder, serial killing, torture, sex with a mind controlled person, canabalism, diabolism and child abuse.

I can provide examples to any of the above.

Like I said, considering the general demographic of our hobby (anecdotally noted by me over 35 years in the hobby) I cant say I'm surprised.

You are absolutely not required to take my advice in any way, shape, or form. I offered it in good faith, and you are free to reject it. It is my entirely singular perception that you are not taken particularly seriously around here on subjects related to race and morality, that it is a self-inflicted condition, and that perhaps it is what or how you communicate that caused this state of affairs. I might be off base. Or not. And you might care, or not. I'm certainly done bringing it up.

Interestingly, I also started playing in '83, with BECMI. I think the overweight nerds, young future neckbeards, and socially dysfunctional individuals was perhaps an accurate assessment of my experience with gamers right up through the end of high school. Thereafter I met players who picked it up in the Army, some old school grognards who transitioned to it from wargames, and people who played it as breaks from the graduate programs. I currently have two primary gaming groups of ~half dozen or so apiece. They include two professors, a president of a (small) company, a department head in a huge corporation, 4 IT professionals, a grade school teacher, and yes one long haired heavy metal enthusiast. I'm not exactly sure what we're trying to measure here (social acceptability? life-goal success?), but by any external or self-defined metrics, we've all succeeded (coming up on my 15th sobriety anniversary, I can say that my life is at least 10X as awesome as I thought it ever could be, and I genuinely do not understand how I could be so blessed). I don't think either of us can really claim we know that our own experience is more representative, but everything I have seen suggests that the image of D&D players as social rejects and losers to be a highly outdated viewpoint.

As to posters in this sub forum existing that have advocated genocide, infanticide, cannibalism, etc. as good acts, fine. I'll take that at face value. I was tempted to go look at the thread RedMage linked to find if it was a pure example or something else (someone being a devil's advocate, someone complaining that they thought the rules suggested such acts were good in contradiction of reason, or some other edge case), but honestly no, let's just go with face value: there was someone here who did declare genocide a good act. Great. That successfully shows that this forum gets all kinds. For the rest of us, who know we don't advocate genocide (and know we aren't teens or neckbeards), it doesn't add to any argument.

[krugaan]

As to posters in this sub forum existing that have advocated genocide, infanticide, cannibalism, etc. as good acts, fine. I'll take that at face value. I was tempted to go look at the thread RedMage linked to find if it was a pure example or something else (someone being a devil's advocate, someone complaining that they thought the rules suggested such acts were good in contradiction of reason, or some other edge case), but honestly no, let's just go with face value: there was someone here who did declare genocide a good act. Great. That successfully shows that this forum gets all kinds. For the rest of us, who know we don't advocate genocide (and know we aren't teens or neckbeards), it doesn't add to any argument.

I've browsed a few, and there are some nuts. The majority are decent folk.

There are some ... outliers.

[Naanomi]

As someone who does have a philosophy degree, I must clarify that some postmodernist don’t even accept their own existence via cogito reasoning; stating that while they cannot imagine a way in which they could think and not exist, but that might be a failure of imagination of potential alternatives instead of proof of existence

[JoeJ]

I've browsed a few, and there are some nuts. The majority are decent folk.

There are some ... outliers.

I'm not going to go search out old posts to see who has advocated what, but in regards to genocide I hope most of us can distinguish between real life and a fantasy world in which there can exist races that are objectively always evil. (Gnolls in my world are an example. They exist only to cause pain and death from the moment they are created until they die.)

[2D8HP]

I'm not going to go search out old posts to see who has advocated what, but in regards to genocide I hope most of us can distinguish between real life and a fantasy world in which there can exist races that are objectively always evil. (Gnolls in my world are an example. They exist only to cause pain and death from the moment they are created until they die.)


Well apparently people can't tell the difference, as the most cogent seeming (to me) explanation of "why any disputes" over what is written for an Alignment on character record sheets is that people seem to feel that it somehow is a judgement on the players morality not their PC's morality, and that I didn't consider that I suppose reflects on how unattached I feel to my characters (which are almost all the same variations of archers/swordsmen with some skills, so basically mostly Haley's with some parts of Roy and sometimes dashes of Elan).

For me if the DM decides to pencil in something in the Alignment entry, I'm curious but I'm not going to take umbrage, and as a DM I don't think that I've ever looked at any PC's Alignment (though I do have a don't squick me out rule).

Mostly I just use Alignment for monsters.

[Malifice]

As someone who does have a philosophy degree, I must clarify that some postmodernist don’t even accept their own existence via cogito reasoning; stating that while they cannot imagine a way in which they could think and not exist, but that might be a failure of imagination of potential alternatives instead of proof of existence

Kierkgaard wasnt it? As a dualist, Im skeptical of his argument.

:smallwink:


It is my entirely singular perception that you are not taken particularly seriously around here on subjects related to race and morality,

Race? Come again?

As to morality, I dont care. My position on morality is that genocide, murder, rape, slavery, torture and so forth are evil. They can never be justified. I'll happily stand my ground on that point, and it's a point that wouldnt be controversial anywhere else than on a RPG forum.

Feel free to argue before a court of law or the Hague that [genocide, murder, rape, slavery, torture] wasnt evil. A a a lawyer I've seen people try.

They all failed.

As a general rule, killing can only ever be morally justified if done in self defence or the defence of others, or to minimise harm, when no other option reasonably presents itself, and is proportionate to the harm being threatened. This is a position that is mirrored in legal codes around the world across cultures, and across history.

Again, this is a position that I am comfortable taking.

As to whether you subjectively agree or not, thats not for me to decide. Plenty of people dont agree (which is why we have murder, genocide and so forth). Plently of people think that even genocide is OK in certain circumstances.

They're wrong.

[Naanomi]

if i were trying to justify genocide as ‘not invariably Evil’ in fantasy land it would be along the lines of... that if killing can sometimes be justified in minimizing harm; and you have beings like demons running around; is there much of a distinction in practice between attempting to kill all demons on sight (they can’t be really ‘eliminated’ on the large scale, but can be on the local scale; especially in the Prime) and ‘just’ reasonably minimizing risk in some other way? Demons and other supernatural evils are... more akin to (un)natural disasters than a ‘people’ so the term genocide may not even be applicable.

I 100% recognize this is a horribly slippery slope, and that real life people have justified atrocities by claiming their victims were Evil... but it is via this line of reasoning that ‘angels can always try to kill demons and are still Good’ can be given shape in-setting

[Malifice]

if i were trying to justify genocide as ‘not invariably Evil’ in fantasy land it would be along the lines of... that if killing can sometimes be justified in minimizing harm; and you have beings like demons running around; is there much of a distinction in practice between attempting to kill all demons on sight (they can’t be really ‘eliminated’ on the large scale, but can be on the local scale; especially in the Prime) and ‘just’ reasonably minimizing risk in some other way? Demons and other supernatural evils are... more akin to (un)natural disasters than a ‘people’ so the term genocide may not even be applicable.

I 100% recognize this is a horribly slippery slope, and that real life people have justified atrocities by claiming their victims were Evil... but it is via this line of reasoning that ‘angels can always try to kill demons and are still Good’ can be given shape in-setting

If as I say, as a general rule, killing can only ever be morally justified if done in self defence or the defence of others, or to minimise harm, when no other option reasonably presents itself, and is proportionate to the harm being threatened, then killing Demons is virtually always OK aside from some kind of extreme outlier.

They're demons. It is virtually impossible to ever kill one not in self defence or the defence of others, to mininise harm. There is almost never another reasonable option that presents itself.

They appear on the material and start killing things. If you meet one, it'll almost certainly be trying to kill you. They are almost invariably chaotic and evil in the extreme.

We dont kill them simply because they're demons. We kill them because they're trying to kill us (or someone else) and its the only reasonably practical way of stopping them. If one appeared in your living room right now, it's not there to have a pleasant chat with you about the weather. Its there to rip your face off.

Feel free to grab a weapon and put it down with extreme prejudice before it does that.

If demons suddenly stopped being murderous evil monsters, we lose our claim to self defense.

I suppose it is possible. Not every single demon is CE. In the infinite Abyss, there might even be a demon or two out there that has somehow reformed and redeemed itself. I cant think of a single example canonically though.

[Unoriginal]

Not every single demon is CE.

Actually, every single one of demon is.



In the infinite Abyss, there might even be a demon or two out there that has somehow reformed and redeemed itself. I cant think of a single example canonically though.

Oh, sure. Thing is, if a demon changes alignment, they stop being a demon.

Same way Gra'azt stopped being a Devil when he stopped being lawful, and became a Demon.

[Naanomi]

There are a few canonical ‘demons’ that have become Good or Neutral but haven’t yet taken on a different form and are still ‘demons’ in the lag time. Exceedingly rare though, much harder for a fiend to ascend than for a celestial to fall

Fall-From-Grace is a Lawful Neutral demon for example...
http://torment.wikia.com/wiki/Fall-from-Grace

As a note, Gormeel Slaad and Rogue Modron don’t ‘change’ like fiends and celestials do when their alignment is ‘wrong’; and there are no historical examples of Rilmani (or their precursors) ever losing their neutrality

[Unoriginal]

There are a few canonical ‘demons’ that have become Good or Neutral but haven’t yet taken on a different form and are still ‘demons’ in the lag time. Exceedingly rare though, much harder for a fiend to ascend than for a celestial to fall

Fall-From-Grace is a Lawful Neutral demon for example...
http://torment.wikia.com/wiki/Fall-from-Grace

Kind of funny to see the changes in how all this work, eh? If it was a 5e character, she would have become something else than a demon.

Another funny thing: as written in the Mordenkainen's, all demons see themselves as the one true master of all the cosmos. It means that someone like Gra'azt who became a demon either developed such a potent narcissism they transformed into a demon, or that their perspective on around what the world revolved shifted after/while they turned into one.

Dunno why, but I find imagining a fiend having that kind of epiphany hilarious.

[Darth Ultron]

For me if the DM decides to pencil in something in the Alignment entry, I'm curious but I'm not going to take umbrage,

I wonder why 'alignment' is such a big deal to players?

In most any D&D game....but even more so an old school style game..there are tons and tons and tons of things that can happen to a character. But a player will just accept them all....except alignment changes .

[Naanomi]

Kind of funny to see the changes in how all this work, eh? If it was a 5e character, she would have become something else than a demon.
Even under 2e mechanics she would eventually stop being a demon, it is just a process that sometimes takes time to complete (though what she would be is a bit questionable... she isn’t Good so wouldn’t be a celestial)

[Contrast]

If the DM says that it is objectively true that X happened, or that is is objectively true that action Y is 'evil' then it is objectively true.

You can argue all you want, but you're wrong. Subjectively you (and your character) might very well disagree. But that doesn't make it not so.

I think this is the crux of my irritation and confusion about alignment in roleplaying games. There's a difference between a DM telling you 'these villagers aren't buying your justification' and 'your justification is wrong, your alignment has changed'. It's unclear to me why such intervention is even necessary or desirable.

If I wanted to spend my evening debating/arguing philosophy with my friends, I'd be doing that.



As to morality, I dont care. My position on morality is that genocide, murder, rape, slavery, torture and so forth are evil. They can never be justified. I'll happily stand my ground on that point, and it's a point that wouldnt be controversial anywhere else than on a RPG forum.

Well, an RPG forum or anywhere with 46% of Americans (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/05/torture-survey-red-cross-people-on-war-poll).


I wonder why 'alignment' is such a big deal to players?

In most any D&D game....but even more so an old school style game..there are tons and tons and tons of things that can happen to a character. But a player will just accept them all....except alignment changes .

As above - there's a difference between telling players 'this is how the world reacts to your character' and 'your conception of who your character is as a person is definitively wrong'.


As a side note it is a personal bug bear of mine when people keep saying DMs have objective morality - can we say they define morality or can enforce absolute morality? I feel its very misleading to describe a DMs opinions on morality as objective (and if you are going to use alignment, a harmful way to think about it) even in the context of a world in which they make up all the rules.

[Darth Ultron]

I think this is the crux of my irritation and confusion about alignment in roleplaying games. There's a difference between a DM telling you 'these villagers aren't buying your justification' and 'your justification is wrong, your alignment has changed'. It's unclear to me why such intervention is even necessary or desirable.

If I wanted to spend my evening debating/arguing philosophy with my friends, I'd be doing that.

there's a difference between telling players 'this is how the world reacts to your character' and 'your conception of who your character is as a person is definitively wrong'.


But it is 'your conception of who your character is as a person is definitively wrong' IN MY GAME. Only. The same way the DM says anything about the game.

A DM says what ''is'' in their game. It's very basic. You don't have to like it or even agree...but if you play in the DM's game, you must accept it.

The important part is though...it's only a game. A person says, ''while we play this game with me as DM, then I say X" Really, it's exactly like a person saying ''as long as you are in my house you may not smoke".

But...it only matters for that one small thing; in the game or house. It has no effect at all on your life the moment you leave the game or house.

So, for D&D, this simply makes it like any other thing in the game:

Lets say you have a wacky homebrew class that does 100 points of damage every time you say ''pew''...well, ok, you look around for a DM that thinks that is ''super way cool!", and then you play in that game.

So, same way you want to play a Lawful Good Paladin of Slaughtering Innocents...again, you find a DM that says "Yup, that is how wicked lawful good works!" and play in that game.

[Naanomi]

DMs do not have objective morality, but they are called upon to adjudicate the objective morality that is an assumption of the base setting (with some mechanics predicated on that). All talk of objective morality (from me anyways) is within the in-game Greaf Wheel Cosmology; I don’t pretend anything like that exists in real life or within any participant in the game (player, DM, designer, etc)

[Tanarii]

I think this is the crux of my irritation and confusion about alignment in roleplaying games. There's a difference between a DM telling you 'these villagers aren't buying your justification' and 'your justification is wrong, your alignment has changed'. It's unclear to me why such intervention is even necessary or desirable.Its true insofar as a DMs word goes for their world ... which isn't always a given for every table.

Of course a couple of counter points:
- abusing your power as a DM to define your world will quickly lose you players, especially if;
- players often consider the character and things about it to be theirs. This isn't a problem if it's clearly defined that Alignment is something determined by the DM based on behavior, and determines how the game world interacts with the character. It's a problem if it's defined as primarily a roleplaying too
For the player to play their character.

5e straddles that line in a way that allows it to go pretty strongly either way. But since there are still mechanical and cosmological effects, it can't be purely an RP tool. And I say that as someone who is strongly an advocate of it being primarily that way.


If I wanted to spend my evening debating/arguing philosophy with my friends, I'd be doing that.Me too. And non-friends. That's why in a game with a lot of players, with pickup for who attends which session. some of whom are very infrequent, I stick "mostly RP tool, but please don't play characters that consistently act like the evil alignments." It cuts down on players acting like asses to each other, either telling them how to act or not act, or by acting in disruptive ways.

If it was good friends I'd allow an evil character if everyone at the table was cool with it and it was clearly stated that they were going to have solid reasons to work with the party and against the villains.

I'd probably also be willing to run one where the party was all evil against the world if a table really wanted it, but agreed to work together as a unit.

I don't think I'd be willing to run a "evil" game in which backstabbing and working against the party was okay.

[KorvinStarmast]

As to morality, I dont care. My position on morality is that genocide, murder, rape, slavery, torture and so forth are evil. They can never be justified. Since genocide is extremely rare, your argument is already dead in the water. A great deal of slaughter has been engaged in in human history that is not genocide. A great deal of revisionist history has tried to paint previous conquest as 'genocide' when conquest was for about 6000 years of human history simply something that was done. It was a human habit.


Feel free to argue before a court of law or the Hague that [genocide, murder, rape, slavery, torture] wasnt evil. A a a lawyer I've seen people try. You are mistaking modern, westernized, 20th century and 21st century moral attitudes for the generic model of the trope in which fantasies are written and played in. You are using an anachronism. Look the word up.


They all failed. As does your current line of argument.


As a general rule, killing can only ever be morally justified if done in self defence or the defence of others, or to minimise harm That general rule is recent, in terms of having become a 20th century norm after we humans began to equip ourselves with the machines of war that could do slaughter on a grand scale, to the point of wiping all of each other out. Read On the Beach. It takes place in Oz.

For the roughly six thousand years before that, which is more contemporary to the trope we all play in, that "general rule" was not in operation. (though some certainly worked hard to sell it, see Augustine and Aquinas and their arguments about just war, to name but two). My own country was established by using violent means to throw off a tyrannical government, but your precious little general rule had bloody fork all to do with that. Likewise a variety of other Western Hemisphere revolutions that threw off the ancien regime. None of them can be called "self defense" per your asinine general rule, but they were all valid revolutions. (Our unfortunate neighbors in Mexico institutionalized revolution such that they didn't stop having them for about 90 years).

All of the above said, I don't like murderhobo games any more than you do. I like a little more depth and nuance to player decisions. That takes work from the DM to create. Sometimes, D&D is just a dungeon crawl. That isn't genocide. It's escapism. Sometimes, D&D is far richer and far more complex. (I prefer that end of the spectrum).

What I won't pretend, which you appear to have done, is that the game didn't descend from a war game: us versus them. As I noted above, that mode of human attitude is a very old and distinguished human habit, and a theme. Sometimes, humans cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war. That particular Chainmailian influence never completely left the game (though 2e AD&D did make a large step away from that as a first course change ...) but what is missing, IMO, to incentivize less murderhoboism is a very old mechanic.

Rewarding for treasure gained regardless of who was killed to gain it. Go back to that odd little game in three little books. If you were clever enough to outsmart the beasties or bandits guardin that treasure, and they still lived, you still got a butt load of XP for your coup. Losing that was a step toward murderhoboism, and the CRPG's took care of the rest: kill 'em and take their shoes.
The XP's awarded for story awards, or achievement awards, for "defeating rather than killing" is another step in that direction that returns us to the less murder hobo incentivized state of play.

In that state of play, a lot of these precious and empty pissing contests over alignment never arise ... though you'll still have some asshats at some tables. It's a people thing.

[Malifice]

I think this is the crux of my irritation and confusion about alignment in roleplaying games. There's a difference between a DM telling you 'these villagers aren't buying your justification' and 'your justification is wrong, your alignment has changed'. It's unclear to me why such intervention is even necessary or desirable.

If I wanted to spend my evening debating/arguing philosophy with my friends, I'd be doing that.



Well, an RPG forum or anywhere with 46% of Americans (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/05/torture-survey-red-cross-people-on-war-poll).



As above - there's a difference between telling players 'this is how the world reacts to your character' and 'your conception of who your character is as a person is definitively wrong'.


As a side note it is a personal bug bear of mine when people keep saying DMs have objective morality - can we say they define morality or can enforce absolute morality? I feel its very misleading to describe a DMs opinions on morality as objective (and if you are going to use alignment, a harmful way to think about it) even in the context of a world in which they make up all the rules.

46 percent of Americans aren't Good aligned then. They're Neutral (pro) or Evil (pro).

The other 54 percent are Good aligned (against) or Neutral (against).

Personally I'm Neutral (against).

[Niek]

Thats totally false. The exact opposite is true.

Unlike in the real world where everything is subjective beyond knowledge of self existence (Cogito Ergo Sum), in the fantasy world we have an infallible arbiter who can determine what is objectively true or false (the DM).

If the DM says that it is objectively true that X happened, or that is is objectively true that action Y is 'evil' then it is objectively true.

You can argue all you want, but you're wrong. Subjectively you (and your character) might very well disagree. But that doesn't make it not so.

Compare to real world where you cant even establish the objective existence of the chair you're sitting on (you could be in the matrix, dreaming, being fooled by devils etc).

In the real world postmodernism has a place, and all knowledge outside of being aware you exist is subjective.

Now bear in mind, from your characters POV in the game world, this also holds true. Your character cant ever know for certain that an act is 'evil' or even that the chair he is sitting on is real (again; it could be an illusion, a trick of a devil, he could be in the matrix or dreaming and so forth). He can hold true to whatever beliefs he wants.

As to whether those beliefs are true or not, depends on the DM and his stance on objective reality. If the DM holds the position that alignment (or indeed the game reality) is objectively true or cleaves to objective standards, then those are the truths. No amount of argument, or subjective belief gets around that reality.

I suggest reading a bit on postmodernism and dualism to understand the above. If you dont have a philosophy degree the above takes a bit to wrap your head around.



Alignment has nothing to do with caricatures. Thats just bad characterization by the individual involved.

The GM can say that there is an objectively measurable quality, tied to certain acts and methodologies, which is colloquially known as Alignment. Characters within the setting may view this quality as an objective measure of morality, my own character included even. This still does not render it an objective measure in actuality, even in-universe, because morality simply does not work that way.

The metaphysics of a given setting may influence what acts and methods are good or evil based on the supernatural consequences thereof, but they can't change the nature of morality itself, because morality does not derive from an authoritative source.

You cannot make a moral claim about a game world without also making a moral claim about the real one

[krugaan]

The metaphysics of a given setting may influence what acts and methods are good or evil based on the supernatural consequences thereof, but they can't change the nature of morality itself, because morality does not derive from an authoritative source.

You cannot make a moral claim about a game world without also making a moral claim about the real one

Wait ... what?

What source are you claiming morality derives from, then? Natural law does not apply in a made up universe, as far as i know.

[JoeJ]

The metaphysics of a given setting may influence what acts and methods are good or evil based on the supernatural consequences thereof, but they can't change the nature of morality itself, because morality does not derive from an authoritative source.

That's incorrect. Morality does derive from an authoritative source; it is inherent in the fabric of reality itself in the Great Wheel. Morality is as objective as the elements that make up matter, and as fundamental a part of the multiverse (actually, it's probably more fundamental).


You cannot make a moral claim about a game world without also making a moral claim about the real one

Why not?

[Niek]

Lets use the Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) to illustrate my point, since its a simple and well-known ethical dilemma.

In the real world, which of the two options is more ethical is a hotly debated open question. We would obviously consider it silly if someone made the claim that, because their game setting holds deontological ethics to be objectively true, that the objectively correct choice is to not pull the lever, and therefore the problem is now solved. Its a form of circular reasoning

[krugaan]

In the real world, which of the two options is more ethical is a hotly debated open question.


Very true.



We would obviously consider it silly if someone made the claim that, because their game setting holds deontological ethics to be objectively true, that the objectively correct choice is to not pull the lever, and therefore the problem is now solved.


I'm getting confused here. Why is it obviously silly? DnD is literally a universe with deities who objectively know alignment without fail. I assume by "objectively correct" that you mean "good" or "evil" or whatever you intended. The important point is that there is an actual answer. In the Schrodingers box that is the real human mind/soul/whatever, there is always that moral uncertainty because we obviously can't know. We can merely take pretty damn good guesses.

But Gods in DnD (or hell, the universe itself, whatever) can look in the box and say "bing, you're evil" or "gratz", you're good. I assume they can also judge the consequences of your action based on the theoretical lever pull or not.


Its a form of circular reasoning.

I'm not sure this is actually true.

[Niek]

Its circular because it makes the conclusion (x is moral/immoral) part of the premise (the gods/cosmology/gm say x is moral/immoral)

Two GMs running otherwise identical campaigns could make opposite calls as to which of the two options in the trolley problem is correct, which to me is a clear knock against the idea that either could be called objective.

In effect, all objective alignment means is that the solution to any and all moral dilemma is to agree with the writers/GM's position on the matter, which I find objectionable not to mention boring. Or, alternatively, that the meanings of capital-letters Good and Evil are divorced from those of lowercase good and evil, which only makes things needlessly confusing.

[JoeJ]

Two GMs running otherwise identical campaigns could make opposite calls as to which of the two options in the trolley problem is correct, which to me is a clear knock against the idea that either could be called objective.

Both would be objectively right. Two GMs running otherwise identical campaigns could also make opposite calls as to how many moons there are in the sky, or how far from the surface the atmosphere extends, or how gravity works, or what color the sky is. And in every case, both GMs would be correct.

[krugaan]

Its circular because it makes the conclusion (x is moral/immoral) part of the premise (the gods/cosmology/gm say x is moral/immoral)


That's not really circular though, it's just a definition. Circular reasoning involves using two unsupported assertions to support each other. This is just ... literally gods saying "this is good and this is bad". It's declarative.

[Contrast]

DMs do not have objective morality, but they are called upon to adjudicate the objective morality that is an assumption of the base setting (with some mechanics predicated on that). All talk of objective morality (from me anyways) is within the in-game Greaf Wheel Cosmology; I don’t pretend anything like that exists in real life or within any participant in the game (player, DM, designer, etc)

It's helpful to use words to mean what they mean. If someone is adjudicating objective morality, it isn't objective and you shouldn't use the word objective. Use another word that means 'don't try and argue with me on this'. To expand on why I feel this is harmful - a DM describing their rulings on morality as objectively correct implies a statement in the real world about those moral values whereas a DM describing that they determine moral authority in their setting makes it clearer that they are making an opinion based assessment that you shouldn't argue with.

They both likely mean the same thing in practice but one will help you avoid getting peoples hackles up. Which honestly seems the only thing I've ever seen alignment achieve in game - irritate people. Can someone give me an example of a time where having alignment present as a mechanical thing actually improved their game (keeping in mind you're perfectly capable of telling people not to play certain types of characters without a box on their character sheet for alignment)?


46 percent of Americans aren't Good aligned then. They're Neutral (pro) or Evil (pro).

The other 54 percent are Good aligned (against) or Neutral (against).

Personally I'm Neutral (against).

I highly doubt those people would typically describe themselves as evil. So you concede your point that RPG forums are the only place you will find people who disagree with your morality assessments on what constitutes good and evil? And in fact that your position on what constitutes good and evil which you claim to be indisputable is, in fact, disputed by a large number of people even in the age and culture in which you live, let alone others?

Edit - As another example, you said murder can never be justified. That's a very strong statement which you contradicted yourself on by noting justifications such as self defence (I believe in previous discussions you've also agreed that wars can be justified). Immediately we're into territory of 'ok so what constitutes justification' which is a million miles from 'can never be justified'.

Assuming your counter is that things can be necessary without being good - why is a 'necessary evil' evil if its necessary. If the outcome isn't good, why is it necessary? If the outcome is good, why is it evil? Can the outcomes of an evil act make it 'less evil'? If they can why can't a very minor evil act with massive good outcomes be considered good? Are we just back into 'ok so what constitutes justification' territory?

The answer is most people will define all the important words in those questions differently so people just have to make their own judgements.

/edit

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before but I'm always somewhat bemused by claims of moral absolutism (notwithstanding that I do happen to agree with you on the general principals of what people should and shouldn't do to each other) :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

Lets use the Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) to illustrate my point, since its a simple and well-known ethical dilemma. Lets not. It's well known as a pointless situation that actually demonstrates nothing about ethics or morality.

[Tectorman]

Its circular because it makes the conclusion (x is moral/immoral) part of the premise (the gods/cosmology/gm say x is moral/immoral)

Two GMs running otherwise identical campaigns could make opposite calls as to which of the two options in the trolley problem is correct, which to me is a clear knock against the idea that either could be called objective.

In effect, all objective alignment means is that the solution to any and all moral dilemma is to agree with the writers/GM's position on the matter, which I find objectionable not to mention boring. Or, alternatively, that the meanings of capital-letters Good and Evil are divorced from those of lowercase good and evil, which only makes things needlessly confusing.

Which the rules described in the book say you are supposed to be doing anyway, just for the purpose of that one game (or however many games you play with that DM), because as the DM, that person is supposed to be have that authority.

Except that before we even get to the DM/player relationship, I feel there should be another relationship taking far, far greater primacy, that of two people respecting each other, and deserving of respect from each other. And I feel that any subsuming of your views on morality, no matter how trivial (it's just for the one game) or what authority is granted by a lesser relationship (he's the DM, you're just supposed to go with it), violates and by its nature must violate that original social contract.

To use an extreme example, if the book gave the DM the authority to tell a player to take a shotgun to one of his feet, I'd be saying the book doesn't have the right to issue that authority, either. And no, I'm not equating "a shotgun to the foot" with the "imposing of the DM's subjective take on alignment as a so-called objective morality", other than to say both should be checked against the prevailing social contract (don't tell people to blow their feet off/don't invalidate people's views on morality) long, long before whatever authority a game may issue a particular participant comes into play.

And if you'd like, we can use another example. Say the game gives the DM the authority to require players (not their characters, the players themselves) to go by a different name while at the table. I.e., the DM gets to just declare that you are now "Steve" or "Muffins" or "Person #824", never mind your feelings on the subject, never mind how disrespectful you may think it to be.

"It's only for this one game." "The game says the DM gets to reassign you a new name, so the buck's supposed to stop there." Irrelevant. It still violates the prevailing social contract of two human beings respecting each other. If that makes it a houserule to call a player by his given name, then it's a houserule. It's whatever it needs to be to respect the other person as you are respected.

[Pelle]

It's helpful to use words to mean what they mean. If someone is adjudicating objective morality, it isn't objective and you shouldn't use the word objective. Use another word that means 'don't try and argue with me on this'. To expand on why I feel this is harmful - a DM describing their rulings on morality as objectively correct implies a statement in the real world about those moral values whereas a DM describing that they determine moral authority in their setting makes it clearer that they are making an opinion based assessment that you shouldn't argue with.


Even though the DM rules that something is objectively Good or Evil in their game world, that doesn't mean that they can't agree otherwise with the player for the real world morality of these things.

"Yes I know, it's messed up that it counts as Good to commit genocide and torture these people just because they were born as Orcs, but that's how it works in this imaginary world."

So I see no problem in having objective morality as determined by the DM, just like the DM can objectively decide that there is a tree standing there or that the Duke is plotting to kill the King. Those are just truths established by DM fiat.

I don't actually see what it adds to the game for me, however...

[2D8HP]

Lets use the Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)


Does Eberron have trolleys?

The trolleys in the real world seem to be working fine, but if you want to volunteer (https://www.streetcar.org/support-us/volunteer/) to restore and maintain them you can.

If you're looking for paid employment instead, here's the link (https://www.sfmta.com/about-us/sfmta-career-center/jobs-sfmta)

According to an electrician on my crew that used to work for the MTA "You's get more dates when you operate the cable cars" so I suppose that could be considered a problem with trolleys.

[RedMage125]

Lets use the Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) to illustrate my point, since its a simple and well-known ethical dilemma.

In the real world, which of the two options is more ethical is a hotly debated open question. We would obviously consider it silly if someone made the claim that, because their game setting holds deontological ethics to be objectively true, that the objectively correct choice is to not pull the lever, and therefore the problem is now solved. Its a form of circular reasoning


Its circular because it makes the conclusion (x is moral/immoral) part of the premise (the gods/cosmology/gm say x is moral/immoral)

Two GMs running otherwise identical campaigns could make opposite calls as to which of the two options in the trolley problem is correct, which to me is a clear knock against the idea that either could be called objective.

In effect, all objective alignment means is that the solution to any and all moral dilemma is to agree with the writers/GM's position on the matter, which I find objectionable not to mention boring. Or, alternatively, that the meanings of capital-letters Good and Evil are divorced from those of lowercase good and evil, which only makes things needlessly confusing.

For you to even call the Trolley Problem an "ethical dilemma" shows that you don't really understand what point Foot was trying to make when he created it. The Trolley Problem teaches nothing about ethics. In fact, the entire point is that sometimes there IS no "right answer". All the Trolley Problem will ever showcase is the priorities of the person the problem is posed to, in effect, whether someone values Utilitarianism, or their own moral accountability for their actions. Especially when you get into the variants where you know one or more of the people on the tracks, because then you start delving into really ugly sides of human nature and how willing some of us are to de-humanize those that do us or others harm. But the point is, that the Trolley Problem has nothing to do with moral or ethical choices.

Even with objective morality standards in D&D, the Trolley Problem is not a constructive tool for highlighting anything about alignment. Why? Because, by RAW of any edition, the weight of the Evil in that situation falls solely on the person who tied those people to the tracks in the first place. A pre-4e paladin, for example, can only choose to NOT push the lever, because that is the only way he can avoid "intentionally committing an evil act". And by RAW, he will not fall from grace. 3e rules get a little more clear on the matter. If the paladin only sees the 5 people and is genuinely unaware of the single person on the second track, and he switches the tracks only knowing at the time that he is saving people and not costing the life of another, he does not fall from grace (Book of Vile Darkness, Chapter 2, "Intent and Context", Zophas example). But it is likely that he feels guilty for it.

HOWEVER, for D&D alignment ethical mores, there are 2 variants which ARE relevant. The Fat Man variant and Fat Villain variant. In the first of these, you are standing on a bridge over the runaway trolley. There is a fat man on the bridge with you. He is not currently in danger. But if you push him off the bridge and in front of the trolley, he is massive enough to stop the trolley and save those 5 lives. And yet, a pre-4e paladin will still not push him, or he will fall from grace. Because that would be intentionally killing an innocent person.

The Fat Villain variant, on the other hand, has that same fat man be the villain who tied those other 5 individuals to the tracks. While this would still pose an ethical dilemma in the real world, by D&D mores it is absolutely okay to push him in front of the trolley, killing him to save the 5 people he was attempting to murder. Even the pre-4e paladin does not fall for this. Which, of course, assumes that the paladin knows that the fat man is the villain. Intent and Context matter.

[Niek]

Exactly, there is no objective right answer. That's what a dilemma is. A game/setting/GM claiming otherwise can only do so by fiat, which on its own is not a compelling reason for anything anywhere.

Saying the objective nature of morality or ethics in a world differs from our own (as opposed to just the moral and ethical views of the people in that world) is a very different thing than the GM saying what towns are located where. Its more comparable to the GM saying that in this world A implies not A.

Morals and ethics are not physical facts, they are ways of understanding things.

[smcmike]

Yeah let’s skip the trolley problem. It’s been done to death and beyond in previous threads.

Still, Niek brings up a valid point.

Let’s say my character runs into an ethical dilemma in the game. I choose what I believe to be the most ethically correct option. The DM disagrees, and tags my character with the Evil alignment. Every god in the multiverse agrees that he should be cast into the pit.

I, the player, continue to think I chose the most ethical option. My character, who is unrealistically stubborn (as PCs tend to be) also continues to believe that he chose correctly, and that the Gods are wrong.

There isn’t really anything the DM can do about this. My character is free to follow his own conscience regardless of what the universe has tagged good or evil.

The DM has full power to say what IS. He has much less power to say what OUGHT to be.

[Sigreid]

I think a DM who might change a character's alignment really just needs to be up front with the players about it. Perhaps even pass out a short list of items that they think there may be some question in the player's minds about that can't be done often or can't be done once without marking your soul.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Morals and ethics are not physical facts, they are ways of understanding things.

Within some settings - and of course this is DM-dependent - morals and ethics are physical facts. You are on Team Good, Team Evil or possibly Team Philosophical Neutrality.



Let’s say my character runs into an ethical dilemma in the game. I choose what I believe to be the most ethically correct option. The DM disagrees, and tags my character with the Evil alignment. Every god in the multiverse agrees that he should be cast into the pit.

I, the player, continue to think I chose the most ethical option. My character, who is unrealistically stubborn (as PCs tend to be) also continues to believe that he chose correctly, and that the Gods are wrong.

There isn’t really anything the DM can do about this. My character is free to follow his own conscience regardless of what the universe has tagged good or evil.

This hypothetical has, I think, several NPC precedents. 5E Zariel is one such.

[Niek]

There may be physical facts that go by those labels, but they cannot replace actual morality.

With the orc genocide example, whatever cosmic force or entity governs the setting may label the act Good, but it is still not morally good, lowercased.

[Pelle]

Let’s say my character runs into an ethical dilemma in the game. I choose what I believe to be the most ethically correct option. The DM disagrees, and tags my character with the Evil alignment. Every god in the multiverse agrees that he should be cast into the pit.

I, the player, continue to think I chose the most ethical option.

Do you mean that the player accepts the underlying moral physics for this world (torturing an orc is Good), but disagrees on the interpretion for the current situation (torturing this half-orc should at least be Neutral, not Evil!)

or

do you mean that in the real world the player disagrees with the underlying moral physics (as presented by the rules, discussed session zero or discovered in play), although the consequences would be applied correctly if they were true for that world?

The former is a legitimate problem, but the latter is just whining. Personally, I would rather not play that game in the first place.

[Unoriginal]

This hypothetical has, I think, several NPC precedents. 5E Zariel is one such.

Indeed, and it's made pretty clear that if what initially prompted her to go to Hell and doom hundreds of her allies was a combination of wanting to do good, hubris, and anger at the perceived inaction of the Upper Planes, by the time she accepted a job requiring her to fulfill a quota of souls sent to Hell she was as evil as they come.

For all the talks about "I do what I think is ethically right, but the universe label me as evil", I don't think I've ever seen any act D&D labelled as evil be ethically justified or justifiable.


There may be physical facts that go by those labels, but they cannot replace actual morality.

With the orc genocide example, whatever cosmic force or entity governs the setting may label the act Good, but it is still not morally good, lowercased.

In 5e, no good entity label orc genocide as good.

Also, in 5e, there is no uppercased Good or lowercased good. They were pretty careful about that in the PHB.



Good entities in 5e are actually good person. It's a thing many people seem to have a problem with.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

There may be physical facts that go by those labels, but they cannot replace actual morality.

With the orc genocide example, whatever cosmic force or entity governs the setting may label the act Good, but it is still not morally good, lowercased.

Sure. But moral value with a lowercase letter isn't what Alignment is (though 4E and 5E are more muddled on this). Alignment is your statement of which side you'll be on when Isht Goes Down For Real in the afterlife. Edit: In fairness, this is an older interpretation.

[Niek]

Indeed, and it's made pretty clear that if what initially prompted her to go to Hell and doom hundreds of her allies was a combination of wanting to do good, hubris, and anger at the perceived inaction of the Upper Planes, by the time she accepted a job requiring her to fulfill a quota of souls sent to Hell she was as evil as they come.

For all the talks about "I do what I think is ethically right, but the universe label me as evil", I don't think I've ever seen any act D&D labelled as evil be ethically justified or justifiable.



In 5e, no good entity label orc genocide as good.

Also, in 5e, there is no uppercased Good or lowercased good. They were pretty careful about that in the PHB.



Good entities in 5e are actually good person. It's a thing many people seem to have a problem with.

I was using Pelle's example.

Another example: say the dark lord is currently gloating at you from a high balcony. His mind-controlled armies are ready to march tomorrow, and theres no force on the continent that could put up a fight against them. You spot a weakness in the balcony's supports, which you could attack and cause the dark lord to fall to his death, preventing this. However, he has his innocent young children standing there with him.

It is a moral dilemma whether or not to knock out the support and send the dark lord and his children tumbling. In the real world, there is no objectively right answer to this sort of 'sacrifice innocents to stop evil/save others' decision. If a given system or setting says there is one, I ask on what grounds is it so?

If the answer is "because thats the way the setting works", then its a non-answer. If the answer is "because a currently-Good person killing an innocent, through some supernatural hand-wave, contributes more to the 'demons eating everyones' face' party than not doing so and allowing an already Evil person to kill more innocents", then that hasn't actually changed the nature of morality to be objective, its just thrown contrivances onto one end of the scale


Sure. But moral value with a lowercase letter isn't what Alignment is (though 4E and 5E are more muddled on this). Alignment is your statement of which side you'll be on when Isht Goes Down For Real in the afterlife. Edit: In fairness, this is an older interpretation.

Which brings the issue of why bother labeling them with the same terms if they do not mean the same thing. Would save an awful lot of time if instead they used the names of the planes to describe Alignment, as its both more direct and less likely to be conflated with an objective morality.

[Unoriginal]

I was using Pelle's example.

Another example: say the dark lord is currently gloating at you from a high balcony. His mind-controlled armies are ready to march tomorrow, and theres no force on the continent that could put up a fight against them. You spot a weakness in the balcony's supports, which you could attack and cause the dark lord to fall to his death, preventing this. However, he has his innocent young children standing there with him.

It is a moral dilemma whether or not to knock out the support and send the dark lord and his children tumbling. In the real world, there is no objectively right answer to this sort of 'sacrifice innocents to stop evil/save others' decision. If a given system or setting says there is one, I ask on what grounds is it so?

If the answer is "because thats the way the setting works", then its a non-answer. If the answer is "because a currently-Good person killing an innocent, through some supernatural hand-wave, contributes more to the 'demons eating everyones' face' party than not doing so and allowing an already Evil person to kill more innocents", then that hasn't actually changed the nature of morality to be objective, its just thrown contrivances onto one end of the scale


See, the issue is that you assume the setting only accept ONE answer as the right one.

3.X sort of pushed for this, too, in a way. But 5e did away with this conception, and I say good riddance.

5e doesn't consider that there is one right answer. If you take your "evil guy can be killed, but a child will be killed too", characters can disagree on what to do, and even the higher echelons of Angels don't have to agree on what the best course of action in that case. Most will do what they can to rescue the innocent as they destroy the evil, but not all good beings think that sacrifices are unthinkable.

But the thing is, alignment in 5e the general, typical behavior of the individual, not every single of their acts. It's EXPLICITLY noted that most people will not act in a way fitting the description of the alignment 100% of the time, only most of the time.

[Willie the Duck]

Race? Come again?

Probably shouldn't have brought it up, since I'll never find the thread, but I distinctly remember a 'can orcs be always evil?'-type thread where you had one opinion, and the weight of the thread did not agree.

As to morality, I dont care. My position on morality is that genocide, murder, rape, slavery, torture and so forth are evil. They can never be justified.
I don't think very often people disagree with that point. And I think continuing to pretend that's what your thread opposition are routinely doing is detrimental to you convincing others of your other, perhaps more actually-contended points.


They're wrong.

I am much more focusing on the fact that these threads keep happening, they go against you, and the only thing that you never seem to acknowledge as a contributor is your own ability to make your case. That's why I used the HS debate individual as an example.

I think we can be done here. I think you hamstring yourself by pretending you are up against a bunch of people who think genocide is A-Okay. You disagree. It's an impasse because we fundamentally see what is happening in different lights. That's okay.


All of the above said, I don't like murderhobo games any more than you do. I like a little more depth and nuance to player decisions. That takes work from the DM to create. Sometimes, D&D is just a dungeon crawl. That isn't genocide. It's escapism. Sometimes, D&D is far richer and far more complex. (I prefer that end of the spectrum).

What I won't pretend, which you appear to have done, is that the game didn't descend from a war game: us versus them. As I noted above, that mode of human attitude is a very old and distinguished human habit, and a theme. Sometimes, humans cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war. That particular Chainmailian influence never completely left the game (though 2e AD&D did make a large step away from that as a first course change ...) but what is missing, IMO, to incentivize less murderhoboism is a very old mechanic.

As a general rule, if you're going to run a hack&slashy game, the issue doesn't come up. The enemies are pretty much plastic checkers or the moral equivalent, but in that instance you also usually don't run into orc children or have the ogre whisper 'tell my wife I love her' as it dies. It's a combat simulator with some add-ons. I certainly enjoy playing that way occasionally, but then you are actively choosing not to apply moral-value to the opponents, much like you don't to the goombas if you're playing a Mario videogame or the like.
(all IMO, as usual)


...
In that state of play, a lot of these precious and empty pissing contests over alignment never arise ... though you'll still have some asshats at some tables. It's a people thing.

Ah, yes, exactly that.


For you to even call the Trolley Problem an "ethical dilemma" shows that you don't really understand what point Foot was trying to make when he created it.

Truncated for space, but given how fine of a point you have to put on your description to differentiate the Trolley Problem from an ethical dilemma (or at least 'a dilemma used to highlight perspectives in ethics'), I'd hold off on saying they don't understand. They clearly do.

[RedMage125]

Exactly, there is no objective right answer. That's what a dilemma is. A game/setting/GM claiming otherwise can only do so by fiat, which on its own is not a compelling reason for anything anywhere.
Except you missed the point of what I said. The Trolley problem is not about "ethics" or "morals", it's not about "right or wrong", and it's certainly not about "good or evil". The Trolley Problem can only ever highlight the personal view of the person being asked vis a vis Utilitarianism or their priority of their own Moral Accountability.

Utilitarianism itself has no bearing on alignment. LG, NG, or CG people could all swing either way on utilitarianism, and so a person of any of those alignments might believe they were making a moral choice either way. Neutral and even Evil people also could swing either way on Utilitarianism. The point is, that it's not even about ethics.


Saying the objective nature of morality or ethics in a world differs from our own (as opposed to just the moral and ethical views of the people in that world) is a very different thing than the GM saying what towns are located where. Its more comparable to the GM saying that in this world A implies not A.
Only if one is a narcissist who cannot accept that in a fantasy construct "A" means whatever the developers say "A" means, and not what the viewer believes "A" means. Remember, while I acknowledge that DMs have the right to house rule anything, for the purposes of forum discussion, we cannot possibly account for all house rules, so only RAW can be "true" when discussing the specifics. I recognize that in practice, "GM says" substitutes for "RAW".

That said, narcissism comes in when the RAW say "A implies A1, A2, and/or A3", and a person says "To me A2 is not A, but A9 is A", and declares the RAW faulty, claiming that the rules "say A equals not A". To be unable to step outside your own pre-existing conceptions and accept parameters outside of your own beliefs is a form of narcissism.

To be clear, I not accusing you, specifically of such. I have been guilty of giving off that perception in the past. I assume that you, like me, are discussing hypotheticals.


Morals and ethics are not physical facts, they are ways of understanding things.
But in D&D Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are objective forces which shape the cosmos. Forces to which even the gods are beholden. Forces which can be physically embodied in the physiology of celestials and fiends.

So I suppose it hinges on how you define "morality". Because a lot of us, for shorthand, describe the Good/Evil axis as the "Moral" axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the "Ethical" axis. That can cause some confusion, but is usually a communication issue, not an issue with alignment, morality or ethics.

If you only use the word "morality" to mean "human understanding of right and wrong", then I can see why you perceive dissonance. Because something could be morally "right" while being objectively "Evil" as an act. Although it's important to note that performing an Evil act as a means of performing a Good act means that the person has committed a Good act followed by an Evil one. The Good of their act doesn't necessarily outweigh the Evil, but neither does the Evil outweigh the Good.

To wit (Trolley problem Fat Man Variant): Killing one innocent person who was not in any danger solely for the purpose of saving 5 other innocent people is committing one heinously Evil act followed by an extremely Good act.


Yeah let’s skip the trolley problem. It’s been done to death and beyond in previous threads.

Still, Niek brings up a valid point.

Let’s say my character runs into an ethical dilemma in the game. I choose what I believe to be the most ethically correct option. The DM disagrees, and tags my character with the Evil alignment. Every god in the multiverse agrees that he should be cast into the pit.

I, the player, continue to think I chose the most ethical option. My character, who is unrealistically stubborn (as PCs tend to be) also continues to believe that he chose correctly, and that the Gods are wrong.

There isn’t really anything the DM can do about this. My character is free to follow his own conscience regardless of what the universe has tagged good or evil.

The DM has full power to say what IS. He has much less power to say what OUGHT to be.

2 things here: 1) The distinction of what "ought" to be is likely colored by the individual opinion of the observer. It is important to try and retain a sense of objectivity when it comes to the moral/ethical weight of an action.

2) Proper use of alignment mechanics adhering to the RAW-in any edition-should not ever predicate a complete shift of alignment based on one action. In 3e, there were specific rules to tell the DM this. In 4e there actually weren't ANY rules governing alignment changing-EVER. Not even through a Vader-esque fall from grace and descent to Evil. And 5e, interestingly enough, also lacks this. But it does-like 3e-mention that individuals may vary from the precepts of their alignment from time to time.

So any DM that did that to you sounds more like a problem DM than an actual problem with alignment or alignment rules.

[smcmike]

If you only use the word "morality" to mean "human understanding of right and wrong", then I can see why you perceive dissonance. Because something could be morally "right" while being objectively "Evil" as an act.

I’d be interested to hear Malifice’s perspective on this proposition. Can something really be morally right and also evil? Would you ever say to a character “yes, that was the right thing to do” as you slapped the EVIL sticker on their sheet?



2 things here: 1) The distinction of what "ought" to be is likely colored by the individual opinion of the observer. It is important to try and retain a sense of objectivity when it comes to the moral/ethical weight of an action.

Moral and ethical decision making is all about what ought to be. That’s the entire point. How do you propose finding objectivity in this project, exactly? (No, I don’t really expect an answer to the basic question of moral philosophy).



2) Proper use of alignment mechanics adhering to the RAW-in any edition-should not ever predicate a complete shift of alignment based on one action. In 3e, there were specific rules to tell the DM this. In 4e there actually weren't ANY rules governing alignment changing-EVER. Not even through a Vader-esque fall from grace and descent to Evil. And 5e, interestingly enough, also lacks this. But it does-like 3e-mention that individuals may vary from the precepts of their alignment from time to time.

So any DM that did that to you sounds more like a problem DM than an actual problem with alignment or alignment rules.

Sure, but let’s assume that the hypothetical campaign accommodates any of these rules issues - the path that the character has gone down requires long-term and repeated actions. You’re not a random bystander watching a runaway trolley, you’re a trainyard worker at a wildly unsafe facility making life and death decisions on the daily.

[krugaan]

Yeah let’s skip the trolley problem. It’s been done to death and beyond in previous threads.

Still, Niek brings up a valid point.

Let’s say my character runs into an ethical dilemma in the game. I choose what I believe to be the most ethically correct option. The DM disagrees, and tags my character with the Evil alignment. Every god in the multiverse agrees that he should be cast into the pit.

I, the player, continue to think I chose the most ethical option. My character, who is unrealistically stubborn (as PCs tend to be) also continues to believe that he chose correctly, and that the Gods are wrong.

There isn’t really anything the DM can do about this. My character is free to follow his own conscience regardless of what the universe has tagged good or evil.

The DM has full power to say what IS. He has much less power to say what OUGHT to be.

Mechanically speaking, in real life as well as in DnD, what you think about yourself doesn't really provide any benefits. What other people think (or the DM, or the universe) usually does.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The best villains are usually convinced they're the hero.

[krugaan]

The best villains are usually convinced they're the hero.

Probably because they're the most believable.

[GlenSmash!]

The best villains are usually convinced they're the hero.

I would say a lot of villains, but I wouldn't say the best. A lot of villains also don't see themselves as heroes, as much as they don't think heroes actually exist, or are at best naive or foolish. They see themselves as pragmatists.

Then you have the Joker. Who does not see himself as the hero (in his best incarnations anyway) he sees himself as an agent of Chaos, a foil to Batman's Law and Good.

He sees Chaos and Evil as his purpose.

Evil is a lot more wide open a nuanced than a lot of people give it credit for.