Unanimous Good

[Talakeal]

During my game this weekend, while my character was contemplating torture and cannibalism, someone asked me why I always played evil characters.

I thought about it for a moment, and came to his conclusion:

I actually much prefer to play good characters. The problem is, in a six person party, someone else will always want to play an evil character, or at the very least a "chaotic neutral" character who is always testing the limits of what they can get away with. And heck, sometimes even the good players are bored / or impulsive and start violence at the most inopportune times, or just have a really different sense of ethics than the rest of the group.

As most groups force the PCs to travel together, and do not allow PvP solutions to problems, I have to go along with whatever evil schemes to other players enact. So my choice is to either be a spineless, wishy-washy sort of good who doesn't oppose and often actively enables evil, or an evil character who is an active participant, and of those two, the latter is a lot more fun.

This certainly seems to be the dynamic in most gamer centered media I am familiar with, but I am wondering just how common is this in practice.

I know I have some particularly problematic players at my table (those of you who are familiar with my threads are going "WELL DUH!" at this point), but is this just a problem for me or does everyone have the issue?

Does anyone have any success playing good campaigns? How do you typically deal with "that guy?"

[Mastikator]

Aaaand this is why I have this rule when I DM: either nobody is good, or nobody is evil, the players decide a side at session zero and stick to it.

I also prefer good characters over evil characters. But if there are evil characters around doing evil stuff I face a dilemma I don't want to face, be fake-good and let evil have its day, or try to control other players. So if I'm making a character as a player I only make good characters if I know the others are not evil.

[NichG]

I tend to just play a character, and their behavior emerges organically from their interactions with other characters and the world. I've had an 'I refuse to pick an alignment' Nietzsche wannabe character end up probably among the most 'good' of their group, but it didn't read as wishy washy or spineless because it didn't start with a moral commitment per se. It was just their aesthetic to try to take any situation or characters encountered and raise them to the status of relevancy - which often meant helping them, and that offer was more often accepted by non-villains - so it ended up reading as good, mildly to the character's consternation.

Well-meaning, but not a Warrior of Light.

[Easy e]

I have no idea why, but this seems to be a D&D problem, as I rarely have run into it in other games.

I have no idea why, but there is something about the way D&D operates that encourages bad behavior instead of discouraging it. Perhaps it is the games history, the way XP use to be handled, the way "Always Evil" races happen, etc. I am not sure of the root cause, but I rarely run across this issue when I play other game systems.

The mechanics or game set-up somehow rewards bad behavior, but it is beyond me on why exactly.

[Pauly]

I haven’t played much D&D for a long time, so I don’t have recent experience with alignment as an in game issue.

My default position when playing with alignment is that alignment is an explicit core rule of D&D, and it cannot be ignored. Too many spells/abilities/magic items trigger off alignment just to hand wave it away.

As a player: I have real life experience of working with people who would land squarely ion the “evil” axis of the D&D alignment system. Accordingly I have no desire to emulate them in the hobby I do for relaxation and enjoyment, so I play ‘good’ characters. If any character of the party overtly acts ‘evil’ my character will at the very least not co-operate with evil plans, and actively oppose them when appropriate. When there is conflict between the characters over good/evil I am careful to frame it as a character conflict not a player conflict.
I have never had game breaking experience over this, although if I were playing with less mature people I can see this easily blowing up.

As a GM: I insist in a ‘no evil’ party. I want the players to have a good time and introducing character conflict whether it plays out plainly or in players going along with plans they oppose is no fun. I play RPGs for fun. I want my players to have fun.

Since I have problems with a lot of core D&D including classes, alignment, speed of level progression my solution is to play games that aren’t tied to these concepts.

[Batcathat]

As most groups force the PCs to travel together, and do not allow PvP solutions to problems, I have to go along with whatever evil schemes to other players enact. So my choice is to either be a spineless, wishy-washy sort of good who doesn't oppose and often actively enables evil, or an evil character who is an active participant, and of those two, the latter is a lot more fun.

Why would it automatically be the Good characters that are forced to go along with the Evil character's plan rather than the other way around?

As for the actual question: no, I can't remember experiencing problems like that. While I usually avoid alignments like the plague (for reasons I'm always happy to discuss at length but probably shouldn't derail yet another thread with. :smalltongue: ), most of the characters I play would probably end up in classically Neutral territory (with occasional exceptions at the more extreme parts of the scale) and I feel like I usually end up as the most morally questionable character in a more-or-less heroic party. Which I don't mind as such, as long as the GM doesn't make reality itself bend over backwards to ensure that the Good Choice and the Smart Choice are always identical.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For my group this dilemma was kind of solved by playing Curse of Strahd. We had express permission to be evil because that could work in this campaign, but I only found out after a character died that he was in fact supposed to be evil. When everything around you eats babies for breakfast you don't really have a choice but to fight it all.

That said, we are a group of mostly newerish players and we do metagame a bit in the sense that we want the adventure to move forward and will try to play our characters in such a way that they can make the story work. I'm sure more creative and/or less restricted players could still have found plenty of ways to be evil torturing cannibals terrorizing the realm, even with exactly the same DM and house rules.

[Lord Torath]

I have no idea why, but this seems to be a D&D problem, as I rarely have run into it in other games. It does show up in other games, but not necessarily on the good/evil axis. In Shadowrun, for example, you can either be Pink Mohawk or Mirrorshades (or somewhere in-between). In every group of mirrorshades who want to sneak in and out, leaving none the wiser, it seems like there's always a Pink Mohawk who wants to blast their way in, kill as many people as possible, and nuke the site on the way out.

[SimonMoon6]

The thought that someone is always to going to be CN (meaning Eeeeevil) is something I have not encountered. If a group of heroes has an evil character, you kick that character out of the group (possibly killing him for being evil) and wait for the player to either make a new character or leave the gaming group. Then, all is well.

On the other hand, I have had games where the players were in conflict. I have always enabled or encouraged such conflicts because it can make a game much more interesting when the battles are not "the players vs the GM" but are instead "the players versus the other players". Of course, that changes the game into something that's not a cookie-cutter game and I understand that most people don't want to play anything but the standard "kick in the door, kill the orc, take the treasure" sort of game.

Having everyone be without morals in a group, well, that doesn't seem any more likely to prevent group conflict since usually those people without morals, conscience, or any sort of code of conduct eventually will come into conflict with each other anyway, since there is no honor among thieves.

I have played in an "all evil" game and while most of the PCs could work together, one of the rat b*****ds tried to steal from me, so I had him sacrificed to my evil patron. Problem solved. (Except that he got himself reincarnated into a new body that we didn't recognize and rejoined the group.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've actually not run into this dynamic very often. Most of the time when one player has edged towards the line of outright evil, the reactions of other people at the table kind of pull them back in line. On the other hand, I generally wind up gaming with friends or at least friends-of-friends, which helps lower the ******* quota, and I've wound up indoctrinating introducing a fair number to the hobby in the first place. If two-thirds of the table learned about D&D from the same person, there's going to be a much narrower idea of what is and isn't appropriate.

The only time I actually had problems was a friends-of-a-friend situation-- the GM was a good friend, but I didn't know any of the other players; I think a bunch of them were co-workers from his new job. I rolled up with my typical good-guy-with-a-ruthless-streak personality archetype, and like an hour into the session another player is gleefully describing how his character is ripping out a prisoner's nails to torture them into talking. After protests didn't accomplish much of anything (my friend the GM was perhaps too invested in player freedom), I wound up packing up my stuff and leaving.

Later that afternoon I got a Facebook message from the torture-happy sadist calling me "no true super sayen Virginia," which still makes me giggle when I think about it.


I have no idea why, but this seems to be a D&D problem, as I rarely have run into it in other games.

I have no idea why, but there is something about the way D&D operates that encourages bad behavior instead of discouraging it. Perhaps it is the games history, the way XP use to be handled, the way "Always Evil" races happen, etc. I am not sure of the root cause, but I rarely run across this issue when I play other game systems.

The mechanics or game set-up somehow rewards bad behavior, but it is beyond me on why exactly.
If I had to put my finger on a single factor, I'd blame the way that D&D directly correlates wealth with character power. In most D&D games, you don't have a choice-- you have to acquire magic items at a certain rate or you'll struggle to keep up. Which is a strong incentive for even the most holier-than-thou Paladin to pick up anything they can, because it appeals to both the power-hungry goblin brain (more shines more power!) and the socially-conscious responsible brain (if I don't do this, I'll be a burden on everyone else).ing

[King of Nowhere]

never had this problem.

while i prefer to play genuine heroes, some other people in my group would like to be more evil. as a result, i play a darker shade of good that will go along with some edgy stuff (nothing too blatant), and those who want to play evil characters play them as pragmatists that don't cross certain lines because, well, it's not convenient. and having good pr tends to pay off in the long run.
this is more or less an average of what the group wants to play; we all compromise a bit to have a party that can adventure toghether.

when i dm, i ask that people are good (again, pragmatic evil like the current state of belkar are fine) because i am not comfortable running a campaign where the bad guys win.

and yes, this entails telling other people what they can or cannot do. it's how society works: we all agree to not do stuff that other people would not want us to do, and the reward is that other people don't do the stuff that we don't want them to do.

i adventured with evil characters all right. sensible players will stay pointed at the goal, and my current experience has structured enough campaign worlds where you cannot get away with theft, torture and murder just by moving to the next town.
people who want to do gratuitously bad are generally distruptive and problematic in a number of other ways. like people who want to roleplay sexual content, really, it's the same principle.
So, how do we deal with that guy? the one time it happened it was a game of strangers found on the internet, and it collapsed quickly; the main cause was the bad railroading dm, but the out-of-control dude was also part of it. when we are in person among friends, we all agree in the beginning.

[icefractal]

I have run into this, yeah. I usually go amoral-neutral or "anything that serves The Plan is acceptable" fanatic rather than sadistic-evil myself, since I just don't enjoy playing that, but it is indeed not usually fun to be "the straight man" impotently scolding the rest of the party.


Why would it automatically be the Good characters that are forced to go along with the Evil character's plan rather than the other way around?It isn't inherently, but destruction is easier and more final than creation, and usually the evil course of action is the destructive one.

Like if you want to teach the villagers better farming techniques so they can survive the winter, and another PC wants to kill them, reanimate them, and use them to carry his skull-throne around ... even if you teach them first and then they kill them, the result is that the villagers are dead.

Not always. For example, an undead-hunter can burn a bunch of Necromancy tomes before the rest of the party can decide who gets to read them first. But more often than not, the evil action is harder to prevent (short of PVP) and harder to revoke.



Of course, that changes the game into something that's not a cookie-cutter game and I understand that most people don't want to play anything but the standard "kick in the door, kill the orc, take the treasure" sort of game.There are a number of reasons why a group would want to avoid PVP other than "they want a generic cookie-cutter game". :smallannoyed:

* PVP makes intra-party balance much more important and antagonistic. In a PvE setup, if one PC is more optimized than another but they have different roles, it may not even be a problem, and can be fairly easily fixed if it is. In a PVP game, imbalance is a matter of life and death, and the GM tossing a boost to a PC who needs it is taking a side in the fight.

* PVP means you can't just share information openly. In one WoD game - which wasn't even "PVP is likely" but merely "PVP is possible" - the result of the PCs' caution (a totally reasonable amount of caution for the situation IC) was that five sessions in, we still didn't have a party, we had a number of separate people who sometimes communicated and occasionally went places together, but mostly didn't. Which would have been fine for an asynchronous game like PbP, but since we were playing in person meant that most players spent most of their time sitting around while other people did things they had no way to be involved in.

* A GM can moderate what their NPCs do based on the RL mood of the players, but in PVP this is both harder and less likely to happen. Yes, theoretically, players should at all times be good sports and not take what happens to their characters personally. But IME that ideal is seldom 100% achieved in reality. I think the OP of this thread knows what I'm talking about. :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've never really had this issue as a player or a DM. As a DM (where I spend 99.9% of my time), my players all tend to be somewhere on the good side of neutral or better. Sometimes greedy, sometimes employing horrific means[1], but always aimed at the bad guys and generally self-sacrificing when push comes to shove.

On the other hand, a strongly lawful character in most of my campaigns would have severe struggles. Because my PCs tend to start at the far-chaotic border and go further out from there. I've had a few that could be argued to be Neutral Good, but they probably sat at the chaotic border a good chunk of the time. For example, in my session on Saturday, the paladin called out just about every extra-planar authority figure the setting has to their faces and told them to GTFO and that they were the problem with the universe. This list included
* Every single god
* Every leader of angelic legions (ok, they're kinda arrogant jerks a lot of the time)
* Every devil family leader (think mafia don)
* All the demon princes
* A good share of the demigods, elemental princes, and other notable extra-planar types

And then the party proceeded to lay the smack down on some of their representatives. Heck, the only ones the party really gets along with are some of the demon princes. Because they're unironically the bad guys and they know it and accept that fact. Probably the fan-favorite across all my campaigns is the demon prince of black magic, the undead, and binding contracts[2]. He's a chill dude (as long as you keep your promises). And aren't his stalker ex-girlfriend.

I've had parties mouth off to kings, princes, ancient dragons, you name it. Snarky and disrespectful is their default condition, and it gets much worse if they don't happen to like you or think you've been lazy as an authority figure. Oddly enough, each of that particular party is a nobleman in his own right, so...yeah.

Similar (although not usually as extreme) things happen in most of my tables as a player. Generally good, generally chaotic.

[1] execution by pouring alchemists fire down someone's throat after they surrendered? Yeah...
[2] NB: the cosmology is very different from stock. Part of that is that alignment as a cosmic factor is not enforced at all, so nobody is compelled to be any particular alignment.

[Batcathat]

It isn't inherently, but destruction is easier and more final than creation, and usually the evil course of action is the destructive one.

Like if you want to teach the villagers better farming techniques so they can survive the winter, and another PC wants to kill them, reanimate them, and use them to carry his skull-throne around ... even if you teach them first and then they kill them, the result is that the villagers are dead.

Not always. For example, an undead-hunter can burn a bunch of Necromancy tomes before the rest of the party can decide who gets to read them first. But more often than not, the evil action is harder to prevent (short of PVP) and harder to revoke.

Sure, if all the party members just go ahead and do whatever they want, the people favoring destructive solutions probably have an easier time. But in my experience, a party (regardless of morality) usually talk through what they should do in non-urgent situations. Which certainly could end with the Evil characters getting their way, but I don't see how it's the only alternative.

If anything, having an Evil character pushed into doing good feels a lot more common in fiction (Belkar being a rather typical example that most people around here should be familiar with) than the opposite. Granted, what's true in non-interactive fiction isn't always true in something like an RPG, but it should at the very least be a possibility.

[False God]

It sounds like your DMs need to, well, do their job.

If a player is constantly pushing the limits of what they can get away with, thats PvP. It's just passive-aggressive PvP.
If a player is constantly concocting evil schemes and dragging the party into it because the DM mandates the party "must stick together", that's PvP.

More specifically, it's not character vs character, it's literally one player(an IRL human) against one or more other players (also IRL humans). Who is taking advantage of the DM restricting others, while not restricting the problem player.

---

Look I enjoy playing LE quite often, but because I enjoy playing a "villain". It's different than playing a "bad guy". I've no more interest when playing an evil character in getting drug into obnoxious CN shenanigans than I do when I play a "good" character. The party is useful and valuable to me, an individual risking these assets of mine on stupid shenanigans is a problem. If the DM isn't going to let me resolve it in game, then it's up to the DM to resolve it out of game.

[jjordan]

I have no idea why, but this seems to be a D&D problem, as I rarely have run into it in other games.

I have no idea why, but there is something about the way D&D operates that encourages bad behavior instead of discouraging it. Perhaps it is the games history, the way XP use to be handled, the way "Always Evil" races happen, etc. I am not sure of the root cause, but I rarely run across this issue when I play other game systems.

The mechanics or game set-up somehow rewards bad behavior, but it is beyond me on why exactly.
D20 mechanic means that any plan, even one that relies on skills the characters have expertise in, is one roll away from complete failure and reverting back to plan B (blow it all up). Add in a focus on combat mechanics, some human nature, and players that understand that in the final analysis D&D is usually about using violence to solve your problems and you might as well cut to the chase and just start cutting throats.

Doesn't have to be that way, but it usually is. The one player in my game who says "Let's investigate a little more" usually gets shouted down by the other players saying some variety of "I'm not sacrificing my sneak attack again just so that we can assuage your conscience". That despite the fact that talking sometimes pays off really big.

[Kish]

I know I have some particularly problematic players at my table (those of you who are familiar with my threads are going "WELL DUH!" at this point), but is this just a problem for me or does everyone have the issue?
Yes, I was going to say.

I'm afraid, Talakeal, that my answer is: I don't play with teenage edgelords so when I say "it's a default heroic campaign" I don't get anyone trying to sell the rest of us on the chaotic neutrality of torture and cannibalism. I don't deal with "that guy" because all the "that guys" are at your table insteaddue to a mystic curse I cast on you years ago.

[kyoryu]

I have no idea why, but this seems to be a D&D problem, as I rarely have run into it in other games.

Because people play alignments like personality disorders.


It sounds like your DMs need to, well, do their job.

If a player is constantly pushing the limits of what they can get away with, thats PvP. It's just passive-aggressive PvP.
If a player is constantly concocting evil schemes and dragging the party into it because the DM mandates the party "must stick together", that's PvP.

More specifically, it's not character vs character, it's literally one player(an IRL human) against one or more other players (also IRL humans). Who is taking advantage of the DM restricting others, while not restricting the problem player.

This. All of this.

It's so common that I call it the "primary social contract abuse". The main social contract of most PvE games is:

1. The party works together
2. Make characters that can work together, and have them make decisions to facilitate that.

Some people decide to use the first rule to guarantee they don't suffer the repercussions of their decisions when they ignore the second. This is a jerk move, period.

[animorte]

I swear reading through the OP, I thought it was going the direction of, "I prefer to play good, but I play evil because I trust myself to be reasonable about it."

Yes, I unwittingly expected your "evil" to instead be an underlying "good" for the table overall.

And on the topic of alignments, I've always felt that your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It sounds like your DMs need to, well, do their job.

If a player is constantly pushing the limits of what they can get away with, thats PvP. It's just passive-aggressive PvP.
Once more for the people in the back!

[The_Snark]

I know I have some particularly problematic players at my table (those of you who are familiar with my threads are going "WELL DUH!" at this point), but is this just a problem for me or does everyone have the issue?

Does anyone have any success playing good campaigns? How do you typically deal with "that guy?"

It's not just you, but it's certainly not universal. A lot of groups just don't have any examples of That Guy. When there is one... well, if there's literally just one player who likes to act this way, there's a lot more social pressure on them not to ruin things for everyone else; usually they either learn to moderate themselves enough that the rest of the group tolerates it, or they'll end up leaving/getting kicked out. It's when you have multiple people like this - or if the problem player is much more forceful than anyone else in the group - that it gets difficult, I think.

[Witty Username]

This hasn't been much of a problem for my playgroups, those of us that have played evil characters (including me) tend to have a joy in the "High-Functioning" evil character. The kind of character that you could go for awhile without knowing they were evil, usually because the situation doesn't allow for it. Plain Simple Garrak from DS9 would be my example, normally he is polite, willing to make small talk over lunch and such, and is a ally to the people on the station most of the time but every so often, as the situation calls for, what he is capable of slips out. Usually, by way of that he never uses stun settings on weapons, going straight for kill/disintegrate.
--
I have played a non-evil cannibal before, if one agrees that it is possible. My first character in 5e was a monk, and as a joke I made them a blend of character traits of DragonBall characters, including Yajirobe. Part of the character was an opinion that meat was meat, and always somewhat hungry, so he would eat the stuff we fought and killed, including humaniod enemies if it happened to come up. I would probably do similar if I was going for a Stranger in a Strange Land vibe, or a carnivore race like lizardfolk.

[Satinavian]

Never had those problems.

Not even in mixed good/evil groups. Those generally work as well as pure good groups.

Pure evil groups sometimes don't work, but that is mostly because of mismatches about (genre) expectations of what "evil group" actually means. Or thinking "all being evil" somehow provides cohesion and thus neglecting any other common ground. Or players realizing halfway they don't actually like playing an evil group and retiring it for lack of fun.


So based on my experiences i always advise against demanding common alignments and don't restrict it when i run.



As most groups force the PCs to travel together, and do not allow PvP solutions to problems
Those are also not true in my games or games i participate in. If the characters really don't want to travel together (anymore), they are always allowed to split and someone changes their character. "Being killed" is not the only way to leave a group.

Furthermore PvP is allowed. It still rarely happens (maybe 1% of sessions). Now, i am not really sure why it is that rare and i am aware that some groups out there restrict PvP because the players would otherwise have their characters fight all the time. But as long as all communities i am in don't do that, PvP is kept unrestricted.

The last instance of PvP was when a GM pulled a Vader "I am your father" moment with the BBEG and the PC in question decided that filial piety was more important than tthe regular quest motivation. Was a nice, memorably session and no bad blood between the players whatsoever.

[King of Nowhere]

Yes, I was going to say.

I'm afraid, Talakeal, that my answer is: I don't play with teenage edgelords so when I say "it's a default heroic campaign" I don't get anyone trying to sell the rest of us on the chaotic neutrality of torture and cannibalism. I don't deal with "that guy" because all the "that guys" are at your table instead

let's all give talekeal a round of applause for playing with all the toxic players so that they won't bother the rest of us. truly, he carries the burden of us all :smallsigh:

[KorvinStarmast]

Aaaand this is why I have this rule when I DM: either nobody is good, or nobody is evil, the players decide a side at session zero and stick to it. This is a small group dynamics thing. We have a wizard who leans mostly to full out murder hobo in my brother's campaign, and I as a player have made it my role to try and reign him in. First with my life cleric (she is retired, pregnant, setting up as the town cleric in a major trading town) and now with my celestial warlock. The rest of the party are who they are, the bard running hard chaotic something all of the time. I still have fun, these are folks who I have been friends with since high school. I don't think I'd put up with some of that behavior in a different group, though.

The mechanics or game set-up somehow rewards bad behavior, but it is beyond me on why exactly. If you go back to the original campaign in Blackmoor, before the game was published, there was apparently quite a bit of back stabbing going on. Makes sense, all of them had played the board game Diplomacy quite a bit in their war gaming group ... :smallbiggrin:

If I had to put my finger on a single factor, I'd blame the way that D&D directly correlates wealth with character power. 5e doesn't do this, but I am pretty sure our OP is running a hybrid system related to 3.5?

For example, in my session on Saturday, the paladin called out just about every extra-planar authority figure the setting has to their faces and told them to GTFO and that they were the problem with the universe. This list included
* Every single god
* Every leader of angelic legions (ok, they're kinda arrogant jerks a lot of the time)
* Every devil family leader (think mafia don)
* All the demon princes
* A good share of the demigods, elemental princes, and other notable extra-planar types In Vijil's defense, he is Oath of the Watchers. He is by that oath driven to protect the world, Quartus, from beings that are not from Quartus. That's the whole Watcher schtick. What he did there, by expressing his frustration with the celestials, fiends, deities, etc, was very much in keeping with his oath and experience with their meddling with the people of this world. I think I had just poured my third rye-on-the-rocks at that point.
In-world, he was alive when "the whole world shifted a bit" during the previous campaign when the shenanigans of three gods got a fourth god dethroned. (Our current party has since learned a little bit of what went on there).
His less than sunny attitude towards non-mortals, and mortals who consort with them, is internally consistent and I'll suggest is on the lawful side, given his oath. :smallwink: But behavior wise, if we want to try to track his trends, I've got him at best neutral good, with some wandering off into chaotic thanks to being in the company of some seriously undisciplined allies and fellow alums from that school ... their 'flying over the city while drunk on the drakon' being but a single case in point.

He's a chill dude (as long as you keep your promises). And aren't his stalker ex-girlfriend. Is that the one who was a patron for our Sorc-Lock? Yeah, quite the smooth operator.

Oddly enough, each of that particular party is a nobleman in his own right, so...yeah. While I am not sure that 'sounding off' is by default chaotic, for sure our group does some odd stuff. (My paladin is still not pleased with that wizard's alchemist's fire stunt, but our larger mission - protection from that chaotic/demonic/something influence - takes precedence. That's the discipline of the oath and the militia experience kicking in.

I'm afraid, Talakeal, that my answer is: I don't play with teenage edgelords so when I say "it's a default heroic campaign" I don't get anyone trying to sell the rest of us on the chaotic neutrality of torture and cannibalism. I don't deal with "that guy" because all the "that guys" are at your table instead due to a mystic curse I cast on you years ago. +1, and the last bit got a *chuckle* out of me.

[Talakeal]

I generally don't play D&D actually. IMO its actually worse in other games, because they generally don't lack a visible alignment mechanic to bind people.

I typically play either White Wolf or my own system (link in sig) which is a Gothic Fantasy Western that is similar enough to D&D, but actually plays more like a hybrid of WHFRP and Exalted.

Its funny though, both games use an abstract wealth system, and in both of them "that guy" often complains about how their acts of larceny don't actually have a mechanical reward.


It sounds like your DMs need to, well, do their job.

If a player is constantly pushing the limits of what they can get away with, thats PvP. It's just passive-aggressive PvP.
If a player is constantly concocting evil schemes and dragging the party into it because the DM mandates the party "must stick together", that's PvP.

More specifically, it's not character vs character, it's literally one player(an IRL human) against one or more other players (also IRL humans). Who is taking advantage of the DM restricting others, while not restricting the problem player.

---

Look I enjoy playing LE quite often, but because I enjoy playing a "villain". It's different than playing a "bad guy". I've no more interest when playing an evil character in getting drug into obnoxious CN shenanigans than I do when I play a "good" character. The party is useful and valuable to me, an individual risking these assets of mine on stupid shenanigans is a problem. If the DM isn't going to let me resolve it in game, then it's up to the DM to resolve it out of game.

Fully agree here.

Although the DM often has a lot on his or her plate, and simply doesn't notice all the low key passive aggressive stuff that might be happening around the table until it crosses a line.

My very first horror story was something like this, when the fighter was bullying my rogue throughout the whole campaign and almost got me killed, so I back-stabbed him in his sleep one night, and then the DM, who didn't notice any of the earlier stuff, came down on me hard both in and out of character.

[Easy e]

As I think about it more, perhaps it doesn't come up as much in my Non-D&D games because many of those involve dealing within a civil society, perhaps on its fringes, but still a civil society.

If you murder a bunch of people, the equivalent of the cops show up. It you torture people, other authority figures start asking questions. When a lot of money disappears, then someone is looking for it.

Perhaps, the difference is that D&D focuses a lot of people outside of civilization and on the fringes?

[LibraryOgre]

It does show up in other games, but not necessarily on the good/evil axis. In Shadowrun, for example, you can either be Pink Mohawk or Mirrorshades (or somewhere in-between). In every group of mirrorshades who want to sneak in and out, leaving none the wiser, it seems like there's always a Pink Mohawk who wants to blast their way in, kill as many people as possible, and nuke the site on the way out.

I've referred to this as the "Troll with an Axe". In Shadowrun, a troll with an axe can be a VERY effective character, and there are a couple good ways to build them (cyber or adept). But if your entire schtick is "I have an unreasonable strength and toughness, and a very effective axe", chances are, you're gonna wanna use the axe. And if the plan doesn't include something where you CAN use the axe, you're going to either be bored, or, often, useless. And so many "Troll with an Axe" players wind up creating situations where they get to use their axe.

Which doesn't work too well if the plan is "get in, get out, walk calmly down the street."

[Slipjig]

For example, in my session on Saturday, the paladin called out just about every extra-planar authority figure the setting has to their faces and told them to GTFO and that they were the problem with the universe.

Well, the important question there is, "Is he RIGHT?!?" Or is it at least a reasonable conclusion for him to draw? Because speaking truth to power isn't inherently lawful or chaotic. "Lawful" doesn't mean "subservient to extra-planar entities", even ones that match your alignment.

[False God]

Fully agree here.

Although the DM often has a lot on his or her plate, and simply doesn't notice all the low key passive aggressive stuff that might be happening around the table until it crosses a line.
In those situations you need to bring it to the DMs attention.
"Hey DM, why are you allowing Jerry to keep coming up with evil schemes and forcing us to stick together and thus forcing us to go along with his evil schemes?"
Put the burden back on the DM to state why they're not just allowing, but requiring the game to function this way by tolerating Jerry's behavriour, while restricting everyone else objecting to it.


My very first horror story was something like this, when the fighter was bullying my rogue throughout the whole campaign and almost got me killed, so I back-stabbed him in his sleep one night, and then the DM, who didn't notice any of the earlier stuff, came down on me hard both in and out of character.
I generally don't allow PvP, but I've learned PvP is rarely "in character", and it's the people, not the play that need to be addressed.

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e doesn't do this, but I am pretty sure our OP is running a hybrid system related to 3.5?
It's definitely a huge improvement over 3.5's WBL, but magic items still exist as both treasure and the only real defined place to spend large amounts of money. They're shiny and they make you more powerful and you want them.

The system does work fine if the GM is stingy with magic items-- the important thing is that everyone partakes in them equally. If half the party make heavy use of magic items and the other half doesn't...

[Jay R]

I don't care about PC alignments nearly as much as I do about player approaches.

The basic unit of D&D isn't the PC; it's the party. A player who is willing for his or her PC to disrupt what the party does is a menace to the game, whether it's the one assassin in the Good party, or the one paladin in the den of thieves. [And an assassin in the Good party, or a paladin in the den of thieves, can be made to work if the party works together.]

So regardless of what else is part of the PC's motivation, supporting the party must be included. "But it's what my character would do" isn't a reason to disrupt the game. It's a reason to design a different character.

The best solution is to play with people who want to get along and play as a team. This usually (but not always) means a party with no Evil characters. But it always means players who want to get along with each other.

The best advice I can give is to know your players, and (ideally) for them to know each other, before starting the game. It's much easier to form a loyal D&D party out of a bunch of friends than to form friends out of random D&D-playing strangers.

I once ran a True Neutral Thief in a AD&D 2e game. He was the only non-Good PC. But he always supported the party. I occasionally had to remind the DM, "No, Ornrandir is not Good. But he has found that adventuring with a Paladin is much more lucrative than stealing ever was, so he doesn't steal any more. This is not a moral stance; it's purely practical and self-serving."

In another game, a Flashing Blades game set in 17th century Paris, I had a Rogue who designed a "Code of Honor" for himself. But most of it had nothing to do with honor. It was for his own protection and advancement while looking like he was trustworthy.

1. Never steal from the poor; they have no money.
2. Never betray the party; they know where you sleep.
3. Never betray anybody who will ever be behind you with a weapon.
3. Don't try to keep secrets from Cardinal Richelieu; he already knows.
etc.

[Duff]

The best solution is to play with people who want to get along and play as a team. This usually (but not always) means a party with no Evil characters. But it always means players who want to get along with each other.

The best advice I can give is to know your players, and (ideally) for them to know each other, before starting the game. It's much easier to form a loyal D&D party out of a bunch of friends than to form friends out of random D&D-playing strangers.


This is the ideal case, for sure. But if you're playing, or running, "pick up" games at clubs or on line, having some "rules" like "all good or all evil" becomes a sesnible idia to discuss

[Jay R]

This is the ideal case, for sure. But if you're playing, or running, "pick up" games at clubs or on line, having some "rules" like "all good or all evil" becomes a sesnible idia to discuss

That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."

[KorvinStarmast]

That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them." As with a marriage, We > Me. :smallwink:
I suspect that video and computer game culture (particularly single player games, or games like Diablo that can be played SP or MP) which is very much "all about me" may inform how some players approach their characters in a TTRPG. I have even heard/seen folks refer to their PC as their 'alt' or their 'toon'

[Batcathat]

That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."

I agree. This feels a bit like banning sports cars in order to prevent speeding, rather than just setting a speed limit.

[gbaji]

That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."

Totally agree. Character alignment is less important than players agreeing that they are members of a "party", and therefore should create characters that will work together for some common goal. If a player is choosing to have their character do things that actively hinders the advancement of the entire group, then they are a problem, regardless of the alignment written on the character sheet.

That said. Simple resonse is "stop playing games with alignments". Then, players have no excuse for harmful behavior within the group (and I do honestly believe that most of the time alignment is actually just used as an excuse for the player to engage in disruptive behavior). And if you are playing a game with a rigid alignment system, if you have problems with this, then yeah, set requirements for alignment, er... alignment, among the PCs.


I've referred to this as the "Troll with an Axe". In Shadowrun, a troll with an axe can be a VERY effective character, and there are a couple good ways to build them (cyber or adept). But if your entire schtick is "I have an unreasonable strength and toughness, and a very effective axe", chances are, you're gonna wanna use the axe. And if the plan doesn't include something where you CAN use the axe, you're going to either be bored, or, often, useless. And so many "Troll with an Axe" players wind up creating situations where they get to use their axe.

Which doesn't work too well if the plan is "get in, get out, walk calmly down the street."

Yeah. That's true. But there's plenty of other ways to get the Troll with an Axe involved. Classic double cross by your employer scenario works great. We once had a job that went smoothly (too smoothly!), so naturally suspected a double cross at the drop off. Meet's on a yacht at the end of a dock. We were super suspicious, so we all arranged ourselves in the area to provide support and sent our Troll out alone with "the goods". And sure enough, when our supposed payoff consisted of mercs popping up and shooting, Troll got to pull out the grenades he'd really been holding in his pockets, lob them, and jump into the water, while the rest of us opened up on them from the shore.

Or, what happened more often than not, getting in went smoothy, but getting out involved explosives and other violence. So everyone got to play.

Had a lot of fun playing Shadowrun back in the day. Probably my third or fourth most played game of all time.

[King of Nowhere]

. Simple resonse is "stop playing games with alignments". Then, players have no excuse for harmful behavior within the group (and I do honestly believe that most of the time alignment is actually just used as an excuse for the player to engage in disruptive behavior).

I never saw that happen. I think alignment is supposed to actually do the reverse, i.e. force people to be good.





My very first horror story was something like this, when the fighter was bullying my rogue throughout the whole campaign and almost got me killed, so I back-stabbed him in his sleep one night, and then the DM, who didn't notice any of the earlier stuff, came down on me hard both in and out of character.
to be honest, you handled it poorly. first by letting that fighter bully you throughout the campaign, and then by escalating.
but then, it's not easy to defend properly against passive aggressive.

i still blame it all on lack of party cooperation. my party never does anything without the players deliberating first, and because of that they always play together flawlessly - and they are very effective. all of your tables seem to have a policy of "i do what i want and you do what you want and don't you ever think of telling me what my pc should do". so if the party cannot plan, manipulating and bullying the other players into a certain course of action is the only thing left.
and when it comes to bullying and manipulating, obviously evil characters are better suited to it and win. not much because of any "stupid good" trope, but because the evil characters can declare that they pillage and burn and the good guys are forbidden the only way to stop them.

[Pex]

I have no idea why, but this seems to be a D&D problem, as I rarely have run into it in other games.

I have no idea why, but there is something about the way D&D operates that encourages bad behavior instead of discouraging it. Perhaps it is the games history, the way XP use to be handled, the way "Always Evil" races happen, etc. I am not sure of the root cause, but I rarely run across this issue when I play other game systems.

The mechanics or game set-up somehow rewards bad behavior, but it is beyond me on why exactly.

It's not the game; it's the first few DMs players encounter when they first play. The first few DMs delegate how the player will play. If the DM encourages or allows evil behavior, the player will think being evil is fine and dandy. Some players just want to see the world burn. The DM must not let them and never accept "I'm just roleplaying my character" as an excuse. If that player quits and continues his bad behavior ways in other games, then yes I accept that player is just a Donkey Cavity. It's his fault. If the DM punished good behavior, the player will think being good is to be a chump. This is more common. The friendly NPC was the BBEG all along. Surprise! The prisoner is let go and comes back later seeking revenge. Prisoners never divulge information when questioned. Having Saved The Day for 8 levels already NPCs still treat them like nobodies. If Heroic Efforts of Goodness are not reinforced and reflected in the game world, then the player sees no point in being the Hero and will seek his jollies doing other things.

[icefractal]

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."Good advice, but I think the OP's situation could still arise.

It's possible to have an evil party that works together well, is functional and not "chaotic stupid" type of evil ... and I still wouldn't want to play a good-aligned character in that party. No, not even if they were very accommodating and hid the evil from me so there was no IC problem. I'd still be playing "the chump who unwittingly helps evil", and that's not a role I'm usually interested in.

By contrast, I'm generally fine with playing "the bad/amoral guy who gets roped into helping save the kingdom/world/whatever, because it is after all where he keeps his stuff", and maybe having a heel-face turn in the process.

So like in the OP's example, if the party seems in any likelihood of going evil, I'm gonna lean that way myself. Which I suppose could create a tragedy of the commons situation if everyone else does the same thing - but that's one reason I'm more likely to go "character who's ok with evil" over "character who actively promotes it"

[gbaji]

I never saw that happen. I think alignment is supposed to actually do the reverse, i.e. force people to be good.

If that were true, there would be no neutral or evil alignments available. And if that were the case (only good as an option to play), there would be no need for alignments at all, right? All games would be "good guys defeat bad guys".

IME alignments are often used by players to excuse disruptive/harmful behavior. That's the same for the Lawful Good paladin insisting that "we can't attack these people without giving fair warning first", or the chaotic character randomly lighting things on fire, or the evil character stealing, killing, ploting, or otherwise causing problems for the group. Those actions are commonly excused by "I'm just playing my alignment".

Again though, I would argue that if you have a group of players for whom that isn't the case (which is great btw!), then you don't actually need an alignment system at all. Well, except to the degree that the game system you are using has mechnical rules involving alignment in some way.

Good players find ways to have their characters work within the party dynamic to achieve goals rather than disrupt it. And yes, bad players may choose to put their own short term character benefits ahead of party unity. But again, IME, those bad players will *always* use alignment as a shield for their actions in any game system where alignment can be used as such (like D&D). That doesn't mean that they don't exist in other games, but that they have no shield to hide behind to rationalize it other than "I'm just a player who likes to disrupt the fun of the other players".

Now, to be fair, some games allow/promote this anyway. I've played lots of Strormbringer and Paranoia, so there's that...

[Duff]

That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."

Among strangers this could fail. A healthy party lives somewhere between "Everything anyone does needs approval from the whole party" and "Do whatever the hell you want". But what part of that line your table can live in needs working out

[LibraryOgre]

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."

Monica Rambeau: You people will by God act like a team, or at least like people who know each other, or I'll incinerate the bunch of you here and now.

[gbaji]

If the DM punished good behavior, the player will think being good is to be a chump. This is more common. The friendly NPC was the BBEG all along. Surprise! The prisoner is let go and comes back later seeking revenge. Prisoners never divulge information when questioned. Having Saved The Day for 8 levels already NPCs still treat them like nobodies. If Heroic Efforts of Goodness are not reinforced and reflected in the game world, then the player sees no point in being the Hero and will seek his jollies doing other things.

Ah. The "DM vs the party" method. Seen it. Got the t-shirt. That is the number one cause of really bad players out there, and many DMs often don't even realize they are doing it. There is a tendency for DMs (and not necessarily just new ones) to think that their job is to thwart the plans of the players. Yes, you are supposed to create antagonists and have the players face against them, but if you are yourself injecting 'twists" to effectively ensure that any action by the players results in some negative down the line, you can't be surprised when players respond by eventually just burning everything they encounter to the ground to ensure that it doesn't happen.

That's not to say you can't occasionally use this plot twist, but it should be rare. So rare that your players don't just assume that the friendly NPC they helped is really a bad guy in disguise, or that the guys they helped free are also going to come back to hurt them, or the folks they arrested rather than kill, or well any other "good" action will end up backfiring on them.

One of the most difficult things for GMs to learn to do is how to let the players win.

[King of Nowhere]

If that were true, there would be no neutral or evil alignments available. And if that were the case (only good as an option to play), there would be no need for alignments at all, right? All games would be "good guys defeat bad guys".

I think the game was supposed to have the party be good, and the opponent be evil. then you could kick down the door, cast detect evil, and you knew those are sentient beings you can massacre without moral problems because they are bad.

of course, nobody plays the game as it was originally supposed to be played. d&d has lived so long because it is flexible and people keep reinventing it.

as for players, i think bad players will use everything available as an excuse. while good players will use everything in a positive way. well, they can make mistakes sometimes and disrupt the party accidentally, but once talked to they will amend themselves, because they are good players.
i once had a new player try to steal from the party because he thought since he was a chaotic rogue he had to do it. there was some drama, but everything got sorted out, because everyone involved was a decent person, and the new player learned better, and there were no more accidents.
whereas a bad player would just find different excuses.

[Vahnavoi]

That seems like it's trying to not quite address the problem. The problem isn't PC alignments; it's player decisions. How about this:

"Players will design and play PCs who will work with the party, not against them."

Or, simply accept that characters with different goals will get in conflict and build a game around that. There's more than one way to skin the cat; the actual problem the OP describes is not with alignments or PvP, it's in tenets of forced group play clashing with player desires.

In non-forced group play, a game master might not stop one player's character from doing something the others don't like, but they also won't stop said other from retaliating. All the tools the players have regarding each other, their characters also have. If a player does not approve of a game, they can always quit playing; just as well, if their character does not approve of a party, their character can leave. If players find some of their lot to be disruptive, they can vote or request that player be removed; just as well, their characters can vote or request someone be cast out of a party. The players can use all legal actions and resources, both in terms of a game and actual law, to pursue their case; just as well, characters in a game can use all allowed game actions and resources to enforce their decisions.

D&D alignments are ultimately a red herring. The actual issues have to do with small group dynamics, and they are recursive. Players and their decisions also have alignments in the plain English sense of the word. Talakeal's group in particular is constantly strained by him and his co-players wanting different things, by his own admission. Remove the fiction of player-character-separation, and what you've got is someone becoming a worse person due to peer pressure.

[Witty Username]

I've referred to this as the "Troll with an Axe". In Shadowrun, a troll with an axe can be a VERY effective character, and there are a couple good ways to build them (cyber or adept). But if your entire schtick is "I have an unreasonable strength and toughness, and a very effective axe", chances are, you're gonna wanna use the axe. And if the plan doesn't include something where you CAN use the axe, you're going to either be bored, or, often, useless. And so many "Troll with an Axe" players wind up creating situations where they get to use their axe.

Which doesn't work too well if the plan is "get in, get out, walk calmly down the street."

D20 Star Wars had a similar concept to this adressed in Power of the Jedi, they called it "Lightsaber Syndrome." Which in short, you are playing a Jedi, you have a lightsaber and force powers, why not lightsaber and force powers all the time.
--
Alignment doesn't really factor into this kind of thing, for example our most disruptive leaning player has needed reigning in playing cyberpunk 2020, which doesn’t use any alignment stuff. And good-neutral-evil tend to fall by the wayside in favor of player temperament.

[Batcathat]

Among strangers this could fail. A healthy party lives somewhere between "Everything anyone does needs approval from the whole party" and "Do whatever the hell you want". But what part of that line your table can live in needs working out

While that's probably true, I'm guessing that an even blunter rule like "no Evil characters" would probably be even more likely to fail at the same objective.

[Vahnavoi]

I've referred to this as the "Troll with an Axe". In Shadowrun, a troll with an axe can be a VERY effective character, and there are a couple good ways to build them (cyber or adept). But if your entire schtick is "I have an unreasonable strength and toughness, and a very effective axe", chances are, you're gonna wanna use the axe. And if the plan doesn't include something where you CAN use the axe, you're going to either be bored, or, often, useless. And so many "Troll with an Axe" players wind up creating situations where they get to use their axe.

Which doesn't work too well if the plan is "get in, get out, walk calmly down the street."


D20 Star Wars had a similar concept to this adressed in Power of the Jedi, they called it "Lightsaber Syndrome." Which in short, you are playing a Jedi, you have a lightsaber and force powers, why not lightsaber and force powers all the time.
--
Alignment doesn't really factor into this kind of thing, for example our most disruptive leaning player has needed reigning in playing cyberpunk 2020, which doesn’t use any alignment stuff. And good-neutral-evil tend to fall by the wayside in favor of player temperament.

You're talking of a related but different thing than Talakeal.

The common saying that covers what you both are after, is "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail". (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument) There's a whole bunch of game design principles that can contribute to or alleviate the issue, to the point this would deserve its own thread.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D alignments are ultimately a red herring. The actual issues have to do with small group dynamics, and they are recursive. Players and their decisions also have alignments in the plain English sense of the word. Talakeal's group in particular is constantly strained by him and his co-players wanting different things, by his own admission. Remove the fiction of player-character-separation, and what you've got is someone becoming a worse person due to peer pressure. While true, a lot of people like a fig leaf / excuse to try and hide or rationalize (antisocial) behavior.

The common saying that covers what you both are after, is "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail". (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument) There's a whole bunch of game design principles that can contribute to or alleviate the issue, to the point this would deserve its own thread. Indeed it does, I wonder who will start such a thread? :smallconfused:

[Quertus]

Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos, Pink Mohawks vs Mirror Shades, it’s all obfuscation of the real core issue, which is a question of acceptable party dynamics and how to build them. Which itself may be the wrong layer of abstraction compared to the social contact and interpersonal relations between players.

Personally, I prefer to play with people mature enough to be able to roleplay characters with differences of opinions, and be able to resolve these differences.

Now, this can be implemented many ways, including the Thief who realizes they’re better off suspending their thievery while allied with the noble Paladin, or the noble Paladin who is clueless that the Assassin sold their enemies diseased blankets shortly before their big fight.

The trick is designing characters who can work together, and having the maturity to accept as many definitions of “working together” as possible. See also “I prefer to play with people that possess emotional maturity not found in these horror stories”. Which… includes plenty of 7-year-olds, so it’s not like it’s an unachievably high bar.

I’ve played the “Troll with an axe” who is all too happy to not have to swing that axe, who is glad to have “mirror shades” friends who keep everyone safe by reducing how many times the axe must fall. Whereas said Troll keeps everyone safe by swinging that axe when it *is* necessary, *not* by swinging it when it causes unnecessary problems. This isn’t rocket science, clue-by-fours were invented for a reason.

Unless you’re one of those oddballs who actually *likes* it when a PC causes problems for the party, when a PC causes problems for the party, you break to OOC and address it right then, retconning if necessary. Again, clue-by-fours were invented for a reason.

However, does a bit of torture, cannibalism, and animation of the bones really cause problems for the party? No? Then it’s not an issue worth caring about, and that’s all there is to it. Don’t bring a character who will make issue with things that aren’t issues.

Shout out to this bit of advice:



So regardless of what else is part of the PC's motivation, supporting the party must be included. "But it's what my character would do" isn't a reason to disrupt the game. It's a reason to design a different character.

The best solution is to play with people who want to get along and play as a team.

If your Paladin wants to murder the surrendered prisoner after they’ve been interrogated, maybe give them the wisdom to ask the rest of the party, “will doing so cause us any problems, unforeseen to me?” *before* doing the deed. Or be willing to let the group retcon that you did so when it was you, the player, who failed to foresee how that could be an issue - and work on self improvement and learning to have your character confer with others before making unilateral decisions that hurt the group.

And if it’s not in character for your PC to do that, bring a new PC - one who is capable of working with a group.

[Talakeal]

I don't think its fair to say this is necessarily an issue about someone wanting to be disruptive or anti-social.

It can legitimately be just a difference of opinion / interests.

Some people fantasize about being the hero, others the villain. Other people have totally different opinion's on what constitutes good or evil, likely based on a difference in upbringing, religion, politics, or other things we shan't talk about here.

If Bert's fantasy is playing a three-color hero and upholding truth, justice, and the American way, and Ernie's fantasy is being a big strong brute straight out of a Gor novel who kills anyone who challenges him and takes what he wants by force, they are going to have issues if they try and play these characters in the same group, even if there is nothing antagonistic about it and they are good friends and mature gamers.


Yes, I unwittingly expected your "evil" to instead be an underlying "good" for the table overall.

I don't think that's inaccurate?

I am saying I am playing a character who goes along with the group OOC rather than one I personally would prefer to keep the game running smoothly.



However, does a bit of torture, cannibalism, and animation of the bones really cause problems for the party? No? Then it’s not an issue worth caring about, and that’s all there is to it. Don’t bring a character who will make issue with things that aren’t issues.

Shout out to this bit of advice:

[indent]

If your Paladin wants to murder the surrendered prisoner after they’ve been interrogated, maybe give them the wisdom to ask the rest of the party, “will doing so cause us any problems, unforeseen to me?” *before* doing the deed. Or be willing to let the group retcon that you did so when it was you, the player, who failed to foresee how that could be an issue - and work on self improvement and learning to have your character confer with others before making unilateral decisions that hurt the group.

And if it’s not in character for your PC to do that, bring a new PC - one who is capable of working with a group.

The thing is though, unless you are playing someone who is very detached and neutral, that sort of thing waters down your character to an incredible degree.

Most people play RPGs to be larger than life heroes and the like. If you found NPCs engaged in "torture, cannibalism, and animation of the bones" you would give them a righteous smiting, but if it's a party member doing it, not only is your supposed hero not stopping it, they are actively supporting it by giving the evil characters a split of the treasure and protecting them from their enemies, who may in fact be legitimate forces of good or lawful authorities.

The Giant used to have an advice article on the sidebar here that I never quite grokked, where he said that the paladin is uniquely bad because it forces the rest of the party to behave, but I always felt that the opposite was more the case, evil characters force people to abandon any pretext of being a hero and actively take part in atrocities.


You're talking of a related but different thing than Talakeal.

The common saying that covers what you both are after, is "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail". (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument) There's a whole bunch of game design principles that can contribute to or alleviate the issue, to the point this would deserve its own thread.

Its close.

These are different but similar; the guy who resorts to violence because they are bored and the guy who does something evil both tend to trump any other plans that the rest of the group may have had.

[Vahnavoi]

While true, a lot of people like a fig leaf / excuse to try and hide or rationalize (antisocial) behavior.

It is completely normal for games to give special permission to do something that is otherwise unacceptable. You wouldn't normally try to punch your friend in the face, but in a boxing match, that is core part of the activity. You wouldn't normally lie to your friend, but in a game of Werewolf or Murder, that is core part of the activity. You wouldn't normally make jokes about your mom getting silicon breasts, but in Cards Against Humanity, that is core part of the activity. You wouldn't normally point a loaded weapon at a friend, but in airsoft or paintball, that is core part of the activity.

You wouldn't normally act like murder, torture and theft are acceptable ways to get ahead in life, but in a D&D game with Evil characters, those are core parts of the game; it's the role you are playing. It is contradictory to try to make a game specifically about playing roles and then turn around and say that playing a role cannot excuse anything.

People only ever try "it's just a game" , "it's just a joke", "I'm just playing my role" or "it's what my character would do" because there is a domain of life where that is an adequate justification. Failing to admit this eventually leads to either condemning or missing the point of the original activity - f.ex., if there's never an excuse to punch a friend in the face, either boxing ought to banned as immoral, or headshots ought to be removed from it, altering the sport completely. In the field of roleplaying games, this is visible as pointlessly condemning everything from PvP, to Evil characters, to thieves or paladins, to a enemies burning the magic-user's spellbook.

If you want to vet out bad people, the correct way to do that is to look at how they behave when and where they do not have special permission to act in a particular way.

[gbaji]

I think the game was supposed to have the party be good, and the opponent be evil. then you could kick down the door, cast detect evil, and you knew those are sentient beings you can massacre without moral problems because they are bad.

of course, nobody plays the game as it was originally supposed to be played. d&d has lived so long because it is flexible and people keep reinventing it.

When you say "was supposed" and "was originally supposed to be played", which edition are you referring too? First edition D&D states that thieves should "mostly be evil", with neutral available as well, and good possible, but requiring some pretty hefty explanation (I could quote the exact text, but that's the gist).

The Assassin class had to be evil because: "(perforce as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)"

So as "origninally supposed to be played" D&D included player playable classes which had to have evil alignments to be played. So, no, the original intent was not purely about a group of automatically assumed good guys kicking down doors and killing the automatically assumed evil guys inside and taking their stuff. D&D assumed there would be interparty intrigue and conflict, but also assumed that the players and DM would determine some sort of "look and feel" to their own game table and decided how that would play out.

Which is pretty much what we should be doing today as well. If you play at a table full of people who love backstabbing eachother and having to be just as careful about the other players as the NPCs, then let it be that form of no-holds-bared situation. It's what the players want. If you have a table full of folks who want to play herioc adventures working together for a common goal (my preferences btw), then you have to set some sort of "table rules" for behavior between the PCs.

This does not preclude having "evil" characters in a group. It does mean that if you are at a more "common goal" oriented table, those who play evil characters have to pick some personality for their characer that will prevent them from actually doing direct harm to their fellow party members. They may joke about it, threaten, etc, but their "evil" should be restricted to external actions that occur "on the side" and that at worst cause minor issues, and maybe a plot hook or two along the way. There are a ton of characters in popular fiction that manage to fill this sort of role (being "evil", but somehow never managing to actually seriously hurt the main characters, and then always seeming to find their own objectives alignning, so they tend to work with them instead). It's not hard to do, just takes a litle creativity, and most importantly a player who actually gets that this is what is preferred at this sort of table.

[gbaji]

The Giant used to have an advice article on the sidebar here that I never quite grokked, where he said that the paladin is uniquely bad because it forces the rest of the party to behave, but I always felt that the opposite was more the case, evil characters force people to abandon any pretext of being a hero and actively take part in atrocities.

I think Rich's point was that the Paladin is the only class that actually requires it to impose it's own moral compass on the rest of the PCs in a group. It requires every party that includes a paladin to be the very same "good guys doing good deeds" standard. Which yeah, works some of the time, but is a constraint.

While I trend against interparty backstabbing at my tables, I find a party full of nothing but goody-goodies to be boring. Shades of grey can be fun to play. Characters who are ok with taking advantage of situations for personal gain, but also still wanting to stop the evil bad guy works great IMO. Having a rogue in the group who slinks off to get info from various contacts and maybe shaking down some folks works. Sure. We don't ask where he got those earings he's fencing today (maybe with some blood stains on them?) because he got the tickets to the ball we needed, so we can go in and save the day or something. And maybe we just don't ask how our wizard knows so much about graves and human anatomy, cause he's helping us as well.

Imagine a paladin flying on Serenity with the crew. Would ruin the entire group, right? That's the point the Giant was making. You can still be "heroes" without having to always be "good guys".

[Batcathat]

The Giant used to have an advice article on the sidebar here that I never quite grokked, where he said that the paladin is uniquely bad because it forces the rest of the party to behave, but I always felt that the opposite was more the case, evil characters force people to abandon any pretext of being a hero and actively take part in atrocities.

Again, I don't see how having Evil characters in the party means the Good characters are forced to go along with their behavior, any more than having Good characters means the Evil characters are forced to go along with their behavior. It's a possibility, but not the only one.

[Theoboldi]

Imagine a paladin flying on Serenity with the crew. Would ruin the entire group, right? That's the point the Giant was making. You can still be "heroes" without having to always be "good guys".

I mean, to voice my agreement with Talakeal on this issue, there is also an easy counter-example. Imagine a power-hungry, evil necromancer flying on the Enterprise as part of the crew. It would just as much ruin the overall vibe of the story, and make the heroes come across as silent enablers of his villainy.

[NichG]

Again, I don't see how having Evil characters in the party means the Good characters are forced to go along with their behavior, any more than having Good characters means the Evil characters are forced to go along with their behavior. It's a possibility, but not the only one.

I think the important bit is more about the way in which people's differential willingness to abide by social norms about OOC tabletop RPG behavior leads to a concentration of agency in some attitudes over others is the important bit, and that can be a real effect. At any given table, the hard lines and the soft lines tend not to be at the same place - hard lines being things that get you explicitly called out or asked to change or kicked from the group, soft lines being the sorts of things people do out of a pro-social desire for the group to actually function smoothly but which the group would be hesitant to actually consider misbehavior if they weren't followed.

If one person prioritizes group cohesion and another person prioritizes doing stuff that is most relevant for their character, when the first person's character needs conflict with the second person's character needs, the second person is going to more often get their way. Because the first person might pull back short of something that would lead to making the game about that conflict out of respect for those soft lines or even just because of their own norms and expectations, whereas the second person will push through and just do their thing. Internet discussions tend to go to the most extreme and exaggerated examples like torture and murder and PvP and whatnot, but I've evem seen a much much more subtle version of this in my group - given a question 'what are you planning to do / what would you like to do next time?' I've had players say 'well I had things relevant to my character to get done, but I don't think they'd be interesting for the other players so I didn't suggest that we do those things'. In fact, at least once I had basically every player independently say this and confirm their thought process after the fact, resulting in a session where no one did anything because everyone didn't want to do something that might not have been relevant to one of the other players. That's its own kind of extreme example perhaps, but I think it serves to demonstrate the range of the phenomenon.

[Vahnavoi]

NichG, you seem to be describing the Abilene Paradox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox), or something close to it, at work.

To wit, this paradox is why I dislike consensus play, and why I'm more willing to promote honest-to-God PvP over forced party play.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think its fair to say this is necessarily an issue about someone wanting to be disruptive or anti-social.

It can legitimately be just a difference of opinion / interests.


No.
When people have difference of opinions/interests, they talk about it and find some acceptable compromise.
when someone stabs important npcs on a whim without the consent of the party, and generally tricks/bullies/drags people into playing a different style, that's disruptive antisocial behavior. when people react with rage at the slightest mention that maybe they should ask other players before doing something, that's disruptive.

the difference is between working with others to find common ground, and imposing on others

[Talakeal]

NichG, you seem to be describing the Abilene Paradox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox), or something close to it, at work.

To wit, this paradox is why I dislike consensus play, and why I'm more willing to promote honest-to-God PvP over forced party play.

Thank you for that.

[NichG]

NichG, you seem to be describing the Abilene Paradox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox), or something close to it, at work.

To wit, this paradox is why I dislike consensus play, and why I'm more willing to promote honest-to-God PvP over forced party play.

The specific example yes. The 'slide to evil' thing would come from when the different members of the group don't have an equal understanding of where the soft lines are, so that one member of the group tends to consistently give way and another member of the group tends to consistently get their way, which seems distinct from Abilene but of the same family of things.

[King of Nowhere]

NichG, you seem to be describing the Abilene Paradox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox), or something close to it, at work.

To wit, this paradox is why I dislike consensus play, and why I'm more willing to promote honest-to-God PvP over forced party play.

the abilene paradox is why I promote direct, honest discussion over inferences and social clues and "going along to avoid hurt feelings".

[Quertus]

The thing is though, unless you are playing someone who is very detached and neutral, that sort of thing waters down your character to an incredible degree.

Exactly? Not at all?

If you can’t play a character who won’t force their moral values on others, and that’s a problem, then, yes, you need to run a character so feckless as to not have any moral values to begin with.

But, again, it’s not just moral values. It’s about having *goals* that are compatible with the party, and accepting different *means* towards those goals.

My Troll swung an axe. That was their means. But their goal was “protect others”, which was perfectly compatible with the mirror shades “stealth” means. Just as their goals of “make money” or “get revenge” were perfectly compatible with my troll’s means of “swing an axe”

If that group were in situations that called for such, could they accept “selling diseased blankets to their enemies before the big fight”, “killing the villagers, eating the meat and animating the bones”, “killing the surrendered foes”, or “letting surrendered foes go”? Probably, if it didn’t conflict with their goals, although they would likely suggest alternatives more in line with both goals and means.

More importantly, they couldn’t accept either the first or last pair of actions together, as they are functionally mutually exclusive. Nobody wants to eat the diseased flesh of their enemies, and freeing their captive doesn’t mean freeing their heads from their bodies, Thranduil.

Means and goals can be in opposition - even ones you otherwise accept. The ability to pick and choose along acceptable options? The ability to have a reasonable discussion with others about what options are reasonable, and what ones aren’t? About the costs, advantages, and disadvantages each option has? These are required skills.

But, even before that, you need to build a party that accepts one another’s goals and means. Whether that’s “swing an axe to protect people”, “hack computers to make money”, or “Animate the dead to take over the world”.

If you can’t work together as a group to align such things in session 0, to give and take and choose characters who can work together, then how could you ever expect to align such things mid session when you’ve got a captured/surrendered prisoner to free/execute, or a village to eat and Animate / whatever the “stick in the mud” Paladin wants to do with these natural resources.

And this is true of even the simplest, morality-free choices, like getting a chocolate or strawberry cake for a party, ordering pizza or Chinese, going to the mall or the zoo, burning down your enemies’ houses they live in and the stores they work in & killing people that owe them money or throwing them in a pit filled with dementors, or choosing between any other set of perfectly valid choices. There’s interpersonal “soft” skills, and a certain baseline of maturity, that are required to have such conversations / to make them productive.

And if you want to run a character who is allergic to chocolate, you need both to realize how big an “ask” that is of the group in choosing characters to work with your conditions, and to actually make that ask in season 0.

[Talakeal]

You know, I think maybe I need to develop a worksheet akin to Monte Cook's consent in RPGs form where everyone states their moral preferences and lines. It might prevent the Abeline paradox, or at least allow people to see their own hypocrisy.

One problem I have is that everyone seems to have a moral line at the gaming table. It is invisible and never spoken of, and is really wavy so that in certain areas it extends really far and in other areas is really narrow. I can't count how many times we have had an RPG situation akin to "I Spit on Your Grave" where the DM will gleefully have my character or their loved ones be the victims of sexual assault, but then get mad and threaten to kick me out of the game where I capture the perpetrator and paralyze them before sticking their head in a microwave.




So, the DM of the current campaign has complicated things by saying we can play evil characters but not crazy characters. Anyone have any idea how to actually do this? My current character has severe borderline personality and Bob is a textbook narcissist. I legit don't know how to remove those things and still be evil. Any advice on what a non-crazy evil character looks like?





Exactly? Not at all?

If you can’t play a character who won’t force their moral values on others, and that’s a problem, then, yes, you need to run a character so feckless as to not have any moral values to begin with.

But, again, it’s not just moral values. It’s about having *goals* that are compatible with the party, and accepting different *means* towards those goals.

My Troll swung an axe. That was their means. But their goal was “protect others”, which was perfectly compatible with the mirror shades “stealth” means. Just as their goals of “make money” or “get revenge” were perfectly compatible with my troll’s means of “swing an axe”

If that group were in situations that called for such, could they accept “selling diseased blankets to their enemies before the big fight”, “killing the villagers, eating the meat and animating the bones”, “killing the surrendered foes”, or “letting surrendered foes go”? Probably, if it didn’t conflict with their goals, although they would likely suggest alternatives more in line with both goals and means.

More importantly, they couldn’t accept either the first or last pair of actions together, as they are functionally mutually exclusive. Nobody wants to eat the diseased flesh of their enemies, and freeing their captive doesn’t mean freeing their heads from their bodies, Thranduil.

Means and goals can be in opposition - even ones you otherwise accept. The ability to pick and choose along acceptable options? The ability to have a reasonable discussion with others about what options are reasonable, and what ones aren’t? About the costs, advantages, and disadvantages each option has? These are required skills.

But, even before that, you need to build a party that accepts one another’s goals and means. Whether that’s “swing an axe to protect people”, “hack computers to make money”, or “Animate the dead to take over the world”.

If you can’t work together as a group to align such things in session 0, to give and take and choose characters who can work together, then how could you ever expect to align such things mid session when you’ve got a captured/surrendered prisoner to free/execute, or a village to eat and Animate / whatever the “stick in the mud” Paladin wants to do with these natural resources.

And this is true of even the simplest, morality-free choices, like getting a chocolate or strawberry cake for a party, ordering pizza or Chinese, going to the mall or the zoo, burning down your enemies’ houses they live in and the stores they work in & killing people that owe them money or throwing them in a pit filled with dementors, or choosing between any other set of perfectly valid choices. There’s interpersonal “soft” skills, and a certain baseline of maturity, that are required to have such conversations / to make them productive.

And if you want to run a character who is allergic to chocolate, you need both to realize how big an “ask” that is of the group in choosing characters to work with your conditions, and to actually make that ask in season 0.

Can you please give some examples of such goals?

Getting players to come up with goals is super hard in my experience. Normally, goals are more or less synonymous with alignment and boil down to thinks like protect the innocent or crush all who oppose me. More often, they are something forced on the party by the DM that nobody really has a personal stake in but go along with it because it is compatible with their alignment and provides money and power along the way.

I have trouble actually imagining a good or evil person who doesn't enforce their morality on others. If I see something evil going down, I can't imagine not trying to stop it in some way, either by intervening directly or by calling the cops. In real life, as a hypothetical, if my friends decided to go, say, torturing stray dogs or homeless people and I can't talk them out of it, I am going to do something to stop it, or imo, I am not really a good person.

Most people who play RPGs want to go beyond being just good, they want to be a hero, and part of being a hero is protecting the innocent and stopping evil-doers. I am really struggling to imagine how the goals of a hero and an evil doer don't come head-to-head if they are in the same party.

Like, I can't imagine a typical good hero protagonist like Aragorn, Captain America, Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk, or Green Arrow going along with murder, rape, torture, slavery, or biological warfare even if it does align with their larger goals. At best I can think of them giving an agonized speech about how there must be another way.

[Batcathat]

Most people who play RPGs want to go beyond being just good, they want to be a hero, and part of being a hero is protecting the innocent and stopping evil-doers. I am really struggling to imagine how the goals of a hero and an evil doer don't come head-to-head if they are in the same party.

Like, I can't imagine a typical good hero protagonist like Aragorn, Captain America, Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk, or Green Arrow going along with murder, rape, torture, slavery, or biological warfare even if it does align with their larger goals. At best I can think of them giving an agonized speech about how there must be another way.

I think it depends on why the Evil party members are suggesting whatever morally questionable thing it is they want to do. Is it because they're the kind of cartoonish villains that delights in kicking dogs and burning orphanages? Then yes, your typical hero probably wouldn't go along with it. But if they have some sort of greater reason for their actions, the heroes might at least be willing to consider it.

[Vahnavoi]

So, the DM of the current campaign has complicated things by saying we can play evil characters but not crazy characters. Anyone have any idea how to actually do this? My current character has severe borderline personality and Bob is a textbook narcissist. I legit don't know how to remove those things and still be evil. Any advice on what a non-crazy evil character looks like?

There is no standard for this expect your game master's, because "crazy" is not a term with firm meaning. In the real world, it also isn't some completely non-overlapping concept from immoral behaviour. There's a pretty good chance that any description of "non-crazy evil" anyone here could give you, would still be rejected as "crazy" by your game master.

In more detail: "crazy" in common speech can mean any of: (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/crazy)


1.
a. Mentally deranged.
b. Informal Odd or eccentric in behavior.

2. Informal Departing from proportion or moderation, especially:
a. Possessed by enthusiasm or excitement: The crowd at the game went crazy.
b. Immoderately fond; infatuated: was crazy about boys.
c. Intensely involved or preoccupied: is crazy about cars and racing.
d. Foolish or impractical; senseless: a crazy scheme for making quick money.
e. Intensely annoyed or irritated: It makes me crazy when you don't tell me you're going to be late.

3. Disorderly or askew: One of the old window shutters hung at a crazy angle

Under 1., your task would seem easiest: just make a new character who is evil but not mentally deranged. Except, who is or isn't considered "mentally deranged" is often based on relative cultural mores. In a culture where there is a strong taboo towards, say, killing another person, any murderer can be argued to be mentally deranged, because that is the only way that culture can conceive of a murder happening, completely regardless of whether the murderer is objectively mentally atypical.

But fine, let's say you manage to convince that evil can arise from simple self-interest. That doesn't help you dodge 2 in the slightest. Plenty of things considered immoral in real life are immoderate, reckless, foolish, born of intense annoyance etc.. It would not be at all odd to say common evil things happen because of people crazy with hate, rage, lust, greed, etc..

So, if you can't get your game master to specify what they really mean, the sanest recourse is to tell them they are speaking nonsense and saddling you with an impossible task.

[NichG]

The easiest form of 'stable' evil is selective apathy. Other people have moral norms about certain things - your character just doesn't get it at a gut level. There's a quote somewhere about how, regardless of fancy words and arguments, immoral things have a stench to them - you experience it viscerally, and even if you spin some complicated justification its always just that and doesn't change the base experience. So make a character who is missing that, and you've got a stable, evil character.

Its not that they're torture-positive, its just that they see everyone in the category 'enemy' or even 'not friends' as being about the same as the lobster you might boil alive to get a nicer color and taste out of the resulting meal. Non-friends are non-persons. If a friend says 'hey, don't break my toys' its not like its a huge burden or imposition to respect that. If a friend says 'I don't want to see you torture people, it really bothers me' then its not outside of the mindset to be like 'oh, shoot! I didn't mean to hurt you by doing this, fine, I'll stop' (and then maybe torture someone when the party isn't looking, sure, because the character only considers it wrong because it bothers their friend not because they've internalized that torture is wrong).

Take that very far and its basically high functioning sociopathy or psychopathy. But a milder, even in some contexts socially acceptable version can still lead to quite evil behaviors. A businessman who treats the conflicts of companies as a game and is basically blind or uncaring to consider the livelihood of employees, to the point where in big enough companies people end up 'dying of bureaucracy' - evil, but not driven by evil.

[gbaji]

I mean, to voice my agreement with Talakeal on this issue, there is also an easy counter-example. Imagine a power-hungry, evil necromancer flying on the Enterprise as part of the crew. It would just as much ruin the overall vibe of the story, and make the heroes come across as silent enablers of his villainy.

Ok. And if the power hungry, evil necromancer was not violating any of the rules while on the ship, what would happen? Nothing, right? Having good and evil folks in the same room/area/ship/whatever doesn't cause problems unless the two are in conflict over something. It's possible to be evil without automatically having to be directly in conflict with everyone else around you. Evil does not mean "insane person who can't help by do horrific things to everyone". To take a more borderline example, and one more in keeping with the "play the kind of evil character that *can* interact with good characters", maybe don't go all the way to the psychopathic range and pick a character from the series itself: Vash was an on again, off again romantic interest with Picard. She was a thief. She stole stuff. She faked documents. She wormed her way into various positions in the archeology world, to find stuff and sell it to "interested parties". She would clearly fall at least neutral, if not evil on the alignment scale (kinda depends on what sort of stuff she did when not interacting with the crew). Yet, she managed to work with Picard and the crew on a few occassions.

And I'll also note that you're basically using an example of an entire crew of more or less paladins anyway. They don't allow anyone to do things that don't fit their own morality, and are honestly pretty heavy handed with it (well, on their ship, or when dealing with others). That was somewhat part of the theme of the TNG show. There are lots of other sci-fi shows with ship crews who aren't nearly so morally absolute. You went right to the extremes (ST-TNG crew vs necromancer guy). Er. How about the crew from Farscape? Or Firefly? Or Crusade (What alignment is Galan? Or Dureena?).

You're also assuming absolutes here. There's a whole range within the "evil" alignment, including people who are self centered by default, willing to harm others to get their way by default, but who aren't just random psychopathic killers who like to bath in people's blood and eat their livers with fava beans and a nice chianti. It's quite possible for a player to play an evil alignment character who can manage to engage in their evil stuff, only in ways that don't negatively impact the party and their larger goals. Or even use those evil methods in ways that help the party, but maybe don't tell them the details.



So, the DM of the current campaign has complicated things by saying we can play evil characters but not crazy characters. Anyone have any idea how to actually do this? My current character has severe borderline personality and Bob is a textbook narcissist. I legit don't know how to remove those things and still be evil. Any advice on what a non-crazy evil character looks like?

Are you playing evil characters, or chaotic characters? That's a key difference.



Can you please give some examples of such goals?

Getting players to come up with goals is super hard in my experience. Normally, goals are more or less synonymous with alignment and boil down to thinks like protect the innocent or crush all who oppose me. More often, they are something forced on the party by the DM that nobody really has a personal stake in but go along with it because it is compatible with their alignment and provides money and power along the way.

Ok. Maybe I'm seeing where the problem is. Yeah. Alignment conflicts are going to be more of a problem in free form play style games (where the players decide what to do all the time). Your statement that goals are synonymous with alignment is key. In games where the GM creates NPCs and conflicts and "adventures" for the party to deal with, the "goals" are to resolve/overcome those conflicts. Alignment in that case, at most defines maybe the motivations for the character, and most of the time only how the character maybe responds to events and problems that the GM presents to the players.

A good player may decide to stop the folks who kidnapped the princess because it's the right thing to do and they want to build a rep as heroes. An neutral player may decide to do the exact same thing for the reward and perhaps some notoriety and maybe just because it'll be fun. An evil chararacter may also decide to help out, also for the reward, but also to maybe find out who is behind such plots in the area, make contacts, and build up their own powerbase (and provide cover for their actions). They do not need to be in conflict on the core "goal" of rescuing the princess. And yes, along the way, said evil character may be inclined to let some minions escape as long as they understand that they "owe me, and I'll be calling in this favor" sort of thing. But again, would be stupid to actually sabotage the main mission, because that would jeapordize their position in the group and their "cover".
'
There are lots of ways to rationalize an evil character in an otherwise good group, without it causing conflict. You almost have to intentionally choose to play directly disruptive personality types, or characer goals in order to make conflict happen. Again, in a game setting where the GM is creating the "adventure". If it's just the players deciding what they do in the area, and then creating results from that, then yeah, I can see how the evil guy going around building power and setting up a protection racket among the local merchants might just intersect and conflict with the good guy going around trying to free said local merchants from being under the thumb of whomever is shaking them down. Or whatever other stuff the players choose to do, I suppose.



I have trouble actually imagining a good or evil person who doesn't enforce their morality on others. If I see something evil going down, I can't imagine not trying to stop it in some way, either by intervening directly or by calling the cops. In real life, as a hypothetical, if my friends decided to go, say, torturing stray dogs or homeless people and I can't talk them out of it, I am going to do something to stop it, or imo, I am not really a good person.

Again though, you're going immediately to "evil==psychopath". You can't imagine a good person having a friend or relative who is in trouble with the law semi-regularly, maybe uses/sells drugs, occasionaly steals stuff, does check cashing scams, etc? And these are just "real life" examples of actual situations a lot of "good people" find themselves in. Do those good people go out of their way to look into the behavior of those other people, actively try to catch them doing something wrong, and make a citizens arrest or something? No. They don't. They hope those people will turn their lives around, and not get themselves killed along the way. But they don't force themselves on the other people. That just pushes them away entirely.

And that's an example of a known person with known criminal behavior. The most common scenario of an evil character in an otherwise good party, is the evil person doesn't advertise the illegal stuff they do on the side. It's that simple. And maybe they get caught occasionally, and we have a RP bit where the good guys try to reform their wayward friend, and maybe he goes along with the saps, while just getting better at concealing his actions. Kinda setting and theme dependent on how to play this out, but there are a ton of ways to do this.


Most people who play RPGs want to go beyond being just good, they want to be a hero, and part of being a hero is protecting the innocent and stopping evil-doers. I am really struggling to imagine how the goals of a hero and an evil doer don't come head-to-head if they are in the same party.

Again. The good guy doesn't know the evil guy is evil. Why is that difficult?


Like, I can't imagine a typical good hero protagonist like Aragorn, Captain America, Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk, or Green Arrow going along with murder, rape, torture, slavery, or biological warfare even if it does align with their larger goals. At best I can think of them giving an agonized speech about how there must be another way.

Again with the extreme examples. How about just not knowing that one of their team members runs books on the side, maybe enjoys putting the beat down on "bad guys" a little too much, pockets a bit of cash for himself in the midst of any crisis. Or heck, is an international jewel/art thief on the side or something. There's a whole range of grey morality to play with here. You might argue that some of that is more neutral maybe, and yeah, some is. But the idea that you can only be of evil alignment if you are randomly killing people for fun would narrow "evil" down to such a small degree as to be unusable as an alignment in the first place.

On the whole "superhero" standard, there are a ton of folks who fall well into that range as well. This is also where I pop up with my patented "alignments are dumb" position anyway. Is the Punisher "evil"? Hard to say, right? Any vigilante type character falls well into the grey areas of morality. And heck. In a lot of settings, the party is going to themselves be more or less vigilantes anyway. Your group of adventures basicaly runs around killing people who are doing things you don't like, taking their stuff, and calling yourself heroes for it. Where's the due process?

Some might argue that the only difference between good and evil is who they target. And one can also argue that evil characters are far less likely to actually kill their targets than good ones. They aren't moral absolutists. A good person will be like "You must die for the greater good, or for your crimes against <whatever>, etc". An evil person will be like "Let's make a deal", or "maybe you should come work for me", or "Hey. I'm going to kill you, but steal your evil idea and save it for a rainy day".

Most evil bad guys don't actually have an evil plan of "kill everyone in the world" (CoC cultists excepted of course). They usually have some evil scheme that gives them power and position, which isn't worth a whole lot of there aren't other peopple around for them to hold that stuff over anyway, right? It's the good guys who are like charging into locations, killing all the guards, killing the scientists just working on building <whatever>, then causing massive property damage, and finally thwarting if not outright executing the "evil guy" just because he wanted to make the world bettter via his new mind control ray or something. Gee. How full of themselves are the good guys?

Tongue in cheek, of course, but still. I think these conflicts only really occur when players play only the most absurd versions of good and evil possible.

[King of Nowhere]

So, the DM of the current campaign has complicated things by saying we can play evil characters but not crazy characters. Anyone have any idea how to actually do this? My current character has severe borderline personality and Bob is a textbook narcissist. I legit don't know how to remove those things and still be evil. Any advice on what a non-crazy evil character looks like?


Evil is not the deranged individual who murders on a whim. ok, that's evil, but it's far from the only evil; indeed, it's a pretty rare form.
evil is the corrupt executive coldly sacrificing lives to increase his profit.
evil is the mobster who threatens and beats up anyone who stands up to him.
evil is the manipulator who tricks other people into doing his will.
evil is the suprematist with the belief that certain categories should be eradicated or enslaved.
but ultimately, evil is everyone who puts their own interest first with no regards for others. you don't have to be a screaming madman; you just have to not care about the consequences on others that your actions have.

in practical d&d practice, if you are willing to do anything for your goal - be it power, immortality, treasure, or whatever - you are evil. all you need to do is not stop your fellow party member who is destroying the town to animate some zombies. why would you? your goal requires the party to win, and your fellow necromancer is doing something that helps the party, and if it's unlikely to create you problems with authorities (I mean, in my campaign world you can be 20th level, but if you murder an entire village you are not going to get away with it easily. but other campaigns assume that you move on and nobody is going to investigate or anything), then you're cool with it.
literally, to be evil you don't have to put any effort into it. you just have to look at all the stuff that your fellows are doing and say "meh, it's not my problem".



Can you please give some examples of such goals?

Getting players to come up with goals is super hard in my experience. Normally, goals are more or less synonymous with alignment and boil down to thinks like protect the innocent or crush all who oppose me. More often, they are something forced on the party by the DM that nobody really has a personal stake in but go along with it because it is compatible with their alignment and provides money and power along the way.


not really. well, the dm may force a goal as the campaign objective - that people have to accept as buy-in for the campaign - but character goals are not difficult. more difficult is coming up with some that can be both good or evil, and thus adaptable. a few examples
- my monk was emotionally scarred as a child, and deep within, he's insecure. he focused his efforts on learning to fight, and whenever he wins a fight, whenever he survives something that should have killed him, his insecurity recedes. so he picks up challenges because overcoming challenges make him feel better. and he seeks to becomes stronger because he'll be able to overcome more challenges.
this goal can work both on a good or evil character, though my monk is mostly on the good side, meting vigilante justice as an excuse to beat up people and get his adrenaline rush.
- the wizard player in my party generally wants to become a god, or at least as close as possible. not terribly original, especially for a wizard, but works very well in motivating him to pick up adventures.
- another of my players was the scion of an abusive noble family. he wants to travel the world and escape the shadow of his scheming father. he's also a gambler, picking up adventures mostly for a sense of adventure, to see what happens - and because he's kinda a naive pushover who can be persuaded easily.
- the party rogue was the scion of another noble family. another noble family outcompeted and threw them out of business, and he wants revenge, in whatever shape it takes.

I have many more examples of character goals, but they are mostly campaign-specific; I limited myself to those that can work in any campaign and with any alignment.


But, again, it’s not just moral values. It’s about having *goals* that are compatible with the party, and accepting different *means* towards those goals.



I have trouble actually imagining a good or evil person who doesn't enforce their morality on others. If I see something evil going down, I can't imagine not trying to stop it in some way, either by intervening directly or by calling the cops. In real life, as a hypothetical, if my friends decided to go, say, torturing stray dogs or homeless people and I can't talk them out of it, I am going to do something to stop it, or imo, I am not really a good person.


I am with Talekeal here. It's not about having goals and accepting different means. if you are not a completely callous murderer yourself, then you are NOT going to accept your party necromancer killing civilians to have more bodies to animate. Sure, you can compromise a bit on how you achieve your goals, but there are limits.



Most people who play RPGs want to go beyond being just good, they want to be a hero, and part of being a hero is protecting the innocent and stopping evil-doers. I am really struggling to imagine how the goals of a hero and an evil doer don't come head-to-head if they are in the same party.


however, here I disagree. Here you are limiting yourself because, as you said earlier in your post, you can only imagine an evil person as an ax-crazy mass murderer with a short temper.
Again, an evil person does not need to have evil goals - indeed, very few have. most evil goals are perfectly compatible with being good.
if you are good you cannot accept your necromancer killing civilians to get bodies, nope. But you can point him to the local graveyard, which has many good corpses that nobody will complain about. You can try to persuade the necromancer to pay some compensation to the families for agreeing to let their late grandfather be turned into a machine, on the ground that this way no hero will be called to stop the dreaded necromancer.
You can try to persuade the necromancer of the value of having good public relations.
and if the necromancer uses his zombies to fight evil, well, you compromised a little but you are satisfied with the outcome. As for the necromancer, he got to have his undead army and he got to loot the boss enemy, so he's happy too. I can totally see a paladin making his mission that of keeping in check such a necromancer, pushing him towards a responsible use of his undead - though only if both players consented to it.
My monk was abused by an evil wizard, and the party had an evil wizard, but the two characters got along very well. the monk closed his eyes on some edgy stuff and the party wizard never crossed any major moral boundary.
Other times more tricks are required - by player consensus. We had an evil rogue in the party who was secretly trying to release an ancient evil, and while some of the less scrupolous party members went along for the reward, I agreed to let my monk be swindled by the rogue - persuaded that we were doing something else.

[Satinavian]

So, the DM of the current campaign has complicated things by saying we can play evil characters but not crazy characters. Anyone have any idea how to actually do this? My current character has severe borderline personality and Bob is a textbook narcissist. I legit don't know how to remove those things and still be evil. Any advice on what a non-crazy evil character looks like?

Some classical example villains, who are pretty evil but not particularly cracy:

Cardinal Richeleu from the musketeer novels
Cesare Borgia as characterized in Machiavellis Il principe
Sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood (most versions work)
Most named characters from Godfather


I mean, to voice my agreement with Talakeal on this issue, there is also an easy counter-example. Imagine a power-hungry, evil necromancer flying on the Enterprise as part of the crew. It would just as much ruin the overall vibe of the story, and make the heroes come across as silent enablers of his villainy. You mean like have the Terran mirror universe emporer as part of the crew in ST: Discovery, which is exactly what they did ? Or putting a spy/assassin, a terrorist and a greedy and abusive barkeeper into DS9s main cast ?

[gbaji]

You mean like have the Terran mirror universe emporer as part of the crew in ST: Discovery, which is exactly what they did ? Or putting a spy/assassin, a terrorist and a greedy and abusive barkeeper into DS9s main cast ?

Ah. But those characters didn't randomly kill puppies and torture people, so they weren't actually "evil". I guess... ?

[Talakeal]

Most of these examples I see people using are just neutral, not actually what I would consider evil.

Like, here is the kind of thing that actually comes up which I consider baseline evil:

You are traveling through the wilderness and come upon another traveler. Do you murder him in his sleep and steal his stuff?

[gbaji]

Like, here is the kind of thing that actually comes up which I consider baseline evil:

You are traveling through the wilderness and come upon another traveler. Do you murder him in his sleep and steal his stuff?

And I think this is the problem. You are equating evil with what most people see as the extreme end of the range. What if you steal his stuff and not murder him? That would be "evil" in most people's eyes.

Evil people will do what is best for them, even if that causes harm to other people. That doesn't mean that they must cause harm just for the fun of it though. In your example, unless there is some gain to be had in murdering the sleeping traveler, an evil person doesn't have any reason to kill them. Taking their stuff is evil enough. The diference is that, if there was a value to be gained by killing that traveller, the evil person would do it, while a neutral person would not.

In the same scenario, the neutral person would not kill the traveller at all (even if there was gain to be had, they would likely seek some sort of arrest or capture first, with killing being a last resort). They might steal their stuff though, if there was a really good reason to do so. The neutral person is considering the harm to the victim against the gain/benefit of the action, and not just from their own perspective. Stealing money to pay for medicine for a sick friend is something a neutral person might do. An evil person would do it just because they want the money.

A good person would never do either action. They might even hang out in the area to make sure the sleeping traveler is not harmed by other brigands and whatnot as well, but again aren't required to do so.

The point is that the alignments are a range of behavior options, not one specific "you must do this" choice. And "evil" doesn't mean "always do harm to everyone else". Evil generally means "what's best for me". And a heck of a lot of the time, what is best for an evil PC is to *not* incur the wrath of the other party members, or the law, by engaging in random stupid acts of violence. You'd kill that person only if there was a benefit to yourself *and* you were certain that you could not be caught. Same deal with stealing, though it's a lot easier to lift a few coins from someone's purse without being caught than killing them in cold blood, so that's part of the decision making process here.

But yeah. If there's zero benefit to killing someone, why on earth would an evil person do it? That's not an assumption I've ever made about that alignment (maybe chaotic evil, perhaps). Now, if I happen to worship some evil deity and can gain something by sacrificing this random person to that deity, and I can figure out how to get them to my sacrificial altar for the ceremony without being caught? Sure. My evil priest/whatever would wrangle to do that. But just slitting his throat on the side of the road? What's the benefit to that?

[KorvinStarmast]

The easiest form of 'stable' evil is selective apathy. That is not correct. The old adage about evil prospering when good men do nothing does not cast good men as evil, but as not doing what they ought to. (which is to resist evil actively). The form of that argument is "but you Should do this...." and should is subjective.

[Talakeal]

And I think this is the problem. You are equating evil with what most people see as the extreme end of the range. What if you steal his stuff and not murder him? That would be "evil" in most people's eyes.

Evil people will do what is best for them, even if that causes harm to other people. That doesn't mean that they must cause harm just for the fun of it though. In your example, unless there is some gain to be had in murdering the sleeping traveler, an evil person doesn't have any reason to kill them. Taking their stuff is evil enough. The diference is that, if there was a value to be gained by killing that traveller, the evil person would do it, while a neutral person would not.

In the same scenario, the neutral person would not kill the traveller at all (even if there was gain to be had, they would likely seek some sort of arrest or capture first, with killing being a last resort). They might steal their stuff though, if there was a really good reason to do so. The neutral person is considering the harm to the victim against the gain/benefit of the action, and not just from their own perspective. Stealing money to pay for medicine for a sick friend is something a neutral person might do. An evil person would do it just because they want the money.

A good person would never do either action. They might even hang out in the area to make sure the sleeping traveler is not harmed by other brigands and whatnot as well, but again aren't required to do so.

The point is that the alignments are a range of behavior options, not one specific "you must do this" choice. And "evil" doesn't mean "always do harm to everyone else". Evil generally means "what's best for me". And a heck of a lot of the time, what is best for an evil PC is to *not* incur the wrath of the other party members, or the law, by engaging in random stupid acts of violence. You'd kill that person only if there was a benefit to yourself *and* you were certain that you could not be caught. Same deal with stealing, though it's a lot easier to lift a few coins from someone's purse without being caught than killing them in cold blood, so that's part of the decision making process here.

But yeah. If there's zero benefit to killing someone, why on earth would an evil person do it? That's not an assumption I've ever made about that alignment (maybe chaotic evil, perhaps). Now, if I happen to worship some evil deity and can gain something by sacrificing this random person to that deity, and I can figure out how to get them to my sacrificial altar for the ceremony without being caught? Sure. My evil priest/whatever would wrangle to do that. But just slitting his throat on the side of the road? What's the benefit to that?

As I said before, your threshold for evil is a lot lower than mine, and most of what you consider evil I consider neutral.

Personally I think the idea of stealing money to buy medicine is more an issue of lawful vs. chaotic than good vs. evil, its almost a classic Robin Hood situation.


As for why you would kill someone instead of just robbing them; its safer and easier. They can't decide to fight back, they can't come back for revenge, they can't alert the authorities, and if you are a necromancer or cultist the body itself is a valuable commodity.

[NichG]

That is not correct. The old adage about evil prospering when good men do nothing does not cast good men as evil, but as not doing what they ought to. (which is to resist evil actively). The form of that argument is "but you Should do this...." and should is subjective.

It wasn't an argument from aphorism.

Take a character with lots of power. Make them simply not care about the consequences of their usage of power on others - not actively wish harm, but simply not consider harm to others as anything whose avoidance has any inherent value. An excess of harm relative to benefit to others will invariably result from such a person just going around and making day to day decisions, even if there is no active malice at play. Just like sticking your arm in the works of rapidly moving heavy industrial machinery may lead to you being seriously injured or not harmed at all, but its never going to result in you spontaneously getting your arm healed or strengthened or any other beneficial side-effect.

That particular character may land in different spots in different moral philosophies, but practically speaking they're not someone you want to exist in a society with you unless you're somehow registering as important to them.

[animorte]

Each alignment block could have a reason to kill the traveler and steal their things. At first glance, it seems fairly simple, but at any point in time there could be other contributing factors.

[Quertus]

Normally, goals are more or less synonymous with alignment and boil down to thinks like protect the innocent or crush all who oppose me.

Just gonna poke at this for the moment, and say that both are just shadows of the real concept of “personality”. A Character should have a personality, but that’s difficult to describe. But a quick way to sum up a few important concepts, like a character’s drives and methods can be helpful to 80/20 party cohesion.


Can you please give some examples of such goals?

Getting players to come up with goals is super hard in my experience.

“Swing an axe to protect people”, “use magic to bring joy to the world”, “post on the Playground to stave off ennui”, “hack to make money”, “steal from the rich and give to the poor to destabilize the unjust government”, “Animate the dead to take over the world”, “copy and improve the toys of others to have the most fun”, “slay the gods to set right what’s wrong with the world”, “act as scout to protect others from truths that would destroy them”. If the character has a personality, it’s really not that hard to answer in a general sense what they do, and why. These simple statements serve as conversation starters, a skeletal framework off which to build a cohesive whole, the party.

So, based on their stated goals/motivations and methods, which of these characters could you stand behind their goals, act as though they were your own? How will your methods facilitate those goals? Which of these methods are compatible with your own goals? Come to the table understanding your character well enough to answer those questions, and with every tool in your toolkit to make the party work.

[gbaji]

As I said before, your threshold for evil is a lot lower than mine, and most of what you consider evil I consider neutral.

I gave very specific criteria for where the range of good/neutral/evil lies. Can you do the same?

I get that you do view those actions as neutral, but why? To me, evil is about selfishness. If one causes harm to others (and yes, theft is harm) purely for one's own benefit, that is evil. If one causes harm to others, but not purely for their own benefit (possible benefit to others, or some "greater good"), then are probably neutral. If one causes harm only when absolutely necessary and then only for some very significant greater good, and only when those being harmed clearly deserve it, you are probably good.

It's about a sliding scale of harm/help with some modifications based on selfish/selfless motivations. And using that scale and methodlogy a lot more people fall into the "evil" alignment than just crazed killers who run around doing nothing but killing people randomly for fun. Again, if that's the requirement to be evil, then literally no one in the OotS strip is actually evil except for Xykon (and early Belkar).


Personally I think the idea of stealing money to buy medicine is more an issue of lawful vs. chaotic than good vs. evil, its almost a classic Robin Hood situation.

At the risk of getting drawn into yet another alignment thread...

Yeah. I disagree 100% You are confusing law/chaos with good/evil. I suspect because in modern societies most evil acts are illegal, and if they are illegal, then they are "against the law", which I guess makes them chaotic or something. That's not correct though.

The law/chaos axis is about methodology, not objective or the outcome of one's actions. Law is about organization and planning. Chaos is about randomness and disorganized acts. Robin Hood is not chaotic because he breaks the law while engaged in his crime. He may be chaotic if he does things in an erratic or carefree manner maybe? What makes him good or evil is *why* he does things, not how. If he's causing harm (theft) only when necessary, and for a greater good, and only to those who really deserve it, he may be good. If he's doing it to pretty much anyone, and mostly for a greater good, but maybe also to help him build his power base in the forest, maybe he's neutral. Note, that both good and neutral still avoid killing people as much as possible. If he's stealing from anyone, just to fill his pockets and gain power, and he doesn't really care about the Sherrif (except maybe he's in the way of his own power ambitions), and doesn't care at all if people die during his attacks? That makes him evil.

Again. Nothing to do with law/chaos there.

Redcloak is LE. He's evil because he has no qualms about causing harm, including death, to other people for his own purposes and benefits (although, I suppose he's is also working towards a "greater good" in his own mind as well though, so whatever). The point is that he doesn't avoid causing harm to others just because "harm is bad". He's perfectly ok with killing people to achieve his ends. That makes him "evil". He's lawful because he does things in an organized manner. He has color coded battle plans draw up, and continues his torture session because he already has it penciled into his schedule, in ink.

Xykon is CE. He's evil for the same reasons Redcloak is. He's chaos because unlike Redcloak, he will cause harm (including death) just because he feels like it. There is no greater plan involved. He regularly does things in non-productive or even counterproductive ways, just because it's more amusing to him. That's chaos.


As for why you would kill someone instead of just robbing them; its safer and easier. They can't decide to fight back, they can't come back for revenge, they can't alert the authorities, and if you are a necromancer or cultist the body itself is a valuable commodity.

Sure. If you actualy live in murderhoboworld where kiling someone makes it less likely to suffer consequences then just stealing from them, then yes, anyone "evil" would kill the person instead of just stealing from them. Maybe design your game settings to be a bit more realistic, and this will be different though. In most settings, an evil person will (should) avoid actions that will draw attention from the law or adventuring parties seeking revenge or bounty, and thus will avoid things like capital crimes unless they really have to.

Again. What makes them "evil", isn't whether they will kill or not, but whether that decision is most heavily based on them feeling bad about killing, or whether it's more of a utilitarian decision. Changing the setting to make killing be the utilitarian answer somewhat avoids the distinction I'm making here. Again. it's about whether killing is purely based on a utilitarian choice that makes one evil.

And most of the time, that should not result in all evil people killing everyone they meet. It's normally not the practical decision to make. And how about if we not add in additional variables, like "I'm a necromancer and want parts" or something. You're just a person wanding by, and there's a sleeping traveller. I still maintain that if you rob them, but do not kill them, that is still an evil act, if your reason for robbing them was purely selfish (he has something and I want it). It only becomes anything other than evil if we add additional conditions that may make the theft necessary for some other good or need that is present there.

I find it odd that you don't think stealing just because you want someone else's stuff isn't evil.

[Talakeal]

I gave very specific criteria for where the range of good/neutral/evil lies. Can you do the same?

I get that you do view those actions as neutral, but why? To me, evil is about selfishness. If one causes harm to others (and yes, theft is harm) purely for one's own benefit, that is evil. If one causes harm to others, but not purely for their own benefit (possible benefit to others, or some "greater good"), then are probably neutral. If one causes harm only when absolutely necessary and then only for some very significant greater good, and only when those being harmed clearly deserve it, you are probably good.

It's about a sliding scale of harm/help with some modifications based on selfish/selfless motivations. And using that scale and methodlogy a lot more people fall into the "evil" alignment than just crazed killers who run around doing nothing but killing people randomly for fun. Again, if that's the requirement to be evil, then literally no one in the OotS strip is actually evil except for Xykon (and early Belkar).

At the risk of getting drawn into yet another alignment thread...

Yeah. I disagree 100% You are confusing law/chaos with good/evil. I suspect because in modern societies most evil acts are illegal, and if they are illegal, then they are "against the law", which I guess makes them chaotic or something. That's not correct though.

The law/chaos axis is about methodology, not objective or the outcome of one's actions. Law is about organization and planning. Chaos is about randomness and disorganized acts. Robin Hood is not chaotic because he breaks the law while engaged in his crime. He may be chaotic if he does things in an erratic or carefree manner maybe? What makes him good or evil is *why* he does things, not how. If he's causing harm (theft) only when necessary, and for a greater good, and only to those who really deserve it, he may be good. If he's doing it to pretty much anyone, and mostly for a greater good, but maybe also to help him build his power base in the forest, maybe he's neutral. Note, that both good and neutral still avoid killing people as much as possible. If he's stealing from anyone, just to fill his pockets and gain power, and he doesn't really care about the Sherrif (except maybe he's in the way of his own power ambitions), and doesn't care at all if people die during his attacks? That makes him evil.

Again. Nothing to do with law/chaos there.

Redcloak is LE. He's evil because he has no qualms about causing harm, including death, to other people for his own purposes and benefits (although, I suppose he's is also working towards a "greater good" in his own mind as well though, so whatever). The point is that he doesn't avoid causing harm to others just because "harm is bad". He's perfectly ok with killing people to achieve his ends. That makes him "evil". He's lawful because he does things in an organized manner. He has color coded battle plans draw up, and continues his torture session because he already has it penciled into his schedule, in ink.

Xykon is CE. He's evil for the same reasons Redcloak is. He's chaos because unlike Redcloak, he will cause harm (including death) just because he feels like it. There is no greater plan involved. He regularly does things in non-productive or even counterproductive ways, just because it's more amusing to him. That's chaos.

It's impossible to have a comprehensive guide to morality in a forum post, but I will try and be brief.

In my opinion, good and evil is about how causing or alleviating suffering.

The desire to alleviate suffering is good. The desire to cause suffering is evil.

You then balance it with one's own needs.

In my game system, I label morality as:
Martys who will sacrifice their own needs to alleviate suffering.
Alrtuits who try and alleviate suffering but put their own needs first.
Indifferent folk who don't care about causing or alleviating suffering.
Mercenaries who try and alleviate suffering, but put their own needs first and will cause suffering if the reward is big enough.
Villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their own goals.
Sadists who enjoy causing suffering but will put their own needs first.
And diabolical folk who will sacrifice their own needs out to hurt others.

IMO, the first two are good, the middle two are neutral, and the last three are evil. BUT of course their is the matter of scale, and a mercenary could conceivably fall to evil pretty easilly. Its mostly about having limits and balancing out harm with good intentions.

And of course, then we get into issues of different people counting for different amounts, friends and family vs stranger, in group vs. out group, different species, etc. but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

So yeah, stealing by itself is not necessarily evil IF you do it with the goal of alleviating more suffering than you cause; stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or stealing food and medicine. Heck, I would argue that stealing out of necessity isn't evil either, even if you are the one benefiting. I don't see anything wrong with someone who is starving stealing food from someone who is well off, and even the act of stealing from someone else who is starving is something I would have trouble labelling as evil, even though it is certainly not good.

IMO law and chaos is more about being willing to break the rules. These might be laws, but they might also be religious prohibitions, codes of honor, or even the rules of a game. Lying, cheating, and stealing are not necessarily evil, they are chaotic, and they can easily be good actions if they alleviate more suffering than they cause. For the record, I also put necromancy and other forms of "black magic" into this category, despite D&D labelling them "objectively evil" but I am not sure if that discussion is really relevant to the topic at hand or how far we can go into it without devolving into religious discussions not appropriate for this board.


Sure. If you actually live in murderhoboworld where killing someone makes it less likely to suffer consequences then just stealing from them, then yes, anyone "evil" would kill the person instead of just stealing from them. Maybe design your game settings to be a bit more realistic, and this will be different though. In most settings, an evil person will (should) avoid actions that will draw attention from the law or adventuring parties seeking revenge or bounty, and thus will avoid things like capital crimes unless they really have to.

Is it really unrealistic?

The idea of large nation states is a pretty modern one. Most fantasy games take place on the frontiers in a world that, imo, most closely resembles bronze age city states.

The idea that if two travelers meet in the middle of the wilderness and one of them murders the other that it will face any sort of organized retribution from the powers that be strains my credulity.

Honestly, I would probably think that in a situation like that the GM was trying to ham-fistedly punish us unless the other person was really important.

But yeah, for the purposes of my definition coming into this thread I am putting utilitarian murder as the threshold for evil, with rape, torture, slavery, and war crimes that are likely to cause lots of collateral damage beyond it.


I find it odd that you don't think stealing just because you want someone else's stuff isn't evil.

Yeah, I can see that.

But pop culture seems to think that the "scoundrel" archetype is more of a CN sort. Cat Woman, Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, etc. are typically listed as neutral, and they frequently engage in larcenous acts for purely selfish reasons. More strait-laced hero types typically have no problems working alongside them, the same is not true for out and out villains.

And no, I really don't have a problem with letting people play them alongside an otherwise heroic party.


Just gonna poke at this for the moment, and say that both are just shadows of the real concept of “personality”. A Character should have a personality, but that’s difficult to describe. But a quick way to sum up a few important concepts, like a character’s drives and methods can be helpful to 80/20 party cohesion.



“Swing an axe to protect people”, “use magic to bring joy to the world”, “post on the Playground to stave off ennui”, “hack to make money”, “steal from the rich and give to the poor to destabilize the unjust government”, “Animate the dead to take over the world”, “copy and improve the toys of others to have the most fun”, “slay the gods to set right what’s wrong with the world”, “act as scout to protect others from truths that would destroy them”. If the character has a personality, it’s really not that hard to answer in a general sense what they do, and why. These simple statements serve as conversation starters, a skeletal framework off which to build a cohesive whole, the party.

So, based on their stated goals/motivations and methods, which of these characters could you stand behind their goals, act as though they were your own? How will your methods facilitate those goals? Which of these methods are compatible with your own goals? Come to the table understanding your character well enough to answer those questions, and with every tool in your toolkit to make the party work.

Woah.

The idea that coming to the table with a fleshed out personality is a good way to AVOID conflicts with the rest of the group is imo, completely ass backwards.

[Satinavian]

Most of these examples I see people using are just neutral, not actually what I would consider evil.
Well, if you actually feel that way, you should not play any evil characters under a GM who only allows not crazy evil.

Simple, isn't it ?


There is not really much need to debate who has he right idea of what evil means. Instead you should try to understand what your GM meant with this restriction and follow it. And as most others in this thread seem to not disagree with those examples for "not crazy evil", there is probably a good chance that the GM had something similar in mind.

If you really want to make sure, ask your GM about examples for "not crazy evil" and use those as guideline.


Is it really unrealistic?

The idea of large nation states is a pretty modern one. Most fantasy games take place on the frontiers in a world that, imo, most closely resembles bronze age city states.

The idea that if two travelers meet in the middle of the wilderness and one of them murders the other that it will face any sort of organized retribution from the powers that be strains my credulity.
I very much disagree with "most fantasy games" here. While (culturally) bronze age city states is somewhat popular, it is still somewhat niche, at least outside of Sword&Sorcery.

But even if it was such a setting, people have family and clans and elaborate traditions about retaliation and revenge. Additionally those in power are expected to protect their subjects and possibly retaliate for them. Not having a powerful nation state does not mean crimes goes unpunished. It mostly only means you can forget about the idea of fair trials.

Sure, would they find you if you murder a stranger in the wilderness ? Questionable. But not really harder than finding you if you were just a thief. You still have stolen the belongings which would be the traditional trace. And if magic is in the setting, especially divination, it could be deployed as well.

The main difference is that the resources a clan will invest to hunt a thief will always be negligible compared to those for avenging an additional murder.

And bronze age blood feuds also tend to make your family acceptable targets if people don't find you. (Though some bronze age law codes tried to limit it to the perpetrator).

[Talakeal]

Well, if you actually feel that way, you should not play any evil characters under a GM who only allows not crazy evil.

Simple, isn't it ?

There is not really much need to debate who has the right idea of what evil means. Instead you should try to understand what your GM meant with this restriction and follow it. And as most others in this thread seem to not disagree with those examples for "not crazy evil", there is probably a good chance that the GM had something similar in mind.

If you really want to make sure, ask your GM about examples for "not crazy evil" and use those as guideline.

No. Because that is no fun for me.

That means that while everyone else in the party gets to play a hero or a villain, I am limited to playing a milquetoast wall-flower who goes along with the group rather than actually taking any initiative or having goals of my own.


Also, you seem to be mixing up the crazy part and the evil part. I am saying that the above examples of smugglers and scoundrels are more CN than outright evil. I didn't say anything about the list of evil people who aren't crazy, mostly because I am not terribly familiar with them and would need to do more research, although I suspect most of them would certainly qualify for a cluster B personality disorder.

[Batcathat]

That means that while everyone else in the party gets to play a hero or a villain, I am limited to playing a milquetoast wall-flower who goes along with the group rather than actually taking any initiative or having goals of my own.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how are "play crazy evil" and "play milquetoast wall-flower" the only options?

[Talakeal]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how are "play crazy evil" and "play milquetoast wall-flower" the only options?

Well, I have trouble imagining someone who is actually evil but doesn't suffer from some sort of mental illness.

And the rest of the party is evil. Actual, capital E evil, at a minimum of not having seconds thoughts about utilitarian murder.

Trying to play a "good" character in such a situation is just not going to happen, a good person is not going to travel with and assist evil people.

If I am barred from playing evil myself, the best I can hope for is to play a neutral character who lacks conviction and goes along with their evil plans rather than actually taking initiative and coming up with plans of my own.

I suppose it might be possible to play some sort of mastermind who manipulates and directs them into doing what I want, maybe like some sort of Amanda Waller type, but that's not really a character or group dynamic I think anyone is really interested in.

[Satinavian]

No. Because that is no fun for me.

That means that while everyone else in the party gets to play a hero or a villain, I am limited to playing a milquetoast wall-flower who goes along with the group rather than actually taking any initiative or having goals of my own.If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as villains (not milquetoast) that the GM thinks are ok, why can't you ?

If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as heroes (not milquetoast) that can coexist with said villains, why can't you ?

If it basically boils down to "You can't imagine characters that are not disruptive and against the GMs wishes and still not boring to play", well, you shouldn't play in this group.


Also, you seem to be mixing up the crazy part and the evil part. I am saying that the above examples of smugglers and scoundrels are more CN than outright evil. I didn't say anything about the list of evil people who aren't crazy, mostly because I am not terribly familiar with them and would need to do more research, although I suspect most of them would certainly qualify for a cluster B personality disorder.Only a really small minority of examples from me or King of Nowhere or gbaji fit the "smugglers and scoundrels" category. How glorified by pop culture or actually evil those are is not really important here.

Neither is important whether you think you can find some disorder they might have (which is generally futile with fictional characters anyway).

Again, only important is that you try to understand what your GM means with evil not crazy and follow this intent. All the rules lawyering about "evil" and questioning of "crazy" is utterly unnecessary unless you eventually plan to argue with your GM about your character fitting those criteria or not. If you are preparing for such an argument you already are set on not following your GMs intent. Don't do that.

If you are really uncertain, ask your GM for clarification. Don't stay intentionally uncertain to later use it as a shield in the way of "I really didn't understand what you meant".




Originally you opened the thread to ask if others have similar problems to you. The overwhelming majority says they don't.

[Batcathat]

Trying to play a "good" character in such a situation is just not going to happen, a good person is not going to travel with and assist evil people.

If I am barred from playing evil myself, the best I can hope for is to play a neutral character who lacks conviction and goes along with their evil plans rather than actually taking initiative and coming up with plans of my own.

At this point I'm probably just repeating myself, but I don't understand why your character – whether good, neutral or just a different flavour of evil – would just default to going along with whatever the party was doing.

[Satinavian]

Most people who play RPGs want to go beyond being just good, they want to be a hero, and part of being a hero is protecting the innocent and stopping evil-doers. I am really struggling to imagine how the goals of a hero and an evil doer don't come head-to-head if they are in the same party.
And after many hints about how to play group compatible evil characters, an advice about good characters, even heroes :

Make them about protecting innocents, but not about punishing evildoers. There will be many more groups they will fit in and they will be no less heroic for it. And "not hurting innocents" is something most evil characters can accept as a price to get a powerfull ally.

[Ignimortis]

I have several groups I play with, and with one of them, I am pretty much always stuck playing the good guy (or at least a neutral guy who isn't willing to do a lot of things). For instance, my current party includes:
1) Amoral and self-serving alchemist who has no qualms about capturing souls or dissolving enemy brains to learn what they know, further broken by several key actors in her life forcing her to eschew morality.
2) A previously good divine descendant who, over time, has fallen so deep into hubris and self-aggrandizement as to believe herself to be above any laws and morals of the mortals. Has recently killed and brought back a person just to show them fear of death.
3) An eldritch researcher obsessed with the setting's equivalent of Far Planes to the extent he's half-ooze and his summons are all aberrations. Generally jovial and genial, but has no moral boundaries to speak of.

So they do not cause suffering just to make people suffer, but they also do not restrict themselves from it. Let's just say that my plans to play a Neutral character have only worked to the extent that I can't always find a way to resolve situations with as little "evil" as possible. So I have to go along with some things that I can't provide a less gruesome alternative to.

I'm not sure I've ever played in a "good" campaign. Even the one that ended the most heroically was, at several points, hinging on me butting in and going "no, we are not going to make a deal with mindflayers, whatever they promise in exchange for feeding on the city above" and attacking, or making sure that the divine power we obtained wasn't used solely on selfish stuff (I spent my part on throwing evil outsiders out of the world and sealing the easiest way for them to come in, three other party members became demigods (two became god-kings, one lost it all by being really dumb), one more got his part stolen by a dubious artefact he made a deal with). It's always been more of a "alliance of necessity and some mutual respect" rather than "Fellowship of the Ring".

So you can play a Good character with an Evil party, but it takes doing (both to remain Good and to actually achieve something) - and maybe party members not being high-note Evil and more utilitarian Evil? Not sure how playing a single Evil character in a Good party would go.

[Theoboldi]

You mean like have the Terran mirror universe emporer as part of the crew in ST: Discovery, which is exactly what they did ? Or putting a spy/assassin, a terrorist and a greedy and abusive barkeeper into DS9s main cast ?


Ah. But those characters didn't randomly kill puppies and torture people, so they weren't actually "evil". I guess... ?

I was about to clarify myself and describe why I gave the example that I did, but I will not talk to people who respond to me attempting to explain my opinions in good faith with such pompous, passive-aggressive mockery.

Nothing I have said calls for that kind of response. Genuinely am disappointed in the kind of behavior I'm seeing here.

[Mastikator]

So you can play a Good character with an Evil party, but it takes doing (both to remain Good and to actually achieve something) - and maybe party members not being high-note Evil and more utilitarian Evil? Not sure how playing a single Evil character in a Good party would go.

Pragmatic evil can easily survive in an all good party, considering an all good party's goals are often compatible with an evil character. Power and wealth and all that.A pragmatic evil character will always insist on getting paid, never show mercy, never forgive betrayal, often suggest unsavory methods. I think it's the "often suggest unsavory methods" that may nag the good party, and constant shut downs may frustrate the evil character. But none of that is nearly as bad as a good character tolerating an evil party doing evil stuff, especially unnecessarily evil stuff.

Chaotic evil characters however do not jive with an all or mostly good party, they do bad things without permission which often ends up not only irritating the players but also sabotage their quest. (which is why I don't like to mix good and evil party members and make evil characters if any other player makes an evil character, on paper or in practice)

[Satinavian]

I was about to clarify myself and describe why I gave the example that I did, but I will not talk to people who respond to me attempting to explain my opinions in good faith with such pompous, passive-aggressive mockery.

Nothing I have said calls for that kind of response. Genuinely am disappointed in the kind of behavior I'm seeing here.
I certainly did not mean it as mockery, but tone transmit badly and i appologize if i hurt you.

[King of Nowhere]

It's impossible to have a comprehensive guide to morality in a forum post, but I will try and be brief.

In my opinion, good and evil is about how causing or alleviating suffering.

The desire to alleviate suffering is good. The desire to cause suffering is evil.

You then balance it with one's own needs.

In my game system, I label morality as:
Martys who will sacrifice their own needs to alleviate suffering.
Alrtuits who try and alleviate suffering but put their own needs first.
Indifferent folk who don't care about causing or alleviating suffering.
Mercenaries who try and alleviate suffering, but put their own needs first and will cause suffering if the reward is big enough.
Villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their own goals.
Sadists who enjoy causing suffering but will put their own needs first.
And diabolical folk who will sacrifice their own needs out to hurt others.

IMO, the first two are good, the middle two are neutral, and the last three are evil. BUT of course their is the matter of scale, and a mercenary could conceivably fall to evil pretty easilly. Its mostly about having limits and balancing out harm with good intentions.


you are contradicting yourself.
first you say that the desire to cause suffering is evil.
then you say that "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" are evil.
those villains do not desire to cause suffering, they do as part of their goals. heck, even the guy murdering a traveler in the wood and stealing his stuff is doing what he's doing for simple utilitarian purposes, with no desire to cause suffering.

anyway, that definition of "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" is exactly the kind of evil that works well in a party with good people.
and sure, they must restrain themselves a bit, because a paladin will certainly not condone murder for theft. but think of the pros and cons: is it really worth to kill a random stranger in the forest to steal his stuff? how much riches can he really have, anyway? (and if he has many riches, chances are he can defend himself and potentially kill you). and while the chances of you being discovered are, as you pointed out, rather low, it's still not impossible. especially in a world with divination magic.
so you are potentially incurring the risk of angering a clan for a very meager gain that you don't need. bad deal.
on the other hand, by not killing people to steal their stuff - or, rather, by killing only the bad people that the rest of society wants you to kill, and only steal their stuff - you can be friend with the paladin. it means you have someone trustworthy and dependable to watch your back. you don't need to worry about him pilfering part of your loot. you don't have to worry about him knifing you in the night and running away with your loot. having a heroic reputation means you can ask help and trade favors. even in a brozne age society with little organization, being owed favors is always useful.
on the other hand, the paladin - if he's not played like miko - may well comprimise a bit himself. you are useful. you solve problems. and you're doing a lot less evil by adventuring with him than you'd be doing otherwise, so he's actually trying to redeem an evildoer. as long as you don't cross certain lines. murder for futile reasons? big no. stealing stuff that's needed for the plot? well, he may refrain to ask you how you got it. torturing prisoners? his code obliges him to stop you, but right now he's taken a toilet break, if you don't hurt those guys too much and you get him informations that save lives, the paladin may let it slide.

if that's not evil enough for you - wait, I'm not sure, didn't you say you wanted to play a hero? so you can only play a hero or a total psyco? if those are the only options, and neither are viable, I suggest you either comprimise a bit on what you want to play, or look for another game. No hurt feelings, creative differences happen.


But pop culture seems to think that the "scoundrel" archetype is more of a CN sort. Cat Woman, Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, etc. are typically listed as neutral, and they frequently engage in larcenous acts for purely selfish reasons. More strait-laced hero types typically have no problems working alongside them, the same is not true for out and out villains.
unsurprisingly, pop culture is quite inconsistent. sure, those characters are supposed to be thieves, but I don't remember having ever seen them actually steal anything on screen, except perhaps to the main villains. AND they oppose an evil much greater than themselves.
Han solo is smuggling stuff and evading fees, but those fees would be paid to the evil empire who would use them to fund more warships to crush the freedom fighters. If han solo lived in a normal place and we'd see the story of a single mother with a disabled child whose social security fund is reduced because smugglers evading taxes have caused a financial collapse in the state's finances - and then she loses her job because someone who evades taxes is undercutting her honest business - then the moral judgment of han solo would be very different.
similarly, jack sparrow is supposed to be a pirate, but i've never seen him actually assault a ship of honest merchants, kill those who resist, take away all goods. Nor have I ever seen people starving because some pirate took their stuff. no, the poor people are poor because of the injust taxes of the evil government, and the scoundrel only steals from the government. it works because the government is a greater evil.

[Quertus]

Well, if you actually feel that way, you should not play any evil characters under a GM who only allows not crazy evil.

Simple, isn't it ?


If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as villains (not milquetoast) that the GM thinks are ok, why can't you ?

If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as heroes (not milquetoast) that can coexist with said villains, why can't you ?

If it basically boils down to "You can't imagine characters that are not disruptive and against the GMs wishes and still not boring to play", well, you shouldn't play in this group.


Again, only important is that you try to understand what your GM means with evil not crazy and follow this intent. All the rules lawyering about "evil" and questioning of "crazy" is utterly unnecessary unless you eventually plan to argue with your GM about your character fitting those criteria or not. If you are preparing for such an argument you already are set on not following your GMs intent. Don't do that.

If you are really uncertain, ask your GM for clarification. Don't stay intentionally uncertain to later use it as a shield in the way of "I really didn't understand what you meant".


And after many hints about how to play group compatible evil characters, an advice about good characters, even heroes :

Make them about protecting innocents, but not about punishing evildoers. There will be many more groups they will fit in and they will be no less heroic for it. And "not hurting innocents" is something most evil characters can accept as a price to get a powerfull ally.

Nail? Head? Hit it, you have.


In my opinion, good and evil is about how causing or alleviating suffering.

The desire to alleviate suffering is good. The desire to cause suffering is evil.

So my Paladin has a genocidal quest to kill all life, and Animate it as Undead, to end all suffering, as the pinnacle of Exalted Good.

I like.


Woah.

The idea that coming to the table with a fleshed out personality is a good way to AVOID conflicts with the rest of the group is imo, completely ass backwards.

You’ve dodged the question. Let me try again.

You’ve been playing your character for a while now. Hopefully they have a personality, no?

Now, imagine I show up at your (GM’s) doorstep, and join your game in progress. I present a list of potential characters, and described them via this “goals and methods” model.

For reference, that list was… “Swing an axe to protect people”, “use magic to bring joy to the world”, “post on the Playground to stave off ennui”, “hack to make money”, “steal from the rich and give to the poor to destabilize the unjust government”, “Animate the dead to take over the world”, “copy and improve the toys of others to have the most fun”, “slay the gods to set right what’s wrong with the world”, “act as scout to protect others from truths that would destroy them”. And I’ll add, “slay all living beings to end all suffering”.

(Yes, obviously, one or two of those would be in trouble if this was their first experience with a fantasy world, and should have more relevant motivation given, like “upgrade this backwater with construct-based labor”.)

How would your character react to having such individuals in the party? What would you say wrt my proposed list of potential characters? That was the question I put to you, to give you experience with this model, and thereby let you see how it works.

As for that feeling backwards - do you think it somehow better for party cohesion for me to join your game and play a “mystery box” that neither of us knows how it will turn out? :smallconfused:


Well, I have trouble imagining someone who is actually evil but doesn't suffer from some sort of mental illness.

And the rest of the party is evil. Actual, capital E evil, at a minimum of not having seconds thoughts about utilitarian murder.

Trying to play a "good" character in such a situation is just not going to happen, a good person is not going to travel with and assist evil people.

If I am barred from playing evil myself, the best I can hope for is to play a neutral character who lacks conviction and goes along with their evil plans rather than actually taking initiative and coming up with plans of my own.

I suppose it might be possible to play some sort of mastermind who manipulates and directs them into doing what I want, maybe like some sort of Amanda Waller type, but that's not really a character or group dynamic I think anyone is really interested in.

My experiences with Amanda Waller suggest that she is about the *last* person one should use as a model for “party cohesion”. She seems better suited to the role of “antagonist it feels so satisfying to kill”, IMO.

That said, if you struggle to conceptualize characters outside the set [insane (“evil”), milksop (“neutral”), actively desires to harm and oppose others (“good”)], then I can see why you’re having problems making a character that works well with others without being a milksop.

So… play milksops while observing the characters others play that actually work with one another without being milksops? Continue playing milksops until you think you know how such personalities work… then test one or more or in one-shots? And maybe drop your words like “good”, “evil”, and “insane”, and instead just look at how people like authors define and describe personality while you’re at it?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For my group this dilemma was kind of solved by playing Curse of Strahd. We had express permission to be evil because that could work in this campaign, but I only found out after a character died that he was in fact supposed to be evil. When everything around you eats babies for breakfast you don't really have a choice but to fight it all.

That said, we are a group of mostly newerish players and we do metagame a bit in the sense that we want the adventure to move forward and will try to play our characters in such a way that they can make the story work. I'm sure more creative and/or less restricted players could still have found plenty of ways to be evil torturing cannibals terrorizing the realm, even with exactly the same DM and house rules.

I might have been closer on the money than I figured with this post. We've been out of Barovia for seven sessions now, and during this week's session I actually found myself contemplating what I could build as an evil character for our evil party if the necromancer was really going to try and kill that nice local librarian/healer/power-druid that she herself had started picking a fight with. This is not the player that originally tried to play an evil character, and the necromancer being a necromancer doesn't actually make her that much more wicked than previous "incarnations". The DM had this one covered though. The best part is I (through some bad rolls, some dumb luck and not being overly paranoid) got to sort of cause this week's clash with the druid. I laughed a lot this session.

[gbaji]

Well, I have trouble imagining someone who is actually evil but doesn't suffer from some sort of mental illness.

This might be the root of your problem. I think you need to expand the range of what you define as evil, to include people who are not insane, and who act in an otherwise rational manner, but simply have a moral compass that says "it's ok to cause harm to others as long as it benefits me", when most people would put much higher threshholds on when harm is ok than that.

You don't have to be a psychopath to be evil. And I honestly think the easiest measurement is the theft scenario. If you would only steal from someone if there is some other "cause" that benefits from it and justifies it, then you aren't evil. If you're willing to steal just because the other person has something and you want it for yourself? That's evil. If that's the type of morality you express regularly, then your alignment is evil. Whether you kill the person or not is beside the point. Just the theft decision alone is enough to qualify.



I was about to clarify myself and describe why I gave the example that I did, but I will not talk to people who respond to me attempting to explain my opinions in good faith with such pompous, passive-aggressive mockery.

Nothing I have said calls for that kind of response. Genuinely am disappointed in the kind of behavior I'm seeing here.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my comment. It was not meant that way. Just the shortest, pithiest way to respond. Sure, a little snarky, but it got the point across. I was presented with what I saw as a massive gap in the range of what could be evil, and pointed it out. And yeah, after already saying in more words and more politely "hey, it's possible to be evil without randomly killing people for no reason" several times, I'm going to try a different tactic at some point.


unsurprisingly, pop culture is quite inconsistent. sure, those characters are supposed to be thieves, but I don't remember having ever seen them actually steal anything on screen, except perhaps to the main villains. AND they oppose an evil much greater than themselves.
Han solo is smuggling stuff and evading fees, but those fees would be paid to the evil empire who would use them to fund more warships to crush the freedom fighters. If han solo lived in a normal place and we'd see the story of a single mother with a disabled child whose social security fund is reduced because smugglers evading taxes have caused a financial collapse in the state's finances - and then she loses her job because someone who evades taxes is undercutting her honest business - then the moral judgment of han solo would be very different.
similarly, jack sparrow is supposed to be a pirate, but i've never seen him actually assault a ship of honest merchants, kill those who resist, take away all goods. Nor have I ever seen people starving because some pirate took their stuff. no, the poor people are poor because of the injust taxes of the evil government, and the scoundrel only steals from the government. it works because the government is a greater evil.


And I think this might be where some of the confusion/hesitancy lies. We have a lot of characters in popular stories that are "heroes" in the minds of the audience, but who do engage in questionable/illegal behavior, if not on screen, then as part of their backstory. And this causes a problem when we try to consider something like alignments in a game in any sort of objective fashion because it causes us discomfort to realize that some of these hero/protagonists in stories we love maybe really weren't such great people if slotted into an objective alignment format, so instead of adjusting our perception of those characters (cause heaven forbid!), we instead make adjustments and carve outs in the alignment system itself.

Which leads us to a mess. We either have to conclude that pirates and smugglers are evil people due to the selfish nature of the harm they cause in their work unless they are funny roguish rapscallions with a personality we like, and a cool gun belt or something *or* we have to decide that smuggling, piracy, theft, etc just isn't "bad enough" to quality as evil in the alignment system. And I suspect it's the latter concept that has lead to "nothing but unrepentant murderers are actually evil" position in this thread.

[NichG]

This might be the root of your problem. I think you need to expand the range of what you define as evil, to include people who are not insane, and who act in an otherwise rational manner, but simply have a moral compass that says "it's ok to cause harm to others as long as it benefits me", when most people would put much higher threshholds on when harm is ok than that.

You don't have to be a psychopath to be evil. And I honestly think the easiest measurement is the theft scenario. If you would only steal from someone if there is some other "cause" that benefits from it and justifies it, then you aren't evil. If you're willing to steal just because the other person has something and you want it for yourself? That's evil. If that's the type of morality you express regularly, then your alignment is evil. Whether you kill the person or not is beside the point. Just the theft decision alone is enough to qualify.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my comment. It was not meant that way. Just the shortest, pithiest way to respond. Sure, a little snarky, but it got the point across. I was presented with what I saw as a massive gap in the range of what could be evil, and pointed it out. And yeah, after already saying in more words and more politely "hey, it's possible to be evil without randomly killing people for no reason" several times, I'm going to try a different tactic at some point.

And I think this might be where some of the confusion/hesitancy lies. We have a lot of characters in popular stories that are "heroes" in the minds of the audience, but who do engage in questionable/illegal behavior, if not on screen, then as part of their backstory. And this causes a problem when we try to consider something like alignments in a game in any sort of objective fashion because it causes us discomfort to realize that some of these hero/protagonists in stories we love maybe really weren't such great people if slotted into an objective alignment format, so instead of adjusting our perception of those characters (cause heaven forbid!), we instead make adjustments and carve outs in the alignment system itself.

Which leads us to a mess. We either have to conclude that pirates and smugglers are evil people due to the selfish nature of the harm they cause in their work unless they are funny roguish rapscallions with a personality we like, and a cool gun belt or something *or* we have to decide that smuggling, piracy, theft, etc just isn't "bad enough" to quality as evil in the alignment system. And I suspect it's the latter concept that has lead to "nothing but unrepentant murderers are actually evil" position in this thread.

Or, you gain the ability to decouple the idea of heroism/villainism (or protagonism/antagonism) from the idea of good vs evil from the idea of obeying/disobeying social mores, and become able to imagine evil heroes, good villains, etc, and to develop nuances in the places where those concepts don't fully align. And even further, separating the idea of 'the type of person society cannot coexist with to mutual benefit' and 'the type of person I/a hero/a good person/etc cannot coexist with to our mutual benefit', and thereby understand better how a complex party could function...

And that's how you get characters like Taylor from Worm or Walter Tye from Never Die Twice or Callum Wells from Paranoid Mage, where different people can legitimately hold different judgments over 'would I want this person to live in my society?', 'could I work with this person?', 'am I rooting for this person to succeed in their plans?', etc.

[Talakeal]

If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as villains (not milquetoast) that the GM thinks are ok, why can't you ?


I did.


If (some of) the other players manage to create PCs you recognize as heroes (not milquetoast) that can coexist with said villains, why can't you ?

They did not.


If it basically boils down to "You can't imagine characters that are not disruptive and against the GMs wishes and still not boring to play", well, you shouldn't play in this group.

I had a character. It was going fine. Then mid-session the GM threw us a curveball and said, "I said evil characters were allowed, but crazy characters are not."

Which retroactively invalidates my character as her PTSD is a big part of her personality and why she is willing to travel with the group.

Bob's character is, IMO, a text-book narcissist and worse. The ogre and the fairy are played as fairly typical of their race, which IMO would be insane by human standards as fairies are chaotic and alien creatures and ogres are sadistic and suffer from extreme eating disorders. The other two are new enough I don't have a grasp on their characters to play armchair psychologist yet.


Only a really small minority of examples from me or King of Nowhere or gbaji fit the "smugglers and scoundrels" category. How glorified by pop culture or actually evil those are is not really important here.

I would say Quark definitely does; he is selfish and motivated by financial gain, but he doesn't actually like it when people get hurt as a result of his schemes, and the few episodes where he gets an opportunity to make money by hurting people he always agonizes over it and makes the right choice in the end.

As for Garak and Phillipa, I think I would label them more as pragmatists. They don't display any real sadism or selfishness, they are just willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Honestly, Phillipa is kind of a bad Terran, as the mirror universe is depicted as utterly self destructive with all the betrayal, to the point where the society shouldn't actually work (much like the FR drow), but she never betrays anyone IIRC.

This is certainly the alignment Bob always plays on the rare occasions when we do an actual heroic good campaign. And, honestly, my character could well fall into this category, although I think she is a bit too emotional for that myself, but I don't think it would actually stop people from complaining OOC about how evil I was when it came to it.


Neither is important whether you think you can find some disorder they might have (which is generally futile with fictional characters anyway).

Again, only important is that you try to understand what your GM means with evil not crazy and follow this intent. All the rules lawyering about "evil" and questioning of "crazy" is utterly unnecessary unless you eventually plan to argue with your GM about your character fitting those criteria or not. If you are preparing for such an argument you already are set on not following your GMs intent. Don't do that.

If you are really uncertain, ask your GM for clarification. Don't stay intentionally uncertain to later use it as a shield in the way of "I really didn't understand what you meant".

The problem is that Brian is pretty hypocritical about morality, and I feel like uses it more as a shield than a rule.

His characters, both PC and NPC, engage in every evil act you can think of; murder, rape, torture, slavery, extortion, biological warfare, cannibalism, violence towards children, black magic, kidnapping, robbery, arson, etc. But periodically when similar tactics are used against his characters (again either PC or NPC) he will get mad and say that he isn't interested in a game with such problematic elements and will X-card the scene or threaten to leave / kick players out of the game.

But yeah, the idea of playing a villain who isn't crazy isn't a logical one; its like asking someone to play a wizard without spells or an elf without pointy ears, it is just an apparent paradox to me.

I might be able to get him to give me a solid definition, but I doubt he actually has one in mind.


Originally you opened the thread to ask if others have similar problems to you. The overwhelming majority says they don't.

It wasn't a problem so much as an observation. And I don't see it as being one sided, especially not overwhelmingly so, as there are a fair number of posters on both sides.


So two things happened in my last gaming session (I will try and be brief).

We came across two poachers on the road transporting drugged baby monsters that they had stolen from their parents and were taking to sell to an arena. They weren't actively hostile. The DM put it in as a sort of moral test. I responded by slipping a slow-acting antidote to the monsters so that they would wake up in the middle of the night, eat the poachers, and escape. This was really bugging me, as they didn't really deserve to die, but at the same time I felt like they needed to be stopped. And then the monsters deserve to be free but might die so far away from their homes and their mother, or they might go on a rampage and cause trouble for innocent people. It felt like a problem with no good solution, and I really wished I had been playing a more stand-up hero character and could have justified actually going to the trouble of finding an equitable solution.
That was what inspired me to make the thread.

Later on, we were attacked by a group of (raiders?). One of them slipped behind our lines, ignored the combat, and attempted to strangle the child I was protecting. When I caught him, I attempted to interrogate him, and the DM said he "passed out from pain". I cast a spell on him that forced him to remain conscious but did not heal his wounds, and tried again. He still remained silent. I threatened to feed him to the ogre. He still remained silent. So I told the ogre to go ahead and eat him. The DM then asked if I was going to dispel the spell first, and I asked why I would waste magic doing that, at which point the DM, aghast at the idea of being eaten while alive and conscious, got mad and came up with the rule that crazy characters are no longer allowed in evil parties.


At this point I'm probably just repeating myself, but I don't understand why your character – whether good, neutral or just a different flavour of evil – would just default to going along with whatever the party was doing.

Because I am trying to avoid OOC conflict.


Make them about protecting innocents, but not about punishing evildoers. There will be many more groups they will fit in and they will be no less heroic for it. And "not hurting innocents" is something most evil characters can accept as a price to get a powerful ally.

Punishing evil doers never crossed my mind.

I was only talking about protecting the innocent.

The problem is, that would include protecting them from your own party, and as I said above, unless they are harming innocents, they are not, imo, an evil party.

And again, this is descriptive vs prescriptive, quibbling about the definition of where the line of evil is doesn't matter, as I am describing parties that I consider evil, regardless of what you might label them.


you are contradicting yourself.
first you say that the desire to cause suffering is evil.
then you say that "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" are evil.
those villains do not desire to cause suffering, they do as part of their goals. heck, even the guy murdering a traveler in the wood and stealing his stuff is doing what he's doing for simple utilitarian purposes, with no desire to cause suffering.


There is no contradiction. I said causing suffering is evil AND so is the desire to cause suffering. I didn't say causing suffering without intent wasn't evil.


anyway, that definition of "villains who care nothing for others and will cause suffering as needed to achieve their goals" is exactly the kind of evil that works well in a party with good people.
and sure, they must restrain themselves a bit, because a paladin will certainly not condone murder for theft. but think of the pros and cons: is it really worth to kill a random stranger in the forest to steal his stuff? how much riches can he really have, anyway? (and if he has many riches, chances are he can defend himself and potentially kill you). and while the chances of you being discovered are, as you pointed out, rather low, it's still not impossible. especially in a world with divination magic.
so you are potentially incurring the risk of angering a clan for a very meager gain that you don't need. bad deal.
on the other hand, by not killing people to steal their stuff - or, rather, by killing only the bad people that the rest of society wants you to kill, and only steal their stuff - you can be friend with the paladin. it means you have someone trustworthy and dependable to watch your back. you don't need to worry about him pilfering part of your loot. you don't have to worry about him knifing you in the night and running away with your loot. having a heroic reputation means you can ask help and trade favors. even in a brozne age society with little organization, being owed favors is always useful.
on the other hand, the paladin - if he's not played like miko - may well comprimise a bit himself. you are useful. you solve problems. and you're doing a lot less evil by adventuring with him than you'd be doing otherwise, so he's actually trying to redeem an evildoer. as long as you don't cross certain lines. murder for futile reasons? big no. stealing stuff that's needed for the plot? well, he may refrain to ask you how you got it. torturing prisoners? his code obliges him to stop you, but right now he's taken a toilet break, if you don't hurt those guys too much and you get him informations that save lives, the paladin may let it slide.

That requires more compromise on both sides than I have ever actually seen work at a table. It is absolutely possible, but IMO the whole thing is a balancing act which is either going to end in conflict (either IC or OOC) or with one side just caving and letting the other do whatever they want.

I don't think anyone in my group is capable of that.


if that's not evil enough for you - wait, I'm not sure, didn't you say you wanted to play a hero? so you can only play a hero or a total pshyco? if those are the only options, and neither are viable, I suggest you either compromise a bit on what you want to play, or look for another game. No hurt feelings, creative differences happen.

Total psycho? No.

But I am not interested in playing a perfectly logical robot who pursues everything efficiently and without emotion.


So my Paladin has a genocidal quest to kill all life, and Animate it as Undead, to end all suffering, as the pinnacle of Exalted Good.

I like.

You have also caused an immense amount of suffering in bringing about your goals, and eliminated any pleasure along with alleviating suffering.

But yes, that is a rationale line of though; its not terribly different from the outlook of the BBEG in my game.


My experiences with Amanda Waller suggest that she is about the *last* person one should use as a model for “party cohesion”. She seems better suited to the role of “antagonist it feels so satisfying to kill”, IMO.

I agree, I was just trying to think of a neutral(ish) character who is able to manipulate a group of actively evil characters to accomplish her own ends and that is the closest I could come up with.


That said, if you struggle to conceptualize characters outside the set [insane (“evil”), milksop (“neutral”), actively desires to harm and oppose others (“good”)], then I can see why you’re having problems making a character that works well with others without being a milksop.

So… play milksops while observing the characters others play that actually work with one another without being milksops? Continue playing milksops until you think you know how such personalities work… then test one or more or in one-shots? And maybe drop your words like “good”, “evil”, and “insane”, and instead just look at how people like authors define and describe personality while you’re at it?

I didn't say neutral had to be a milksop. I said a good or neutral character who was going along with blatantly evil characters is going to be a milksop.

Likewise, I would only say "harm" is part of the definition of good because its a game of action and adventure, and is going to occur regardless of alignment.

But yes, good does oppose evil. And vice versa. Just like law opposes chaos and vice versa.


So… play milksops while observing the characters others play that actually work with one another without being milksops? Continue playing milksops until you think you know how such personalities work… then test one or more or in one-shots? And maybe drop your words like “good”, “evil”, and “insane”, and instead just look at how people like authors define and describe personality while you’re at it?

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I am constantly tying myself in knots trying to keep the party together.

The idea that I could just passively sit back and watch a functional party form is ludicrous.

Based on every time I have tried something similar in the past, the answer is that they will kill one another's characters and then storm out of the house.


This might be the root of your problem. I think you need to expand the range of what you define as evil, to include people who are not insane, and who act in an otherwise rational manner, but simply have a moral compass that says "it's ok to cause harm to others as long as it benefits me", when most people would put much higher threshholds on when harm is ok than that.


To me, that seems to be more or less a textbook sociopath.


You don't have to be a psychopath to be evil. And I honestly think the easiest measurement is the theft scenario. If you would only steal from someone if there is some other "cause" that benefits from it and justifies it, then you aren't evil. If you're willing to steal just because the other person has something and you want it for yourself? That's evil. If that's the type of morality you express regularly, then your alignment is evil. Whether you kill the person or not is beside the point. Just the theft decision alone is enough to qualify.


We aren't going to agree here.

I don't see the concept of ownership as inherently one of morality.

Theft is an issue of law / chaos, not one of good and evil.

If the baker is going to throw out his unsold bread, it is absolutely a good act to steal it and give it to starving orphans IMO.

Not that it really matters, as nobody in my current party is really playing a thief, and I wouldn't care one way or the other if they were.

I am not going to kick someone out of a heroic party for playing a thief, so unless you are suggesting that I should simply play a thief and then use that to justify hanging out with a bunch of murder-rape-cannibals because we are both on team evil, I am not sure how you think that me lowering my bar of evil to include theft is actually going to change anything?



Edit: @Quertus: Yes, I am aware I am dodging your question. Its a toughie and I am still trying to wrap my head around exactly what you meant.

[Batcathat]

Because I am trying to avoid OOC conflict.

I think this is a big part of why most people aren't having the same problem. In most groups an IC conflict won't lead to an OOC conflict so having a good character trying to push an evil party into doing good (or for that matter an evil character trying to push a good party to do evil) isn't much of an issue. It can get old, of course, but that's true of pretty much any character dynamic.

[gbaji]

We came across two poachers on the road transporting drugged baby monsters that they had stolen from their parents and were taking to sell to an arena. They weren't actively hostile. The DM put it in as a sort of moral test. I responded by slipping a slow-acting antidote to the monsters so that they would wake up in the middle of the night, eat the poachers, and escape. This was really bugging me, as they didn't really deserve to die, but at the same time I felt like they needed to be stopped. And then the monsters deserve to be free but might die so far away from their homes and their mother, or they might go on a rampage and cause trouble for innocent people. It felt like a problem with no good solution, and I really wished I had been playing a more stand-up hero character and could have justified actually going to the trouble of finding an equitable solution.
That was what inspired me to make the thread.

Maybe you aren't cut out to play an evil character? This seems exactly like what an evil character (but who is not a crazed killer) would do. You're "helping", but in a way that causes pain and suffering, and maybe some random violence down the line, but hey, all you did was free the monsters, right? Of course, you also could have killed the poachers, then taken the monsters, kept them for yourself, and trained them as pets, or maybe sold them yourself for a profit. That might be even more on the evil side. Kinda depends on how committed you are to dealing with these monsters yourself.


Later on, we were attacked by a group of (raiders?). One of them slipped behind our lines, ignored the combat, and attempted to strangle the child I was protecting. When I caught him, I attempted to interrogate him, and the DM said he "passed out from pain". I cast a spell on him that forced him to remain conscious but did not heal his wounds, and tried again. He still remained silent. I threatened to feed him to the ogre. He still remained silent. So I told the ogre to go ahead and eat him. The DM then asked if I was going to dispel the spell first, and I asked why I would waste magic doing that, at which point the DM, aghast at the idea of being eaten while alive and conscious, got mad and came up with the rule that crazy characters are no longer allowed in evil parties.

I've got a couple questions on this one.

First off. The GM is having an NPC ignore the combat against the opponents his side is fighting (the PCs) in order to strangle a child, but he has a problem with the PCs feeding that guy to an Ogre? Holy cognitive dissonance Batman!

Secondly, the game system you are playing apparently has a spell that ensures people remain conscious even when having taken damage sufficient to render them unconscious, but not a spell to say compel someone to speak the truth, or read their thoughts, or something? Er... And you guys don't see why that might lead to torture of enemies?

It looks like the GM's objection wasn't to killing the NPC, or even killing him by having the Ogre eat him, but that you kept the spell on him that ensured he would stay conscious and feel it? Er... Sorry. I can't wrap my head around that one. In a game where people are constantly having grave wounds inflicted on them, only to be healed and walk it off a minute later, this just seems backwards to me. I'm in no way condoning torture as a means to get information, but let's put this a bit in perspective here. Doubly so if your character is actually supposed to be evil.

That by no means falls into the "crazy not evil" conditions previously set.


I don't see the concept of ownership as inherently one of morality.

Theft is an issue of law / chaos, not one of good and evil.

If the baker is going to throw out his unsold bread, it is absolutely a good act to steal it and give it to starving orphans IMO.

You keep contriving cases to inject some assumed positive moral motivation. Stop doing that. If someone steals the baker's bread, not because they are starving, or to give it to orphans, but to sell it for their own profit, that is evil. Doesn't have to kill anyone. Taking stuff from someone purely for your own beneifit is an evil act. Period. Full Stop.

I find it baffling that you don't see property theft as an issue of morality. And no. It's not law/chaos. While there's some element of "doesn't follow the rules" in a chaotic alignment, trying to follow a strict "breaks the law" as an indicator of a chaotic alignment and only a chaotic alignment is an exercise in silliness. Evil acts are evil because of the harm they cause and the reasons that harm is caused. The fact that those things may also be "against the rules" doesn't make them only an issue of law/chaos. Otherwise nearly every single evil act would cease to be evil and become chaotic instead. Which will totally skew any alignment system you try to use (and not in a good way).

[Talakeal]

Maybe you aren't cut out to play an evil character? This seems exactly like what an evil character (but who is not a crazed killer) would do. You're "helping", but in a way that causes pain and suffering, and maybe some random violence down the line, but hey, all you did was free the monsters, right? Of course, you also could have killed the poachers, then taken the monsters, kept them for yourself, and trained them as pets, or maybe sold them yourself for a profit. That might be even more on the evil side. Kinda depends on how committed you are to dealing with these monsters yourself.

I kind of agree, that's kind of my whole problem. I don't like playing evil characters, but I do it anyway because it avoids group drama.


First off. The GM is having an NPC ignore the combat against the opponents his side is fighting (the PCs) in order to strangle a child, but he has a problem with the PCs feeding that guy to an Ogre? Holy cognitive dissonance Batman!

Secondly, the game system you are playing apparently has a spell that ensures people remain conscious even when having taken damage sufficient to render them unconscious, but not a spell to say compel someone to speak the truth, or read their thoughts, or something? Er... And you guys don't see why that might lead to torture of enemies?

It looks like the GM's objection wasn't to killing the NPC, or even killing him by having the Ogre eat him, but that you kept the spell on him that ensured he would stay conscious and feel it? Er... Sorry. I can't wrap my head around that one. In a game where people are constantly having grave wounds inflicted on them, only to be healed and walk it off a minute later, this just seems backwards to me. I'm in no way condoning torture as a means to get information, but let's put this a bit in perspective here. Doubly so if your character is actually supposed to be evil.

That by no means falls into the "crazy not evil" conditions previously set.

That is my feeling as well.

AFAICT the DM has an objection not to violence, but to torture. Killing him is one thing, but eating him alive is another. Although he has engaged in torture as a PC and NPC often enough himself.

We have a healer and a necromancer in the party, we do not have a diviner or beguiler, so our options are somewhat limited.


You keep contriving cases to inject some assumed positive moral motivation. Stop doing that. If someone steals the baker's bread, not because they are starving, or to give it to orphans, but to sell it for their own profit, that is evil. Doesn't have to kill anyone. Taking stuff from someone purely for your own beneifit is an evil act. Period. Full Stop.

I find it baffling that you don't see property theft as an issue of morality. And no. It's not law/chaos. While there's some element of "doesn't follow the rules" in a chaotic alignment, trying to follow a strict "breaks the law" as an indicator of a chaotic alignment and only a chaotic alignment is an exercise in silliness. Evil acts are evil because of the harm they cause and the reasons that harm is caused. The fact that those things may also be "against the rules" doesn't make them only an issue of law/chaos. Otherwise nearly every single evil act would cease to be evil and become chaotic instead. Which will totally skew any alignment system you try to use (and not in a good way).

I don't think we are going to agree.

The concept of "ownership" doesn't hold a lot of moral water for me, and is, in my opinion, a matter of law / chaos vs. good / evil.

Theft, by itself, is totally morally neutral. It is the harm which is done by depriving people of their possessions that is evil. But if someone has more than they ever need, there is no harm done there, and if you give it to someone who does have need, that is, in my opinion, a good act. Aladdin and Robin Hood are both good thieves because they take from people who have plenty and are living comfortably and give it to people who are poor and suffering. If they steal from people who have plenty and are comfortable and keep it for themselves, they would be neutral, and stealing from the people who are poor and suffering for their own benefit would be evil.

Again, this isn't really an issue of "the law" as the sheriff of Nottingham is evil even though his taxation of the poor is backed by authority.

For example, my first long term character was a NG druid. She thought the idea of land ownership was absurd, as nature has no master, and thought nothing of poaching on a noble's private grounds or even foraging in a farmer's orchard. But she would never actually take food from a hungry person even if she were herself starving.


But this is pretty similar to conversations I have had in the past about poison or necromancy. I don't believe that methods have an alignment, only the results.


Edit: I think more succinctly; stealing in a situation where the recipient of the stolen goods has a worse lot in life than the original owner is generally good, and if the recipient has a better lot in life than the originally owner it is generally evil, and if they are roughly the same it is generally neutral. The concept of property and ownership is inherently lawful, and violating that understanding is inherently chaotic, regardless of the actual written law of the land.

Again, this is all my opinion, but I have just talked it over with the DM and he agrees.

[King of Nowhere]

Later on, we were attacked by a group of (raiders?). One of them slipped behind our lines, ignored the combat, and attempted to strangle the child I was protecting. When I caught him, I attempted to interrogate him, and the DM said he "passed out from pain". I cast a spell on him that forced him to remain conscious but did not heal his wounds, and tried again. He still remained silent. I threatened to feed him to the ogre. He still remained silent. So I told the ogre to go ahead and eat him. The DM then asked if I was going to dispel the spell first, and I asked why I would waste magic doing that, at which point the DM, aghast at the idea of being eaten while alive and conscious, got mad and came up with the rule that crazy characters are no longer allowed in evil parties.


errr...
how is that crazy? the reasoning was sound. this is the kind of evil some of my good characters could condone, since the target had it coming. I mean, you tried to kill a child AND you're not even trying to cooperate? what else should we do with this guy? at my table we would at most complain that it is a waste of a potentially valuable witness and that maybe compulsion magic could work better. A question for the dm would be why this mook was so fanatical that he's willing to face death under torture rather than talk. Unless perhaps he was a mute, plot twist!
I also find it very peculiar that the dm is comfortable with a campaign where a mook attempts to strangle a child, but he's horrified when said mook is eaten alive. No, I can't judge whare other people put their lines, but I can find them peculiar, because in my book strangling a child is a lot worse than creatively executing an attempted child murderer.
furthermore, this is not even disruptive. you are not creating problems for the party.


That requires more compromise on both sides than I have ever actually seen work at a table. It is absolutely possible, but IMO the whole thing is a balancing act which is either going to end in conflict (either IC or OOC) or with one side just caving and letting the other do whatever they want.

I don't think anyone in my group is capable of that.

restraining from killing a random hobo to steal a few copper pieces doesn't seem such a great compromise. nor does closing an eye on moderate evil acts done against the villains - people you'd have no qualms attacking on sight anyway. I mean, isn't it silly? if you met them on a proper battlefield you'd be pulling out your holy sword and hitting smite evil on them, but poisoning would be a big no? What's the point? Do we have to kill this guy or not?

anyway, while most groups have no problems doing those kind of compromises - as showcased by so many people answering in the first page that yes, they handle morality differences like that and it works - I have to back up your assessment that in your group it may not be possible.

[icefractal]

I also find it very peculiar that the dm is comfortable with a campaign where a mook attempts to strangle a child, but he's horrified when said mook is eaten alive. No, I can't judge whare other people put their lines, but I can find them peculiar, because in my book strangling a child is a lot worse than creatively executing an attempted child murderer.
furthermore, this is not even disruptive. you are not creating problems for the party.
Honestly, from everything written here, this GM (Brian?) seems quite hypocritical - he's fine with "dishing out" evil (and maybe even enjoys doing so), but he can't "take it" when he's the one on the receiving end (even as an NPC). Normally I would suggest bringing that up (outside the session), but from everything Talakeal's written about the group, that would just result in anger and a completely unwillingness to see the point.

Also, if T has been the one more often being "the voice of reason" and/or holding the party together, then maybe the GM is holding a double standard - "it's fine for the other PCs to be psychopaths, but you're supposed to counter-balance them by being normal!" Which would be a crappy thing to do, but I have seen it even with less dysfunctional groups.

[Quertus]

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I am constantly tying myself in knots trying to keep the party together.

The idea that I could just passively sit back and watch a functional party form is ludicrous.

Based on every time I have tried something similar in the past, the answer is that they will kill one another's characters and then storm out of the house.

Sorry, I couldn’t help but give you the opportunity to point that out, lest anyone forget (and for the folks at home who are new to your threads).

Still, if the GM wasn’t (mis)using the words “evil” and “insane”, I’d suggest you’d benefit by dropping them in conversations about personality.


Edit: @Quertus: Yes, I am aware I am dodging your question. Its a toughie and I am still trying to wrap my head around exactly what you meant.

It’s… not meant to be tough. So… let’s rewind the thread, and look at one example conversation.

Suppose I suggest the “Troll with an axe” to a party of Mirror shades. They might immediately reckon that said Troll sounds pretty incompatible with their modus operandi, and point that out. However, it’s easy to tie working with them into the goal of the action: there are ways to protect people that don’t require the swinging of an axe.

That said, I / the Troll could point out how having a “heavy” could benefit *their* goals - they would no longer be forced to turn down lucrative opportunities just because they were (potentially) “too dangerous” for their group, nor would they be so readily outclassed by opposing heavies. Having a Troll with an axe who understands the value of subtlety adds options to their playbook, rather than removing them.

So then it’s just the question of whether the Troll also knows that, or, if they don’t, how and when we want the necessary revelation for their compatibility to occur. One of the easiest things might be to run through the character’s “job interview”, to let everyone get a feel for each other. If we don’t think it’s a good match, we now have experience to build off of.

Of course, given the nature of the problems you’re having, well, any sane replies are more intended for the folks at home who might be going through more normal versions of “how do we make a group work” problems. As is sadly normal, your problems are not a level-appropriate DC.

[Satinavian]

The problem is that Brian is pretty hypocritical about morality, and I feel like uses it more as a shield than a rule.

Because I am trying to avoid OOC conflict.Out of character problems need out of character solutions.

And how is this again about Bob and Brian ? Didn't you recently tell, you have different groups as well with other people ?


Beside that i won't go deeper into your group(s) and recommendations for it. They are, as presented by you, way to different from any roleplaying experience i know.

[Talakeal]

Beside that i won't go deeper into your group(s) and recommendations for it. They are, as presented by you, way to different from any roleplaying experience i know.

That's fine. The game is going fine and doesn't really have any major issues right now. This was mostly just me musing about how I preemptively make a villainous character in an effort to stave off the inevitable conflict.


Out of character problems need out of character solutions.

Very curious where you draw that line.

For example, if two people are RPing their characters to the best of their ability and their goals come into conflict so that the characters would actively try and stop / kill one another, or at the very least no longer be in the same party, is this an OOC issue or an IC issue? To me it seems to be an IC problem with an OOC solution.


And how is this again about Bob and Brian ? Didn't you recently tell, you have different groups as well with other people ?

I have been in a few online games recently, but I haven't been part of a different in person group in ~5 years now.

The online games are mostly bland, they don't tend to have as much conflict or drama, but are not nearly as fun either and are mostly tedious.



It’s… not meant to be tough. So… let’s rewind the thread, and look at one example conversation.

Suppose I suggest the “Troll with an axe” to a party of Mirror shades. They might immediately reckon that said Troll sounds pretty incompatible with their modus operandi, and point that out. However, it’s easy to tie working with them into the goal of the action: there are ways to protect people that don’t require the swinging of an axe.

That said, I / the Troll could point out how having a “heavy” could benefit *their* goals - they would no longer be forced to turn down lucrative opportunities just because they were (potentially) “too dangerous” for their group, nor would they be so readily outclassed by opposing heavies. Having a Troll with an axe who understands the value of subtlety adds options to their playbook, rather than removing them.

So then it’s just the question of whether the Troll also knows that, or, if they don’t, how and when we want the necessary revelation for their compatibility to occur. One of the easiest things might be to run through the character’s “job interview”, to let everyone get a feel for each other. If we don’t think it’s a good match, we now have experience to build off of.

Of course, given the nature of the problems you’re having, well, any sane replies are more intended for the folks at home who might be going through more normal versions of “how do we make a group work” problems. As is sadly normal, your problems are not a level-appropriate DC.

Sure, that works fine.

The issue is that a lot of players will at times either get bored OOC or decide they are RPing a stupid impulsive troll, and then decide to ignore the plan and cause some havoc.

But that still doesn't help when you have characters whose goals are fundamentally incompatible like "protect the innocent" and "murder anyone who I can get away with and raise as my undead slave". And that isn't some extreme worst case scenario, those are actual examples I have gamed with more than once.

[King of Nowhere]

Very curious where you draw that line.

For example, if two people are RPing their characters to the best of their ability and their goals come into conflict so that the characters would actively try and stop / kill one another, or at the very least no longer be in the same party, is this an OOC issue or an IC issue? To me it seems to be an IC problem with an OOC solution.


I would still call it an OOC problem: the two players made characters with incompatible goals.
It's a mantra that gets repeated all around here: each player is responsible for bringing a character that will want to cooperate with the team. Each player is responsible for making a character that fits with the team. this is why we have session 0.
I woulndn't blame either player, mishaps happen, especially in long campaigns where characters can have development. But it's absolutely a failure of character creation, i.e. and ooc problem.
An ic problem is stuff like "I can't fly and we keep engaging flying monsters, how can I contribute?" or "do I save my spell slots or do I spam everything I have at the first encounter?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would still call it an OOC problem: the two players made characters with incompatible goals.
It's a mantra that gets repeated all around here: each player is responsible for bringing a character that will want to cooperate with the team. Each player is responsible for making a character that fits with the team. this is why we have session 0.
I woulndn't blame either player, mishaps happen, especially in long campaigns where characters can have development. But it's absolutely a failure of character creation, i.e. and ooc problem.
An ic problem is stuff like "I can't fly and we keep engaging flying monsters, how can I contribute?" or "do I save my spell slots or do I spam everything I have at the first encounter?"

I fully agree. Everyone chooses and is fully responsible for the character they bring--if it's incompatible...choose differently. That's fully OOC.

[Talakeal]

I would still call it an OOC problem: the two players made characters with incompatible goals.
It's a mantra that gets repeated all around here: each player is responsible for bringing a character that will want to cooperate with the team. Each player is responsible for making a character that fits with the team. this is why we have session 0.
I woulndn't blame either player, mishaps happen, especially in long campaigns where characters can have development. But it's absolutely a failure of character creation, i.e. and ooc problem.
An ic problem is stuff like "I can't fly and we keep engaging flying monsters, how can I contribute?" or "do I save my spell slots or do I spam everything I have at the first encounter?"

Ok then, so why couldn’t it have an in character solution?

Like, say the witch-hunter comes to an in character agreement with the vampire that they can journey together so long as the vampire only feeds on criminals and heretics?

[Pauly]

Ok then, so why couldn’t it have an in character solution?

Like, say the witch-hunter comes to an in character agreement with the vampire that they can journey together so long as the vampire only feeds on criminals and heretics?

Because that isn’t actually an IC decision. That’s an OOC action disguised as an IC decision. It may depend a little on the setting but in the traditional setting witch hunters hunt and destroy evil magic and vampires are inherently magical and evil.

A less extreme may be plausible, such as lawful paladin journeying with a thief as long as the thief doesn’t steal while they are in the same party. But if the thief is a kleptomaniac and continues to steal then the thief/paladin conflict will eventually boil over.

[Talakeal]

Because that isn’t actually an IC decision. That’s an OOC action disguised as an IC decision. It may depend a little on the setting but in the traditional setting witch hunters hunt and destroy evil magic and vampires are inherently magical and evil.

A less extreme may be plausible, such as lawful paladin journeying with a thief as long as the thief doesn’t steal while they are in the same party. But if the thief is a kleptomaniac and continues to steal then the thief/paladin conflict will eventually boil over.

I don't know, I could easily see something like that happening in universe, and I can think of plenty of examples of single author fiction where similar things have happened.

Of course, you could say that it was still an OOC decision that happened by authorial fiat, but at that point the whole line between IC/OOC problems/solutions is so blurry that I am not sure they have much meaning anymore.

[KorvinStarmast]

I fully agree. Everyone chooses and is fully responsible for the character they bring--if it's incompatible...choose differently. That's fully OOC. Summarized in two pithy terms:
DBAD
DBAE
Where E = edgelord

[MoiMagnus]

Ok then, so why couldn’t it have an in character solution?

Like, say the witch-hunter comes to an in character agreement with the vampire that they can journey together so long as the vampire only feeds on criminals and heretics?

A in-universe solutions can be part of a OOC solutions. But around this in-universe agreement, there is always implicitly an agreement OOC about what this in-universe agreement actually means.

Notably, what has to be determined (possibly implicitly if the players are used to play together) is whether this agreement is bound by table rules, or if it's expected from the witch-hunter to police the vampire and constantly check that they're indeed keeping their part of the deal because the vampire might be dishonest (and that reciprocally the vampire has to worry about this deal not being an elaborate trap from the witch-hunter).

[Satinavian]

For example, if two people are RPing their characters to the best of their ability and their goals come into conflict so that the characters would actively try and stop / kill one another, or at the very least no longer be in the same party, is this an OOC issue or an IC issue? To me it seems to be an IC problem with an OOC solution.
That is usually an IC problem. That can be recognized by the players all agreeing that this was proper roleplaying and them not being upset about each others characters actions.

However, what we were just discussing was slightly different. It was a GM argueing with you about wheter your characters behavior was table appropriate. And you thinking he was a hypocrite in light of other, earlier decisions.

That is an OOC problem.

And i am not interested in discussing whether you or Brian are right in this instance. I don't really care. That it is between you and Brian and not between player characters in the first place makes it OOC.

[Talakeal]

That is usually an IC problem. That can be recognized by the players all agreeing that this was proper role-playing and them not being upset about each others characters actions.

However, what we were just discussing was slightly different. It was a GM arguing with you about whether your characters behavior was table appropriate. And you thinking he was a hypocrite in light of other, earlier decisions.

That is an OOC problem.

And i am not interested in discussing whether you or Brian are right in this instance. I don't really care. That it is between you and Brian and not between player characters in the first place makes it OOC.

Ok. I thought we were still talking about PCs with incompatible alignments.

I totally agree that the DM putting in a rule mid game about not allowing "crazy" characters is an OOC issue that needs to be solved OOC. I am not going to change my character's personality and backstory, and I do agree that arguing about semantic definitions of "crazy" and "evil" are totally pointless, although there may be an OOC solution involved if we can actually establish some objective ground rules.

No, I don't need your support or want you to validate my opinion, from my PoV Brian is clearly being hypocritical, and as you are hearing the whole story from my perspective it would be surprising if you came away with a different opinion based on that, thus rendering it meaningless anyway.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't know, I could easily see something like that happening in universe, and I can think of plenty of examples of single author fiction where similar things have happened.


yes, that's exactly the point!
many things could reasonably happen in-universe, and all players involved decide to push the narrative in the direction that will not cause intra-party problems. ooc solutions do not break a sensible narrative. it's not like the sky turns purple and a giant hand comes down separating the two conflicting characters.
the reason most gaing groups work without drama is that players involved can easily come to those sort of compromises. how much those flow naturally into the story is a matter of skill.




Of course, you could say that it was still an OOC decision that happened by authorial fiat, but at that point the whole line between IC/OOC problems/solutions is so blurry that I am not sure they have much meaning anymore.

look, the core point is very easy:
unless you specifically decided to play that kind of campaign, if you come to a point where pc A would want to attack pc B, then the table screwed up big time and must find a solution.
emphasis on the whole table, because before that kind of strife there are signs, and if the enmity became that bad then those signs were ignored by everyone.
corollary 1: if there were no previous telltale signs, then pc A would not want to immediately use violence. If pc A is the kind of guy who would attack a fellow at the first disagreement, then the player is responsible for playing an unstable madman.
corollary 2: if it's just one player being unreasonable, then it's still everyone's responsibility to fix the problem. in this specific case, it's everyone's responsibility to get the one unreasonable guy to see he's being unreasonable. if he won't, then it's everyone's responsibility to kick the troll.

characters have goals and personalities and that's great, but the very moment those become conflicting and threaten the stability of the party, then it immediately becomes an ooc problem.

I will concede that problems can be both ic and ooc at the same time. conflicting goals would be such. and in that case the solution must work both ic and ooc. the characters (in character) agree to compromise, while the players (out of characters) agree that their characters will find a compromise.

[Pauly]

I don't know, I could easily see something like that happening in universe, and I can think of plenty of examples of single author fiction where similar things have happened.

Of course, you could say that it was still an OOC decision that happened by authorial fiat, but at that point the whole line between IC/OOC problems/solutions is so blurry that I am not sure they have much meaning anymore.

The single author fiction where incompatible souls are in the same party usually have the party members chained together. Sometimes literally, sometimes with a high tech equivalent such as Amanda Waller’s neck bombs. Other times it’s a lifeboat scenario or an Anabasis scenario. It is commonly used to create in party conflict that has to be overcome as part of the plot.

Most RPG parties are, generally, a group of individuals who choose to work together. There is no in universe force compelling the party to adventure together. Even in the exemptions, such as a group of soldiers selected for a mission, there is nothing keeping the party together once the mission is complete. A vaguely competent commander will change out a team member if they find out having 2 individuals in their team together is mixing nitro and glycerine.

The problem with saying the I.c/OOC line is blurry that it’s a cop out. Yes you can have OOC issues resolved by IC handwaving, and that’s fine if it allows the group to have fun. Where it isn’t OK is where one person’s fun* gets sacrificed so the group can function.

(* by ‘fun’ I exclude trolling and being an asshat to annoy other players)

[Talakeal]

he problem with saying the I.c/OOC line is blurry that it’s a cop out. Yes you can have OOC issues resolved by IC handwaving, and that’s fine if it allows the group to have fun. Where it isn’t OK is where one person’s fun* gets sacrificed so the group can function.

I don't know how you can possibly have a group where that isn't the case as players tend to find their fun in such drastically different ways.

If one guy gets their fun from playing a heroic LG paladin who defends the innocent and another gets their fun from playing a villainous CE assassin who defiles the innocent, there really can't be a situation where both have fun working together; a compromise is going to have to be found both in and out of character.

[kyoryu]

I don't know how you can possibly have a group where that isn't the case as players tend to find their fun in such drastically different ways.

If one guy gets their fun from playing a heroic LG paladin who defends the innocent and another gets their fun from playing a villainous CE assassin who defiles the innocent, there really can't be a situation where both have fun working together; a compromise is going to have to be found both in and out of character.

Perhaps a different way of looking at it is, which side of this is driving? Sure, there can (and probably should) be an in-character justification for it, but the reason you're looking for that justification is the out-of-character factors. The players want to play together, and the characters don't get along, so we're going to find a way to make that work. In most cases, if the out-of-character factors didn't exist, the characters would either split or murder each other.

So, yeah, the final resolution should include OOC and IC bits, but it's really, at a fundamental level, the OOC that's usually driving it. And, perhaps more importantly, the IC stuff is fairly easy to figure out once the OOC bits are resolved.

Like, in your situation, if the assassin and paladin players decide that they're going to figure out how that they're going to work together, and how it's going to play out, and what restrictions each character will accept? Then figuring out the IC stuff is pretty easy. But if they don't, and the assassin player insists on killing everyone while the paladin player insists on defending the innocent? THere's no motivation to fix the IC stuff, so it won't get fixed. And until you fix it, any GM-imposed IC solutions will fall flat because the players will be trying to wriggle out of them.

[Satinavian]

Yes, compromises have to be found.

But ... most players actually don't find it particularly difficult to find workable compromises. Which is why most groups don't have such problems. I think the last time i have seen a problem with it was around 20 years ago ? And i had on average multiple RPG sessions per week those two decades with many groups coming and going.

And as those compromises tend to be bespoke, it is not really a solution the forum can give you. We could tell of many strange pairs in our groups that worked and how we made it work, but that will not really help your situation.

[gbaji]

I don't think we are going to agree.

Yeah. You are correct about that one.


The concept of "ownership" doesn't hold a lot of moral water for me, and is, in my opinion, a matter of law / chaos vs. good / evil.

I get that you believe this, but I just don't think your rationale for this holds a lot of water.


Theft, by itself, is totally morally neutral. It is the harm which is done by depriving people of their possessions that is evil.

These are contradictory statements though. All theft "deprives people of their possessions". Period. Ergo, all theft involves "harm", which you identify as "evil". Yet you start out stating that theft is morally nuetral.

I view it the opposite. Theft, by itself, is morally evil. It may be neutral under certain circumstances in which the harm you are doing is justified (in the same way other harmful acts like assault, imprisonment, killing, etc, may be). There must always be additional external factors that allow for the commission of an otherwise "evil" act to make it anything other than evil. And yes, this may have a law/chaos aspect with regards to rules/not-rules (or laws, or whatever), but that does not remove the basic moral aspect as well. Taking things from people is harm. Harming people is evil. That's the default you should start from, or your moral system just can't work.


But if someone has more than they ever need, there is no harm done there, and if you give it to someone who does have need, that is, in my opinion, a good act. Aladdin and Robin Hood are both good thieves because they take from people who have plenty and are living comfortably and give it to people who are poor and suffering. If they steal from people who have plenty and are comfortable and keep it for themselves, they would be neutral, and stealing from the people who are poor and suffering for their own benefit would be evil.

Those are the exceptions to the rule though. The starting point has to be "stealing is wrong". Only after you start there can you carve out exceptions. It's funny because you keep making broad statements about theft not being evil, and I keep pointing out basic theft cases where one person takes something from someone else for their own benefit, and you keep only responding with rare Robin Hood scenarios.

Here's the problem with assuming the Robin Hood scenario: It's too easy to rationalize property others own as "not needed by them" and "needed by me/someone else". The very concept you are using is really an outgrowth of fairly modern sociological philosopy (and a large number of steps down that philosophy as well). I think it can be problematic, especially if playing in a semi-medieval setting, to try to apply really modern concepts of property and rights into a basic moral code (especially something like alignment). But that appears to be what you are doing here.

It's also very easy to imagine the very wealthy (in any setting) just put their riches in a giant vault and roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck or something. And easy to follow that up with "well, they don't really need that money". But in most settings/times, those riches that appear to be more than anyone needs are going to fund the local military protection, law enforcement, fund local services, water/food distribution systems, and is used as a reserve for lean times. In many older economic systems, the concept of noble obligation was paramount. The common folks work the land, and the noble collects the taxes, but is obligated to provide for their wellbeing. Assuming that the rich noble can be stolen from because "he doesn't need it", may not work well in that sort of environment.

Obviously, clear cases were there's a bad guy over there, doing bad thing, and therefore rationalizing harm done to that person is an exception. But that's the point. It's not that theft is not morally wrong, any more than assaulting that guys goons is, or destroying his property (in the form of evil altar in his basement or something), or mudering him when you defeat him in some epic final battle. Those thing are "good", only because the person you are harming is so evil they deserve that harm. The actions are not "good", or even "neutral" by themselves though.


Again, this isn't really an issue of "the law" as the sheriff of Nottingham is evil even though his taxation of the poor is backed by authority.

And I'll point out that for decades the whole "Lawful means following the law" has been debunked and dismissed as an incorrect way to intprepret D&D alignment. Yet, here we are. Robin Hood was not a hero because he was opposing the law. He was a hero because he was opposing an evil person who had taken power and was abusing it for his own ends at the expense of the people he was supposed to be protecting and serving. The law/chaos axis is not just about obeying or not obeying the law. And it's absolutely absurd to exclude from the good/evil axis anything that is *also* a violation of the law. Because most "evil" things are also going to be illegal. Your position would assume that the moment we pass a law making murder illegal, murder is no longer an evil act, but a chaotic one. That's not very rational.


For example, my first long term character was a NG druid. She thought the idea of land ownership was absurd, as nature has no master, and thought nothing of poaching on a noble's private grounds or even foraging in a farmer's orchard. But she would never actually take food from a hungry person even if she were herself starving.

That's great. But can we also acknowledge that the vast majority of theft does not restrict itself just to those who don't need it while refraining from stealing from those who need it? The cases where thieves only steal from the uber rich and give to the poor is a vast exception, not a rule.



But this is pretty similar to conversations I have had in the past about poison or necromancy. I don't believe that methods have an alignment, only the results.

But theft is an outcome. You take X dollars from someone. That X dollars buys exactly the same amount of "stuff" regardless of who holds it. The harm done is identical. Your argument is like saying that it's not assault to attack a 15th level fighter because he had plenty of extra hps, so he could afford to lose some. You are doing the same exact harm to someone with theft, just some people can afford to be harmed more is all.

It's still harm. And absent significant additional factors, it's still evil.



Edit: I think more succinctly; stealing in a situation where the recipient of the stolen goods has a worse lot in life than the original owner is generally good, and if the recipient has a better lot in life than the originally owner it is generally evil, and if they are roughly the same it is generally neutral.

This is a convenient rationalization for theft IMO. While it may work on an individual basis for a specific PC in a game, it's not a great basis for an alignment determination. Most thieves are not (relatively) wealthy adventurer player characters governed by WBL rules or something. Most are poor. And they will continue to be poor because theft is not a great way to ever become anything other than that.

By your rules, a local street thief is at worse neutral alignment if they steal from their (equally poor) neighbors, because they are equally needy? That's... insane. Again. The vast majority of theft occurs between people in the exact same socio-economoc conditions. Thieves rarely prey on the rich because the rich have guards and walls and whatnot. They overhwhelmingly prey on the other poor people shuffling along down the street with a handful of coin they managed to earn that day, so they can feed their family (which the thief takes to feed his family, or more likely feed a gambling/alchohol/drug habit). Thieves guilds most collect protection money from those who don't have sufficient wealth to protect themselves (from the thieves). Theft almost *always* falls most heavily on those who can't afford the "harm" of theft. So I feel far more comfortable making any alignment assumption about thievery "evil", and only allow other determinations when specific cases really justify it.

[gbaji]

The single author fiction where incompatible souls are in the same party usually have the party members chained together. Sometimes literally, sometimes with a high tech equivalent such as Amanda Waller’s neck bombs. Other times it’s a lifeboat scenario or an Anabasis scenario. It is commonly used to create in party conflict that has to be overcome as part of the plot.

I think the biggest problem with single author fiction is that they will put conflicting character types into close proximity in a story in the first place (yes, chaning them together), in order to create "drama" in the story, but since it's single author, they can write resolutions that "work" within the larger story (and often generate faceplams from me).

Where this is problematic is when players (or worse GMs) attempt to duplicate the same intercharacter "drama" in an RPG. This, obviously, doesn't work because you no longer have a single author to resolve things in a workable story fashion, and thus devolves into chaos and conflict.

Real people aren't the cardboard cutouts you see in those TV/film dramas though. When was the last time in the real world you ever heard of a group of people being trapped in a mine, or crashed in a remote area, or stranded on a deserted island, and turning on eachother and backstabbing eachother for personal reasons? Never, right? Never actually happens. But that happens 100% of the time in fiction.

Don't follow bad fiction when creating characters to play in your game. Base them on how real people might behave in a real (ok, alternative fantasy) world environment. If the players and GM are on the same page with this form of party construction, you will find that you can have a whole lot of different character personalities and types (and yes, alignments even) while not actually having those characters take the same sort of self destructive (and frankly monumentally stupid) actions that characters in fiction do.

You don't have to be a stereotypical mustache twirling idiot to play "evil" in an RPG. You really really don't.

[Batcathat]

And I'll point out that for decades the whole "Lawful means following the law" has been debunked and dismissed as an incorrect way to intprepret D&D alignment.


You don't have to be a stereotypical mustache twirling idiot to play "evil" in an RPG. You really really don't.

It does feel like part of the problems (though not all, since I find the concept inherently flawed) with D&D alignment (Admittedly, Talakeal's system isn't D&D, but it seems close enough in this regard) is because of poorly chosen words. People are very likely to equate "lawful" with "follows the law" and slightly less likely to equate "evil" with "cartoon evil" (or really any of the many different interpretations of the word that don't match the D&D version) no matter how many times they are told otherwise.

[kyoryu]

Y
These are contradictory statements though. All theft "deprives people of their possessions". Period. Ergo, all theft involves "harm", which you identify as "evil". Yet you start out stating that theft is morally nuetral.

I view it the opposite. Theft, by itself, is morally evil. It may be neutral under certain circumstances in which the harm you are doing is justified (in the same way other harmful acts like assault, imprisonment, killing, etc, may be). There must always be additional external factors that allow for the commission of an otherwise "evil" act to make it anything other than evil. And yes, this may have a law/chaos aspect with regards to rules/not-rules (or laws, or whatever), but that does not remove the basic moral aspect as well. Taking things from people is harm. Harming people is evil. That's the default you should start from, or your moral system just can't work.

Those are the exceptions to the rule though. The starting point has to be "stealing is wrong". Only after you start there can you carve out exceptions. It's funny because you keep making broad statements about theft not being evil, and I keep pointing out basic theft cases where one person takes something from someone else for their own benefit, and you keep only responding with rare Robin Hood scenarios.

Here's the problem with assuming the Robin Hood scenario: It's too easy to rationalize property others own as "not needed by them" and "needed by me/someone else". The very concept you are using is really an outgrowth of fairly modern sociological philosopy (and a large number of steps down that philosophy as well). I think it can be problematic, especially if playing in a semi-medieval setting, to try to apply really modern concepts of property and rights into a basic moral code (especially something like alignment). But that appears to be what you are doing here.

I generally agree with you here.

What I've found that works is something like this:

Acts that infringe on others (theft, imprisonment, harm, etc.) are evil. Acts that help others that do not gain you anything are good. Things that do neither are neutral.

Most people do some mix of all of the above, at various times.

Good people will do a lot of neutral things, and a lot of good things. They'll do some evil, but usually more "minor" evil, and usually only in great need and as a last resort, and they'll feel bad about it.
Neutral people mostly are the same as good people, but they do less good things (probably a lot!) and are slightly more likely to do evil. IOW, good and neutral people are mostly the same, except good people do more good. But both still do a ton of neutral.
Evil people do evil willingly and with little compunction. Maybe not *big* evil, but evil nonetheless. The harm it does to others doesn't really enter into it, but impacts on them do.

In concrete terms, a good person may steal bread to feed themselves or others in need. They'll do so if they have no money, and they'd likely try to get or work out a deal with the shopkeeper first. But if all else fails? Sure, they'll steal it. But they'll feel really bad about it, and probably try to make amends when they get the opportunity.

An evil person? They'll steal that bread just because they're a little hungry, it's there and they can get away with it.

A good person can still do evil, and an evil person can do good. And there's grey areas between them, and fuzzy bits.

I find this to be a good framework for gaming. It doesn't require you to think about what justification is required (as "it's good if you can justify it" just really asks you to be clever in your justification). It sets understandable lines. It's predictable - someone knows, in general, what is evil and what is good and what is neutral. Most of the things that would be evil/good line up really well, and the weird bits are usually in weird areas. It allows for interesting villains - characters that do evil things, but for good reasons, are still seen as evil, overall.

About the only weird one is Robin Hood, but it's worth noting that in a lot of the original legends, the money Robin stole was, effectively stolen in the first place. So there's that.

[MoiMagnus]

It does feel like part of the problems (though not all, since I find the concept inherently flawed) with D&D alignment (Admittedly, Talakeal's system isn't D&D, but it seems close enough in this regard) is because of poorly chosen words. People are very likely to equate "lawful" with "follows the law" and slightly less likely to equate "evil" with "cartoon evil" (or really any of the many different interpretations of the word that don't match the D&D version) no matter how many times they are told otherwise.

Interestingly, in my language (French), "lawful" was translated by "loyal", which avoid the confusion with the "law", but comes with its own pack of worms in terms of ambiguity (does that mean that if you're not "loyal" then you're necessarily prone to backstabbing your teammates?).

Similarly, "evil" was not translated using the word that would be associated with "cartoon evil" (which is "maléfique"), but instead simply "bad" (so "mauvais").

[NichG]

These are contradictory statements though. All theft "deprives people of their possessions". Period. Ergo, all theft involves "harm", which you identify as "evil". Yet you start out stating that theft is morally nuetral.


If you believe that possessing things is not a right - everyone is always just borrowing things from a shared social or environmental pool - then its not contradictory. In that case, you'd have two senses of 'theft'. Theft in the sense of 'removing something permanently from the social pool of resources' would be immoral. Theft in the sense of 'not respecting someone's claim that this thing belongs only to them' but which returns that object into circulation in the social pool or exercises the implied rights of use that any member of the society has towards that object would not innately be, especially if the thing in question was not being actively used or depended on. So in that moral system, stealing a painting from someone's vault would likely not be immoral, and not because of some counter-weighting good. Just because that moral system does not recognize property rights as being a thing in the first place.

Not saying this particular moral system is anything close to fantasy RPG alignment systems, but its something in the possibility space, and understanding that might make the rest of the conversation easier.

[Pauly]

I don't know how you can possibly have a group where that isn't the case as players tend to find their fun in such drastically different ways.

If one guy gets their fun from playing a heroic LG paladin who defends the innocent and another gets their fun from playing a villainous CE assassin who defiles the innocent, there really can't be a situation where both have fun working together; a compromise is going to have to be found both in and out of character.

Honestly those players shouldn’t RP together. If their idea of fun in an RPG is so diametrically opposed then there is no IC solution. You only have an OOC marriage if convenience that sooner or later is going to cause IC problems and OOC conflict.

It’s OK to say your idea of fun is X, my idea of fun is Y and they’re incompatible so let’s not mix them. I don’t invite my football loving friends to the opera, nor do I invite my opera loving friends to the football. I go to the opera with my friends who like opera and go to the football with my friends who like football.

[gbaji]

If you believe that possessing things is not a right - everyone is always just borrowing things from a shared social or environmental pool - then its not contradictory.

Sure. Which leads to either a very modern sociological philosophy which I'm not going to dscuss at length *or* a very small scale socio-economic condition pretty much only existing in small extended (and relatively primitive) family tribes/clans.

Neither are conditions most RPG settings are, er... set in.


In that case, you'd have two senses of 'theft'. Theft in the sense of 'removing something permanently from the social pool of resources' would be immoral. Theft in the sense of 'not respecting someone's claim that this thing belongs only to them' but which returns that object into circulation in the social pool or exercises the implied rights of use that any member of the society has towards that object would not innately be, especially if the thing in question was not being actively used or depended on.

Yes. We can certainly conceive of a society in which shared property is the norm, so anyone taking something for their own use out of that shared pool would be "evil". Er, but that's the "theft" in the first place, right? The person returning those goods to the common pool would not usually be referrred to as a thief, nor what they are doing as theft. Again, if we were to speculate this sociial form in the first place. That still leaves us with "theft is evil" as a default condition. We're just extending the harm being done from an indiviual being stolen from to the whole of the group.


So in that moral system, stealing a painting from someone's vault would likely not be immoral, and not because of some counter-weighting good. Just because that moral system does not recognize property rights as being a thing in the first place.

I would also argue that if we were to speculate about such a society, said society would likely never generate things like priceless paintings for anyone to steal and hold in a vault in the first place. And if they did? The "theft" would be the guy taking it from wherever it was being held for common enjoyment/appreciation and hiding it away in the vault in the first place.

But yeah, most societies that are truely about shared property tend not to waste resources on more than the most basic of art (and certainly not have a "market" for thieves to steal it and do... what?). They tend towards utilitarian purposes. Um... Which still can involve theft, right? Someone takes the communal plow from the shed and locks it in their own shed so only they can use it. Someone else breaks the lock on that shed and returns it to the community. Which one is the thief? And where did the second shed come from in the first place? Or the lock for that matter?

Heck. Even just looking at it from a communal point of view, the guy running around taking the fruits of other people's labors instead of spending that same time contributing to the "pool" is also committing theft. He's not just stealing the possession itself but also his share of "communal work" from the group. Again, if we're actually really examining how such a shared communal system would have to work.

I think my problem with this line of reasoning is that in every other aspect we're assuming that the setting's characters do live in a society with private property rights, and where there are significant numbers of "wealthy people", who have significant amounts of wealth, so as to justify stealing from them because "they don't really need that". And in that sort of setting, the act of taking from that person does not cease to be an evil act just because "they don't really need it". We already have a system in which it's assumed that people accumulate "wealth" over time, and some may be rich and some may be poor. And yeah, many of those who are "rich" didn't automatically achieve that wealth because they just stole stuff from other people, but maybe actually earned it over time, legally and fairy. And in that case (which is most of the time), the person stealing from them is the thief and commiting harm, and not the other way around.

Again. Obvious exceptions when the person who has something did actually obtain it via some evil actions of their own. I just find it problematic to create an alignment system where that's assumed to be the norm rather than a conditional placed on the norm. Doubly so if we're assuming some sort of PC profession/class of "thief/rogue", right? It's pretty unlikely that said character developed their second story B&E and lockpicking skills only by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Actually, scratch that. It's absurd to think that.


Not saying this particular moral system is anything close to fantasy RPG alignment systems, but its something in the possibility space, and understanding that might make the rest of the conversation easier.

Yeah. I get that. I just doubt very many settings people are discussing are really like that in the first place. And again, if they were, a lot of the concepts assumed to exist simply wouldn't (or at least not in a way that justifies the "thievery is neutral by default" position.

Dunno. Maybe we're getting caught up on what "theft" is?

[NichG]

Sure. Which leads to either a very modern sociological philosophy which I'm not going to dscuss at length *or* a very small scale socio-economic condition pretty much only existing in small extended (and relatively primitive) family tribes/clans.

Neither are conditions most RPG settings are, er... set in.

Yes. We can certainly conceive of a society in which shared property is the norm, so anyone taking something for their own use out of that shared pool would be "evil". Er, but that's the "theft" in the first place, right? The person returning those goods to the common pool would not usually be referrred to as a thief, nor what they are doing as theft. Again, if we were to speculate this sociial form in the first place. That still leaves us with "theft is evil" as a default condition. We're just extending the harm being done from an indiviual being stolen from to the whole of the group.

I would also argue that if we were to speculate about such a society, said society would likely never generate things like priceless paintings for anyone to steal and hold in a vault in the first place. And if they did? The "theft" would be the guy taking it from wherever it was being held for common enjoyment/appreciation and hiding it away in the vault in the first place.

Kender society in Dragonlance for example is more or less explicitly like this. "I'm not stealing it, I'm borrowing it!" is a fairly common refrain. Conflict arises when people from that sort of background enter other societies that aren't organized that way, but apply their moral framework from their own society to those others. That's an argument for falling on the law/chaos divide - ignoring or not respecting the local context in which actions are interpreted is a chaotic stance.

The argument would be, not all conflict is inherently evil. Disagreements can have winners and losers and there can be stakes, and as a result of those stakes fortunes can rise and fall, but not all interactions in which someone ends up worse off would necessarily involve evil. In a moral system in which there are permitted ranges of behaviors and specific things but not others are rights, actions which deny people value which they do not have a moral right to would not be evil, even if they were harmful.

[Talakeal]

Wow, busy thread today.

Before we get into this, I want to say that I am talking about general RPG philosophy.

My own system doesn't really care much for ethical matters, and my playgroup has problems between people who want to be Heroes vs. those who want to be Villains, we aren't really concerned about theft one way or the other, but about things like murder, torture, and war-crimes. Slavery and rape to I guess, although those are typically explored under the guise of mind-controlling magics that leave them divorced from the real world.

As for D&D alignment, it is incoherent IMO. The game simultaneously is built around three traditions:
1: A bronze age sword and sorcery setting with amoral heroes and where cosmic powers are chaos and law rather than good and evil.
2: A medieval high fantasy tradition where montheism and monarchy are the norm and all morality and authority ultimately comes from the same divine source.
3: A western ideal about a frontier that is the bulwark protecting civilization against barbaric savages.

Trying to do all three at one, along with needing to balance gamist concerns with the fiction and numerous authors over 40 years, and we get a mess.


These are contradictory statements though. All theft "deprives people of their possessions". Period. Ergo, all theft involves "harm", which you identify as "evil". Yet you start out stating that theft is morally nuetral.

That's not what I said though.

I didn't say depriving people WAS harm, I said it could cause harm.

There are plenty of rich people who have more money than they could ever spend and to whom any given unit of money is just a number in a ledger. Likewise, many businesses simply destroy or throw away unsold merchandise rather than giving it to the needy. I personally own tons of movies I will never watch, books I will never read, and minis I will never paint or play with.

Stealing excess goods from those who have plenty to spare does not by itself cause harm.

Smaug doesn't need a literal mountain of gold to survive, or even maintain his lifestyle, but he still goes into a murderous rampage when Bilbo steals a single cup because he is greedy and covetous, not because the loss actually arms him in any real way.




Taking things from people is harm. Harming people is evil. That's the default you should start from, or your moral system just can't work.

Disagree on all points.



And I'll point out that for decades the whole "Lawful means following the law" has been debunked and dismissed as an incorrect way to intprepret D&D alignment. Yet, here we are. Robin Hood was not a hero because he was opposing the law. He was a hero because he was opposing an evil person who had taken power and was abusing it for his own ends at the expense of the people he was supposed to be protecting and serving. The law/chaos axis is not just about obeying or not obeying the law. And it's absolutely absurd to exclude from the good/evil axis anything that is *also* a violation of the law. Because most "evil" things are also going to be illegal. Your position would assume that the moment we pass a law making murder illegal, murder is no longer an evil act, but a chaotic one. That's not very rational.

I agree, that is not very rationale. Good thing I never said that.

Law is, to me, about imposing rules on reality and then asking people to obey those rules. This could mean a code of laws, but it could also be the instructions for a game, it could mean a code of chivalry, it could mean the tenants of a religion or philosophy, or many other things.

I said several pages ago that good and evil come down to causing and alleviating suffering. Doing so against the rules is chaotic. Breaking the rules to help someone is CG, breaking the rules to hurt someone is CE. Helping someone within the rules is LG, hurting someone within the rules is LE.

The whole concept of ownership and economics is innately lawful, it is an attempt to impose rules on reality. It is pointing at things that exist and labeling them as belonging to one person or other.

And in a world with finite resources, that can either cause or prevent great harm.

When we throw in public vs. private lands, slavery, inheritance, patents, loans, contracts, stocks, taxes, corporate assets, royalty feeds, intellectual trademarks and patents, usury, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, certain classes of people being exempted from the system, environmental degradation and pollution, rentals, etc. it gets a heck of a lot more complicated than simply saying "this is mine, you no take or you bad man".
And of course, then we get to the whole idea of colonialism where people plant a flag and then claim that they own entire portions of the natural world, with or without violently displacing the people who may or may not have already been there.

As an aside, its kind of interesting to think that this forms kind of an ethical horseshoe, on one end you can take it so far that you can say people can own one another to justify rape, torture, and slavery, and then on the other hand you could take it so far in the opposite direction to say that people don't even own their own body to justify rape, torture, and slavery. Not really here or there, just thinking about the logical extremes of this philosophy.



That's great. But can we also acknowledge that the vast majority of theft does not restrict itself just to those who don't need it while refraining from stealing from those who need it? The cases where thieves only steal from the uber rich and give to the poor is a vast exception, not a rule.

This is a convenient rationalization for theft IMO. While it may work on an individual basis for a specific PC in a game, it's not a great basis for an alignment determination. Most thieves are not (relatively) wealthy adventurer player characters governed by WBL rules or something. Most are poor. And they will continue to be poor because theft is not a great way to ever become anything other than that.

By your rules, a local street thief is at worse neutral alignment if they steal from their (equally poor) neighbors, because they are equally needy? That's... insane. Again. The vast majority of theft occurs between people in the exact same socio-economoc conditions. Thieves rarely prey on the rich because the rich have guards and walls and whatnot. They overhwhelmingly prey on the other poor people shuffling along down the street with a handful of coin they managed to earn that day, so they can feed their family (which the thief takes to feed his family, or more likely feed a gambling/alchohol/drug habit). Thieves guilds most collect protection money from those who don't have sufficient wealth to protect themselves (from the thieves). Theft almost *always* falls most heavily on those who can't afford the "harm" of theft. So I feel far more comfortable making any alignment assumption about thievery "evil", and only allow other determinations when specific cases really justify it.

Most people who do a thing do it for evil, therefore the thing is innately evil is not a logically sound argument.



But theft is an outcome. You take X dollars from someone. That X dollars buys exactly the same amount of "stuff" regardless of who holds it. The harm done is identical. Your argument is like saying that it's not assault to attack a 15th level fighter because he had plenty of extra hps, so he could afford to lose some. You are doing the same exact harm to someone with theft, just some people can afford to be harmed more is all.

That's absurd.

Of course the outcome matters!

Of course stealing money from someone who is scraping by is worse than stealing from someone who is living in luxury!

Of course attacking someone who is healthy enough to survive it is better than someone who isn't! That's why we have "battery vs. attempted murder" laws.

If some healthy young jocks are horsing around and one of them picks up another and body slams him into the ground, that's just ordinary rough housing. If the same man did it to his 90 year old grand mother, that's attempted murder.
Slipping spicy hot pepper into your healthy friend's food is a prank; slipping it into your friend who is deathly allergic to pepper's food is attempted murder!




It's still harm. And absent significant additional factors, it's still evil.

And this is why so many alignment discussions go in circles.

IMO it is not the methods that matter, it is the outcome. Actions which result in suffering are evil, actions which negate suffering are good.*

Labeling objects or actions innately good or evil is, imo, a symptom of rigid lawful thinking.

But ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Saying, "stealing is innately neutral but the consequences often make it evil" and saying "Stealing is innately evil but the consequences sometimes make it good" are essentially only semantically different.

*Of course, there are a whole lot of complexities; where one draws the line between pleasure and pain, how much intent matters, how much evil is acceptable vs. good, etc. but that's all ancillary to the discussion.



If you believe that possessing things is not a right - everyone is always just borrowing things from a shared social or environmental pool - then its not contradictory. In that case, you'd have two senses of 'theft'. Theft in the sense of 'removing something permanently from the social pool of resources' would be immoral. Theft in the sense of 'not respecting someone's claim that this thing belongs only to them' but which returns that object into circulation in the social pool or exercises the implied rights of use that any member of the society has towards that object would not innately be, especially if the thing in question was not being actively used or depended on. So in that moral system, stealing a painting from someone's vault would likely not be immoral, and not because of some counter-weighting good. Just because that moral system does not recognize property rights as being a thing in the first place.

Not saying this particular moral system is anything close to fantasy RPG alignment systems, but its something in the possibility space, and understanding that might make the rest of the conversation easier.

This is very close to what I am saying, yes.



Kender society in Dragonlance for example is more or less explicitly like this. "I'm not stealing it, I'm borrowing it!" is a fairly common refrain. Conflict arises when people from that sort of background enter other societies that aren't organized that way, but apply their moral framework from their own society to those others. That's an argument for falling on the law/chaos divide - ignoring or not respecting the local context in which actions are interpreted is a chaotic stance.

The argument would be, not all conflict is inherently evil. Disagreements can have winners and losers and there can be stakes, and as a result of those stakes fortunes can rise and fall, but not all interactions in which someone ends up worse off would necessarily involve evil. In a moral system in which there are permitted ranges of behaviors and specific things but not others are rights, actions which deny people value which they do not have a moral right to would not be evil, even if they were harmful.

I was actually going to use that very example.

Kender are presented as extremely chaotic good, and that manifests of not having a concept of personal property. They frequently steal things from other races, but the setting labels them as objectively Chaotic Good.

IIRC it was the general consensus that theft in D&D was not innately an evil act back in the old days when we used to have weekly alignment wars on these boards.

But at the same time, it labels poison use innately evil.

Which seems really odd to me, as that also seems to be something that is more about "honorable combat" than good and evil. Its absurd that, say, a race of intelligent rattle-snakes would be expected not to use poison and to label them as objectively evil as a result despite having an otherwise altruistic outlook. And it also says that euthanizing someone painlessly with an injection is worse than burning them alive.

Again, D&D alignment is really incoherent.

[King of Nowhere]

If you believe that possessing things is not a right - everyone is always just borrowing things from a shared social or environmental pool - then its not contradictory. In that case, you'd have two senses of 'theft'. Theft in the sense of 'removing something permanently from the social pool of resources' would be immoral. Theft in the sense of 'not respecting someone's claim that this thing belongs only to them' but which returns that object into circulation in the social pool or exercises the implied rights of use that any member of the society has towards that object would not innately be, especially if the thing in question was not being actively used or depended on. So in that moral system, stealing a painting from someone's vault would likely not be immoral, and not because of some counter-weighting good. Just because that moral system does not recognize property rights as being a thing in the first place.

Not saying this particular moral system is anything close to fantasy RPG alignment systems, but its something in the possibility space, and understanding that might make the rest of the conversation easier.
let us not forget that most of the times, property comes from labor. you worked, you spent some of your time doing something you'd rather not do, you produced something of value. You then traded it for other stuff that you need. society invented currency to keep track of this borrowing - it would be very inconvenient if my reward for teaching kids would be a chicken from a farmer parent, one hour of legal advice from a lawyer parent, one square meter of wall to be built by the mason parent, and so on.
anyway, 99% of people don't owe stuff because of social contract, they owe stuff because they worked for it. taking their stuff then is clearly hurting them, in that they worked so hard for nothing. and while I can see an exception for "involuntary borrowing", I never heard of a thief returning the loot after using it for a few days - plus there are all kinds of smaller problems involved.
Sure, you could say that stealing to the remaining 1% of people who own stuff because they cheated is fine. but then you'd have to define who cheated and who didn't. generally, people using this excuse claim that everyone who made money cheated and is authomatically a fair target. generally, people with those ideas rarely have produced something of value themselves.

that said, I can certainly imagine specific circumstances where it would be not evil to steal - not just justified by a greater need, but not problematic at all. but the fact that such great care would have to be devised to engineer such a scenario just proves that stealing is normally evil; any exception is just that, exceptional.
That said, I can also envision a guy who steals but is still mostly good. wayne from mistborn era 2 is the best example I know. and nobody thinks his kleptomania is fine except him.




If one guy gets their fun from playing a heroic LG paladin who defends the innocent and another gets their fun from playing a villainous CE assassin who defiles the innocent, there really can't be a situation where both have fun working together; a compromise is going to have to be found both in and out of character.

this is a very, very extreme example. I've never seen anything like that happen in practice.
but if it happens, then yes, this is creative differences. if those two guys can only play in their way, then they cannot play together, and it's silly to try.
pauly said it right with football and opera.

[Talakeal]

Also, I personally don't really care that much about the issue of theft, I have never stolen anything more valuable than a gas station pen irl and have never played a thief in an RPG, nor had much of an opinion one way or the other about fellow PCs who did. And I really don't care too much about what D&D says on the issue

But this thread is making me doubt my own sanity on the issue, so I am going back and doing some research.

But I can't find anything in D&D texts conflating stealing with evil, and I recall the forum opinion being not evil but chaotic. BoED doesn't seem to mention it, BoVD says "While every child knows stealing is wrong, an evil person takes it one step further and will take anything they can by force without a compelling reason not to" and Fiendish Codex lists "stealing from the needy" as a 2 out of 7 on the corruption scale.

Googling "Is stealing evil in dungeons and dragons" brings back the answer "Theft isn't evil; it's Chaotic not Lawful, but it's neither Good nor Evil. It could be more Neutral than Chaotic, if it was for a purpose; but ..." and then links to this reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/4esltf/is_theft_always_evil/), where the majority opinion seems to match my own; neutral by default, good if stealing from the rich to give to the poor, evil if stealing from the poor to give to the rich".

[NichG]

let us not forget that most of the times, property comes from labor. you worked, you spent some of your time doing something you'd rather not do, you produced something of value. You then traded it for other stuff that you need. society invented currency to keep track of this borrowing - it would be very inconvenient if my reward for teaching kids would be a chicken from a farmer parent, one hour of legal advice from a lawyer parent, one square meter of wall to be built by the mason parent, and so on.
anyway, 99% of people don't owe stuff because of social contract, they owe stuff because they worked for it. taking their stuff then is clearly hurting them, in that they worked so hard for nothing. and while I can see an exception for "involuntary borrowing", I never heard of a thief returning the loot after using it for a few days - plus there are all kinds of smaller problems involved.
Sure, you could say that stealing to the remaining 1% of people who own stuff because they cheated is fine. but then you'd have to define who cheated and who didn't. generally, people using this excuse claim that everyone who made money cheated and is authomatically a fair target. generally, people with those ideas rarely have produced something of value themselves.

that said, I can certainly imagine specific circumstances where it would be not evil to steal - not just justified by a greater need, but not problematic at all. but the fact that such great care would have to be devised to engineer such a scenario just proves that stealing is normally evil; any exception is just that, exceptional.
That said, I can also envision a guy who steals but is still mostly good. wayne from mistborn era 2 is the best example I know. and nobody thinks his kleptomania is fine except him.


Again, one can imagine societies in which the norms do not declare that effort or labor must be rewarded in proportion and turn, that personally capturing value is granted in response entirely based on the fact that you did spend time with that goal in mind as opposed to other standards. I'm also not trying to argue that 'theft is evil' or 'theft is not evil'. I am trying to argue that 'a moral system in which theft is not evil can still be coherent and self-consistent' - e.g. that if someone were to make a game and setting in which theft is not evil, that would not be inherently nonsensical by its very nature.

Personally, in terms of my own real-world morality, I don't even use 'good' and 'evil' as categories, so theft isn't evil because 'evil' isn't itself a single, meaningful thing and judging moral status isn't the function of a moral system to me - instead there are circles of permission, constraint, and a concept of what constitutes a reasonable response to trespasses of those circles. Good and Evil are crude summaries of the complex pattern of variations in how others and society can reasonably respond to one actor versus another without me as a third party feeling any pressure to intervene in those interactions on one or the other side.

[gbaji]

Kender society in Dragonlance for example is more or less explicitly like this. "I'm not stealing it, I'm borrowing it!" is a fairly common refrain. Conflict arises when people from that sort of background enter other societies that aren't organized that way, but apply their moral framework from their own society to those others. That's an argument for falling on the law/chaos divide - ignoring or not respecting the local context in which actions are interpreted is a chaotic stance

Maybe. I'd suggest that, realistically, conflict arises when a player, who themselves lives in a world where property isn't communal, plays a Kender so as to justify stealing stuff as "not really evil at all. I'm just a Kender. La la la!". There's a reason why Kender are broadly considered one of the most annoying PC choices in all D&D existence. To the point that I barely play D&D and yet have heard enough negative statements about Kender (and people who play them) on this very issue.

In concept? Yeah. I get it. In practice? How many players of Kender have you ever seen hand over all their stuff to the party so that others may use it instead of them? Even in cases where someone else might make better use of that item?



That's not what I said though.

I didn't say depriving people WAS harm, I said it could cause harm.

To be fair, you said something like "harm which is done by depriving people of their property is evil". I suppose we could interpret that as excluding cases where being deprived of property doesn't actually cause harm, but that's a heck of a nit to pick IMO. If we assume that some forms of depriving people does qualify as "harm" (so we're not limiting the term to just physical or mental injury or something else equally silly), then we'd have to make some distinction between what sorts of "depriving of property" constitutes "harm", and which do not.


There are plenty of rich people who have more money than they could ever spend and to whom any given unit of money is just a number in a ledger. Likewise, many businesses simply destroy or throw away unsold merchandise rather than giving it to the needy. I personally own tons of movies I will never watch, books I will never read, and minis I will never paint or play with.

Stealing excess goods from those who have plenty to spare does not by itself cause harm.

There are plenty of people who claim this. That's not the same as it being true. I just find it interesting that when people talk about other people's property, they find themselves falling into this, but never (or rarely) about their own "stuff". I'm reasonably certain that if someone broke into your home and stole your excess books, movies, and minis, you'd still call the cops and report it as a theft, right? It's your "stuff", and that includes the right to decide what to do with the excess stuff you don't care about anymore. Even if all someone did was "steal" your ability to choose whom to give the stuff too, or where to donate it yourself, that's still "harm" caused to you.

No one has "more money than they can spend". That's a very personal consumption focused view of money. Not everone only uses money to buy things for themselves and their families. I used the example of a noble who is very wealthy (certainly compared to the commoners living on his land), but is obligated to use that wealth to provide safety, protection, laws, trade, representation, etc, for those commoners with that wealth. Simialrly, while it may appear at first glance that the successful wealthy merchant is just sitting on "far more money than he needs", he may be using that money to pursue new trade routes, at great expense, that yeah, may earn him more money in the future, but may also benefit others by making goods from far off places more obtainable to those living in the area. Or perhaps, heaven forbid, making goods that were once rare and prohibitively expensive, relatively common and affordable even to the "common man".



The whole concept of ownership and economics is innately lawful, it is an attempt to impose rules on reality. It is pointing at things that exist and labeling them as belonging to one person or other.

Sure. But most rules exist to limit or eliminate "harm". So to ignore the good/evil aspect of this seems silly.


As an aside, its kind of interesting to think that this forms kind of an ethical horseshoe, on one end you can take it so far that you can say people can own one another to justify rape, torture, and slavery, and then on the other hand you could take it so far in the opposite direction to say that people don't even own their own body to justify rape, torture, and slavery. Not really here or there, just thinking about the logical extremes of this philosophy.

If we're speaking of philosophy, maybe read up on Locke and/or Rousseau? You can ignore/bypass the bits more specific to the times/places they were writing about, but you might just gain a greater understanding of concepts like why governments/laws exist, and why property is important. Dunno. Seems like you are missing something here. But I suspect it might give some insights into how things might better fit into a law/chaos vs good/evil alignment system. And, for the record, I'm not a fan of that dual axis method anyway, but if you're going to try to use it...

Not going to touch your list with a 10' pole though. Just advise you to do some research on the subject elsewhere.



Most people who do a thing do it for evil, therefore the thing is innately evil is not a logically sound argument.

If I'm countering a claim like "stealing is naturally neutral, not evil", then yes, it kinda is. You're arguing the exception as though it is the norm. I'm trying to point out that the opposite is actually true.



Of course stealing money from someone who is scraping by is worse than stealing from someone who is living in luxury!

From the point of view of the victim? Maybe (debatable though). From the point of view of the person stealing? Not at all. You steal X amount of money. You didn't have it, and now you do. The value to *you* is precisely the same. The alignment is from the pov of the person doing the aciton, not the person affected by it. This is why I spoke earlier about the alignment effect of an action being based on the motivations for the action itself. So yeah, if you steal $100 from a rich person or from a poor person, purely because you want $100 for yourself, that act is equally "evil". Saying "it's ok because that guy is rich" is you rationalizing the action away from the truth: "You want $100 that you don't have and didn't earn".

I also might suggest that the motivation to steal from rich people is less about reducing the harmful impact of the theft on the victim, as increasing the likely haul for the thief. But hey. That's just crazy speculation on my part. But again, if the motivation is "I want something I don't have" and you fulfill that want by stealing, that is an evil act. It does not become not-evil just because the person you stole from has enough money that the theft will not cause them to go hungry, or be homeless, or whatever.


Of course attacking someone who is healthy enough to survive it is better than someone who isn't! That's why we have "battery vs. attempted murder" laws.

Patently incorrect. It's battery in both cases. It might *also* become attempted murder if the judged intent was to kill, regardless of actual resulting degree of harm. Again, you are restating my argument. I'm simpy saying that it does not cease to be battery just because the person is tough enough to take the damage inflicted without permanent injury.

This is analgous to your claim that theft ceases to be "harm" if the money lost doesn't result in some inability to feed or house or clothe oneself.

You're free to disagree, but the law doesn't change the penalty for assault and/or battery based on how physically tough the target is. Yes, it may upgrade that charge to something more serious in some cases, but never downgrade it. Shockingly, it also doesn't change the penalty for theft based on the finances of the victim.



But ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Saying, "stealing is innately neutral but the consequences often make it evil" and saying "Stealing is innately evil but the consequences sometimes make it good" are essentially only semantically different.

Perhaps. But let's recall that this entire line of discussion arose from you presenting a scenario where someone came across someone else sleeping and you defined as evil "robbing and killing the sleeper", and I, trying to be more specific, stated that robbing that person would also be evil. Random person you run into. You presumably don't know this person, and have no clue about their personal financial situation (so none of the excuses written previously apply). Do you rob them or not?

My argument as (and still is) that being "evil" doesn't require running around randomly killing people for no reason. There's a much larger range of things that a character can do that are harmful to others, greedy, selfish, etc, that will qualify them as "evil". And I think I made a point about good vs evil primarily being about the degree to which one is motivated by selfish vs selfless acts. So yeah, stealing, if your reason is purely to take something for yourself (ie: no altruistic reasons involved) is evil. If that's a thing you do regularly and is just part of your character's personality, then that character is "evil". No need to kill people to reach that alignment IMO.

Doesn't mean that an evil character wont kill people, but it's certainly not required. Again, it's about your motivation for doing the harmful act. I think somewhere long the line, we got kinda lost in a discussion of whether loss of property is really "harm" if you have lots of it, but IMO that's really beside the point. The core point was that you seemed to be restricting "evil" characters to just those who randomly kill people, and argued that this would make it impossible for good people to work with them. Which is true, except for that most people don't restrict "evil" that much.



Again, D&D alignment is really incoherent.

On this, we completely agree.

[icefractal]

Re: Theft -

So I guess I'd call my "working ethics" as roughly "run it through both rule-based and utilitarian evaluation, if they disagree then think on it more carefully", which I think is fairly common. That is, I'd generally evaluate things by their (expected) results, but there are some things where they're basically starting at -100 and need to have an airtight case to even consider. Theft is not one of those things, but it can be (and often is) still non-good in practice because of the results.

So like:
"Theft is justified in this case" - perhaps it is, explain to me why
"Skinning people alive is justified in this case" - you're probably wrong and possibly psycho. I'll evaluate your argument if there's time, but if you're walking around with a knife ready to start skinning, then I'm going to assume you need to be stopped ASAP.


Edit: Also, with theft specifically, the utility function is not only based on the value of the stolen property. How it was stolen can be equally or more important, because of other forms of harm besides lost money. Trivial example, consider these three cases:
A) Someone is having a new TV delivered, and you steal it en-route.
B) You break into someone's house and take their TV.
C) You break into someone's house and steal nothing, instead leaving a note saying "I know where you live" and a dead pigeon.

IMO, the harm is obviously greatest with C and least with A, despite that A involves a larger monetary loss.

[NichG]

Maybe. I'd suggest that, realistically, conflict arises when a player, who themselves lives in a world where property isn't communal, plays a Kender so as to justify stealing stuff as "not really evil at all. I'm just a Kender. La la la!". There's a reason why Kender are broadly considered one of the most annoying PC choices in all D&D existence. To the point that I barely play D&D and yet have heard enough negative statements about Kender (and people who play them) on this very issue.

In concept? Yeah. I get it. In practice? How many players of Kender have you ever seen hand over all their stuff to the party so that others may use it instead of them? Even in cases where someone else might make better use of that item?


Kind of rambling back and forth over the IC/OOC line there. An IC morality where 'things that annoy players OOC are evil' is an interesting thought but I doubt it's where you're trying to go with this...

And the second most annoying PC choice over Kender? Paladin.

[Pauly]

Kind of rambling back and forth over the IC/OOC line there. An IC morality where 'things that annoy players OOC are evil' is an interesting thought but I doubt it's where you're trying to go with this...

And the second most annoying PC choice over Kender? Paladin.

Well Paladins have 2 problems as player characters.
1) The Paladin means lawful stupid crowd
2) My Paladin can justify genocidal murder, rape and torture if its for the greater good crowd.

Most people I’ve played with have fallen in the happy middle ground, it’s that when paladin players go off the rails they tend to crash the entire campaign.

The third problem with paladins are the GMs who try to force paladins to break their vows. Usually by setting up some sort of artificial trolley problem where (using classic old school paladins as an example) they can do the lawful but evil thing or the good but chaotic thing. Although this problem seems to be fading over time.

[NichG]

Well Paladins have 2 problems as player characters.
1) The Paladin means lawful stupid crowd
2) My Paladin can justify genocidal murder, rape and torture if its for the greater good crowd.

Most people I’ve played with have fallen in the happy middle ground, it’s that when paladin players go off the rails they tend to crash the entire campaign.

The third problem with paladins are the GMs who try to force paladins to break their vows. Usually by setting up some sort of artificial trolley problem where (using classic old school paladins as an example) they can do the lawful but evil thing or the good but chaotic thing. Although this problem seems to be fading over time.

There's also the problem of the paladin setting the standards of behavior for the rest of the party - not because they mechanically have to outside of 'no evil party members', but because for some players the class fantasy is getting to be the local moral authority and imposing that on the other players in a way they often can't object to without crossing OOC norms.

Can happen with other kinds of authority (police investigator, noble, etc), but paladins are the meme example.

[Satinavian]

That's not what I said though.

I didn't say depriving people WAS harm, I said it could cause harm.

There are plenty of rich people who have more money than they could ever spend and to whom any given unit of money is just a number in a ledger. Likewise, many businesses simply destroy or throw away unsold merchandise rather than giving it to the needy. I personally own tons of movies I will never watch, books I will never read, and minis I will never paint or play with.

Stealing excess goods from those who have plenty to spare does not by itself cause harm.

Smaug doesn't need a literal mountain of gold to survive, or even maintain his lifestyle, but he still goes into a murderous rampage when Bilbo steals a single cup because he is greedy and covetous, not because the loss actually arms him in any real way.
1) Thiefs generally don't care what is in excess or not. They do care about what they themself need/want or what they can sell or what they can get.
2) Even if they did, what makes the thief qualified to judge this ? They generally don't know the circumstances of the victim all that well and there is an obvious conflict of interest
3) It is questionable that stolen goods find a more needy place most of the time. Status symbols will only ever be displayed by people with status, luxury items will always be luxury and fencing stolen goods is hardly ever about distributing them openly to the needy.
4) Thievery generally comes along with destruction of property. That starts with the literal cut-purse to the damage from breaking in. There is also regularly damage to the stolen goods as they need to be moved fast and quietly and stored secretly, not safe.
5) Even if one were of the opinion that excess goods need to be distribute, there are way better and easier ways to do that.

So overall i agree with "Theft is evil". There might be special circumstances where it is justified but those are the exception from the rule.


Kender are presented as extremely chaotic good, and that manifests of not having a concept of personal property. They frequently steal things from other races, but the setting labels them as objectively Chaotic Good.

IIRC it was the general consensus that theft in D&D was not innately an evil act back in the old days when we used to have weekly alignment wars on these boards.But you were repeatedly telling us that you were not using D&D morality. So we are not discussing D&D morality. Some people think that Kender are a stupid idea and that D&Ds traditional glorification of the charming scoundrel archetype is embarrassing.

Some other people think that labeling poison evil was stupid as well.

[Easy e]

Not to get too crazy, but since most of us (BIG ASSUMPTION AHEAD) grew up in a Western (mostly) Capitalist Society we have certain bias towards what is "Good" and what is "Lawful" that may not be universally applicable.

[Batcathat]

Not to get too crazy, but since most of us (BIG ASSUMPTION AHEAD) grew up in a Western (mostly) Capitalist Society we have certain bias towards what is "Good" and what is "Lawful" that may not be universally applicable.

Everyone has, one way or the other. Which is one of the reasons I think using a system where some definitions of "Good" and "Lawful" are in fact objectively true might be a bad idea.

[Satinavian]

Not to get too crazy, but since most of us (BIG ASSUMPTION AHEAD) grew up in a Western (mostly) Capitalist Society we have certain bias towards what is "Good" and what is "Lawful" that may not be universally applicable.I actually did not.

But discussing capitalism and its benefits/downsides or its morality is probably beyond the scope of this forum. That is why i avoided that point in my answer.

[Talakeal]

1) Thiefs generally don't care what is in excess or not. They do care about what they themself need/want or what they can sell or what they can get.
2) Even if they did, what makes the thief qualified to judge this ? They generally don't know the circumstances of the victim all that well and there is an obvious conflict of interest
3) It is questionable that stolen goods find a more needy place most of the time. Status symbols will only ever be displayed by people with status, luxury items will always be luxury and fencing stolen goods is hardly ever about distributing them openly to the needy.
4) Thievery generally comes along with destruction of property. That starts with the literal cut-purse to the damage from breaking in. There is also regularly damage to the stolen goods as they need to be moved fast and quietly and stored secretly, not safe.
5) Even if one were of the opinion that excess goods need to be distribute, there are way better and easier ways to do that.

So overall i agree with "Theft is evil". There might be special circumstances where it is justified but those are the exception from the rule.

I don't disagree with any of these points. That still doesn't mean that the act of theft itself is evil, or that this is unique amongst moral quandaries. #2 especially is pretty much a universal amongst moral issues.



But you were repeatedly telling us that you were not using D&D morality. So we are not discussing D&D morality. Some people think that Kender are a stupid idea and that D&Ds traditional glorification of the charming scoundrel archetype is embarrassing.

Right. But this whole thing started when someone said that people who want to play an evil character should just play thieves, which started the tangent about whether or not theft was actually evil.

My game doesn't have enforced morality at all. Nor does it have anyone in the party who is playing a thief or really cares strongly one way or the other about thief PCs, so that it is pretty much a red herring.

In my game the DM's issue seems to be with torture (although as I said above, he has no problem using torture himself as both a player and GM) while my issue with the other PCs is murder (killing people who aren't a threat for purely utilitarian purposes) or "war-crimes" where people use combat tactics that kill indiscriminately. And again, this is only a problem if I am playing a heroic character, so I usually just default to villain.

And the difference between evil and a villain? Well, to paraphrase Megamind... Presentation!


Some other people think that labeling poison evil was stupid as well.

I think a lot of people do. Personally I think the whole concept of labeling actions rather than consequences is pretty stupid.

Honestly the big thing about D&D morality is that, since it is an action game, it goes out of its way to justify violence while labeling other morally dubious means objectively evil.

[GloatingSwine]

Sounds like we need Consequentialist/Deontological as the z-axis of alignment...

[Talakeal]

snip

At this point we just disagree about fundamental philosophy, I don't think we actually disagree as much as it seems in practice, but I feel like maybe I should stop responding to your every point as we are really going off topic and I don't want the argument to get heated or go into forbidden areas.

In very brief, I will say though that yeah, stealing most often causes harm, but the overall act might still be neutral or even good if the benefit outweighs the harm; stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is the rare "good" theft, just like killing in the defense of others is the rare "good" murder.

Also, I generally am ok if needy people steal from me, although I certainly prefer if they ask, and the only time I call the police is if I need to file an insurance report for property damage. I remember one time when I was a kid and was eating at a cafe and walked away from my plate for a moment and a homeless person ran in the door and grabbed my food, and both my dad and the store owner raised the roof, but I was more than happy to let him have it as he was clearly a lot hungrier than I was. But I am no saint, I do still have a temper and can be pretty proud and rigid so I definitely see your point; someone scammed a hundred dollars from a friend and I last year and I was rightly pissed off (I still decided not to call the police though).

A deer had hit my car and left a huge dent in the side panel. Some guys in the parking lot said they could fix it for a hundred bucks. I was skeptical, but I told them they were free to try, but I had no cash. My friend offered to loan me some and walked over to the atm across the parking lot. As soon as he got the money out, they drove over to him (without doing anything to fix the car) and told him that I said they had done a good job and to give them the money. He did and they drove away.


Sounds like we need Consequentialist/Deontological as the z-axis of alignment...

Well, it would change the nature of forum debates, that's for sure.

Again though, its weird how D&D is super deontological for most things, but then goes crazy trying to use any means it can to justify violence.

[Quertus]

The issue is that a lot of players will at times either get bored OOC or decide they are RPing a stupid impulsive troll, and then decide to ignore the plan and cause some havoc.

But that still doesn't help when you have characters whose goals are fundamentally incompatible like "protect the innocent" and "murder anyone who I can get away with and raise as my undead slave". And that isn't some extreme worst case scenario, those are actual examples I have gamed with more than once.

And this is why I have weapon mastery: clue-by-four. ;)

You’ve / they’ve skipped the most important step: everyone in the party takes on all the goals of everyone in the party as their own.

So the Troll who is stupid and impulsive *can’t* (successfully) take on that goal, and that’s part of the conversation of whether they’re compatible with the party (and what the group wants from the game) or not.

The Necromancer and the Paladin are (say) beloved siblings, and care about each other above all else. They both agree that the Necromancer *can’t* “get away with” “harming the innocent”, as that violates the goal they hold more dear than their own life. Just as the Paladin helps slaughter every evildoer possible (especially, say, surrendered bandit leaders or post-interrogation helpless prisoners) to add to the Necromancer’s army.

*That’s* what it means to create truly optimized group dynamics. For all the characters to have fully adopted everyone’s goals as their own.

[King of Nowhere]

Not to get too crazy, but since most of us (BIG ASSUMPTION AHEAD) grew up in a Western (mostly) Capitalist Society we have certain bias towards what is "Good" and what is "Lawful" that may not be universally applicable.


actually, every ancient society had the concept of private property, and stealing has never been considered fine. stealing to outsider, ok, stealing to people with whom we are enemies or at least rivals. but stealing to your own people? it has never been acceptable. in fact, virtually every ancient society was a lot harsher on theft than our modern western capitalist society, with the chopping off of body parts - or being sold into slavery - being a common punishment. I can't be more specific without violating forum rules on historical stuff.
And the reason fo this is that you can't have a functioning society without private property. people work to produce something of value, and they put in the effort because then they get to own - to have exclusive use - of that something. nguluk the caveman goes hunting and takes a deer, then returns to the cave and trades half the deer to gronk for a dozen arrows. gronk spends the day chipping stones and setting them into sticks because he knows that he will be able to trade them to nguluk for food. if droc comes along and steals the arrows that gronk made and gives nothing in return, then gronk has no reason to chip stones; he either starves, or he can steal some of the food nguluk captured without giving anything back. and why would nguluk trade half his catches to gronk for arrows when he can just steal them?
the whole tribe collapses.
and so every single society developed the concept of ownership.
now, of course there are fine nuances that every society answered differently - how much of the fruit of your labor are you entitled to keep, and how much do you have to pay to the government in exchange for common services? How much is the owner of the land entitled to take from you for working his land? (hint: our evil capitalistic society actually protects the laborer a lot better than any other society I know of. we may have wage slaves, but they had literal slaves, and even free men had very few rights). And many societies developed some concept of common goods, that belong to everyone and to no one, that all can liberally partake. Like, I can go hike in the woods and you can go hike in the woods and nobody can own the woods and claim sole privilege of hiking in them; everyone can take water from the communal well. but that only works because hiking in the woods does not consume them, taking a bucket of water from the well does not dry it.
regardless of those details, all those societies had property and frowned heavily upon theft.

[kyoryu]

Sounds like we need Consequentialist/Deontological as the z-axis of alignment...

That's what these discussions almost always boil down to *shrug*

[Talakeal]

And this is why I have weapon mastery: clue-by-four. ;)

You’ve / they’ve skipped the most important step: everyone in the party takes on all the goals of everyone in the party as their own.

So the Troll who is stupid and impulsive *can’t* (successfully) take on that goal, and that’s part of the conversation of whether they’re compatible with the party (and what the group wants from the game) or not.

The Necromancer and the Paladin are (say) beloved siblings, and care about each other above all else. They both agree that the Necromancer *can’t* “get away with” “harming the innocent”, as that violates the goal they hold more dear than their own life. Just as the Paladin helps slaughter every evildoer possible (especially, say, surrendered bandit leaders or post-interrogation helpless prisoners) to add to the Necromancer’s army.

*That’s* what it means to create truly optimized group dynamics. For all the characters to have fully adopted everyone’s goals as their own.

I don't think anyone actually wants to play that game though.

Having five random strangers tell me my character's motivation is about the least fun thing I can think of; its basically OOC PvP at that point and turns the game from cooperation into hostility.*


As for family connections, yeah, that's a good idea in theory. For years I had games crash and burn before they ever got off the ground because the players would make a bunch of random strangers who had no reason to adventure together and, surprise surprise, they didn't. Now I always make sure that unless I as the GM am going to have a strong reason to compel them to stick together, they have to have a pre established relationship, and I try and talk the other players into doing the same when I PC.

Of course, this is almost universally met with hostility both in person and on the forums as it is seen as being a control freak and overstepping my bounds, so... /shrug


*: Working together to come up with a few goals that we can all enjoy, or at least not be outright contradictory, on the other hand is a lot more collaborative.

[Batcathat]

As for family connections, yeah, that's a good idea in theory. For years I had games crash and burn before they ever got off the ground because the players would make a bunch of random strangers who had no reason to adventure together and, surprise surprise, they didn't. Now I always make sure that unless I as the GM am going to have a strong reason to compel them to stick together, they have to have a pre established relationship, and I try and talk the other players into doing the same when I PC.

Of course, this is almost universally met with hostility both in person and on the forums as it is seen as being a control freak and overstepping my bounds, so... /shrug

That it's met with hostility in person doesn't surprise me, since if your depiction of the people you play with is even halfway accurate they seem like the sort of people who'd start a blood feud over who took the last cookie, but it does sound odd for it to be controversial online. Not every GM asks for relationships/reasons like that, but in my experience it's fairly common (and pretty useful, even when playing with sane people).

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds like we need Consequentialist/Deontological as the z-axis of alignment... I prefer the necktie-bacon axis. (Orange morality...)

[Talakeal]

The Alexandrian has a recent article that contains a bit I found relative to this thread; it boils down to the idea that when you combine disparate characters and force them to be perpetually in a party together, and forbid any sort of PvP, you end up with No Exit the RPG. Very apt.

[gbaji]

"Theft is justified in this case" - perhaps it is, explain to me why

The fact that it needs to be justified suggests strongly that is it *not* justified by default. It starts out as a "harmful/evl" act, and is only "Ok", under very specific (and rare) conditions.


Edit: Also, with theft specifically, the utility function is not only based on the value of the stolen property. How it was stolen can be equally or more important, because of other forms of harm besides lost money. Trivial example, consider these three cases:
A) Someone is having a new TV delivered, and you steal it en-route.
B) You break into someone's house and take their TV.
C) You break into someone's house and steal nothing, instead leaving a note saying "I know where you live" and a dead pigeon.

IMO, the harm is obviously greatest with C and least with A, despite that A involves a larger monetary loss.

Eh. B is the most harmful by far. I don't think you understand just how much damage is caused by people breaking into your home and stealing stuff. Also very unlikely for someone to take the higher risk of breaking in and just take one item. They're going to take the TV, dump the contents of your bookcase/cabinets into bags, toss the all the drawers in the house, rifle through your closets (that $500 suit will fence for say $50, so they'll take it), medicine cabinets, etc.

Cars are even worse. I've seen people smash windows (costing hundreds of dollars to replace) just to steal $15 worth of stuff sitting on the passenger seat. Protip: don't leave anything in sight in your car. I even toss the rewards cards i usually keep in the center console into the armrest container just so someone doesn't think they're credit cards or something. An empty looking car will be passed up over one with piles of stuff inside it, even if that stuff is total junk.


But discussing capitalism and its benefits/downsides or its morality is probably beyond the scope of this forum. That is why i avoided that point in my answer.

Yeah. Hence my 10' pole comment.


At this point we just disagree about fundamental philosophy, I don't think we actually disagree as much as it seems in practice, but I feel like maybe I should stop responding to your every point as we are really going off topic and I don't want the argument to get heated or go into forbidden areas.

Fair enough. I still suggest maybe reading up on some of those philosophers though. Might provide an insight into *why* we have the moral values we do, which may in turn help fit things into a game setting alignment system a bit easier.



A deer had hit my car and left a huge dent in the side panel. Some guys in the parking lot said they could fix it for a hundred bucks. I was skeptical, but I told them they were free to try, but I had no cash. My friend offered to loan me some and walked over to the atm across the parking lot. As soon as he got the money out, they drove over to him (without doing anything to fix the car) and told him that I said they had done a good job and to give them the money. He did and they drove away.

Hah. Had a similar situation:

Got into an accident on the way to a theater one day. Long story, but the radiator pushed into the fanblade and was leaking. While waiting for a tow truck, two guys showed up, asking about what was going on. The thing to realize about scammers is that they will just keep talking until they can find an "angle" to work. When I told them that the radiator was broken, they didn't miss a beat. Insisted that they had one that would be used, and would be willing to sell it, and it would get us back up and running in no time. Yeah. Right. You happen to have the exact radiator for this 1971 Plymouth sitting around. Sure...

Of course, all effort to dissuade them failed. All reasonable counters were met with insistence that they could to this, or that, and it was no problem, etc. What finally worked was me also just going absurd on them. I insisted that I already had a spare radiator at home, so there was no need for theirs. Seriously. Who would believe that? But that's what worked, so go figure.



actually, every ancient society had the concept of private property, and stealing has never been considered fine. stealing to outsider, ok, stealing to people with whom we are enemies or at least rivals. but stealing to your own people? it has never been acceptable. in fact, virtually every ancient society was a lot harsher on theft than our modern western capitalist society, with the chopping off of body parts - or being sold into slavery - being a common punishment. I can't be more specific without violating forum rules on historical stuff.
And the reason fo this is that you can't have a functioning society without private property. people work to produce something of value, and they put in the effort because then they get to own - to have exclusive use - of that something. nguluk the caveman goes hunting and takes a deer, then returns to the cave and trades half the deer to gronk for a dozen arrows. gronk spends the day chipping stones and setting them into sticks because he knows that he will be able to trade them to nguluk for food. if droc comes along and steals the arrows that gronk made and gives nothing in return, then gronk has no reason to chip stones; he either starves, or he can steal some of the food nguluk captured without giving anything back. and why would nguluk trade half his catches to gronk for arrows when he can just steal them?
the whole tribe collapses.
and so every single society developed the concept of ownership.

Yeah. That's more of the 3' pole range. This is something that happens as soon as a society has specialized labor (or even just division of labor). There must be a way to determine who is contributing to the whole, and to what degree. Simple barter works, as does monetary transactions later on. Theft, however, breaks the whole system down. The thief is not just stealing from the person directly, but also denying the "whole" of otherwise fruitfull labor output.

The important bit to realize is that the fruits of labor aren't valued based on how much effort/time it took to produce, but how much other people are willing to trade for it (value to the whole). I think that's a concept that is lost somewhat. But it's key to understanding why theft is such an "evil" thing to do. Those goods that were stolen from an otherwise "wealthy" person might have been sold to someone else (contributing to the whole), but now is not. Even minor theft raises prices for other consumers, which causes harm to the whole. This is why I have issues with people insisting that the "harm" from theft is somehow less because of how much the target has. That's not really a consideration. The actual harm is that the thief took something for himself instead of making it himself (or making something to trade for that thing). It's the production of "things" that increases the whole. If we're just swapping things back and forth via theft, then nothing is made, the whole isn't increased, and well... we have to eat and consume things, so we all die I guess.

It's a lot more serious than I think a lot of modern folks think. Doubly so if we're running a game setting in anything pre-industrial IMO. And yes, we can speculate about so-called "idle money" (the Scrooge vault concept), but that's almost never going to actually be the case in any realistic situation (ok, dragon hordes excepted I guess). Money and valuables are always used for "something", even if the person on the outside doesn't see or know what that "something" is. So that outside person's assumption is almost always wrong, even if they are certain they are right. The argument that "they have more than they need" is almost always a faulty assumption on the part of the person saying it. Using that as a justification for theft not being "harm"? Even more of a false assumption IMO.

Again. Rare setting specific situations are the exception and can certainly be played out. But as I pointed out earlier, no one really considers how that master thief, who only steals from the evil/rich/powerful gained the skills to do that in the first place. No one starts out their career breaking into the vaults of evil criminals who deserve it or something. How many average struggling shopkeepers did that person rob, or random working class people's pockets were picked, or families homes did the releave of their valuables, along the way? Probably a lot, right?

[Quertus]

I don't think anyone actually wants to play that game though.

Having five random strangers tell me my character's motivation is about the least fun thing I can think of; its basically OOC PvP at that point and turns the game from cooperation into hostility.*


As for family connections, yeah, that's a good idea in theory. For years I had games crash and burn before they ever got off the ground because the players would make a bunch of random strangers who had no reason to adventure together and, surprise surprise, they didn't. Now I always make sure that unless I as the GM am going to have a strong reason to compel them to stick together, they have to have a pre established relationship, and I try and talk the other players into doing the same when I PC.

Of course, this is almost universally met with hostility both in person and on the forums as it is seen as being a control freak and overstepping my bounds, so... /shrug


*: Working together to come up with a few goals that we can all enjoy, or at least not be outright contradictory, on the other hand is a lot more collaborative.

Let me try again.

Me as hypothetical GM of your Bizarro World group: “create characters with clearly defined goals. You are not done creating a *party*, however, until you X players have created X characters who all not only accept the X (or more) goals of the X characters in the party, but will treat them as at least as important as their own goals. Let me know when you are done.”

You aren’t being forced to have character Y accept goal Z - you are forced to learn to create characters with compatible goals and priorities.

In other words, kinda what you said, but as an explicit prerequisite for the game… and delivered with my neutral clue-by-four and all the concern about the shape of the outcome of Pellaeon with a handful of grenades (or poison gas, or whatever he actually used).

The family connections… is… an example of a crutch to fall back on, for those cases where you *almost* have a cohesive party, but need a reason why a very small number of outliers of “but I just can’t see any reason why my Necromancer would ever agree to care about innocent lives” / “I just can’t see why my Paladin would ever maximize the number of deaths” needs to be explained. It’s a style of cheap coincidence you can’t use as the foundation for the group, but can be added to soften a few remaining rough edges of an otherwise polished product.

It’s also a decent “this is the level of commitment to each other’s goals that I expect to see” litmus test.

[MoiMagnus]

...

Outside of the fact that D&D economies are so broken that it's much easier to justify a lot of behaviour that wouldn't work IRL, I believe that the core of the question is on the morality of ownership. The core of the Robin's Hood story is that the "richs / tax collectors" (depending on the version you use) are considered immoral to have the wealth they have.

There are situations where ownership is evil.

There are things you shouldn't be allowed to own according to moral, going from conscious individuals to public necessities (like the air around you).

Then there are set of things when ownership is... complicated. Land, for example. While modern law is not the point here, land ownership is a mess and things like squatter rights shows that this ownership is not absolute. And when things are a mess legally speaking, calling it morally good or evil to own/steal land is even more of a mess.

Inheritance is also a complicated question, and all the things about being a legitimate heir is more about law than morality.

That doesn't mean that every ownership is either evil or neither good/evil. The core of "good" ownership is the one you talked about the most, and that is absent of the examples I've given about evil or dubious ownership: ownership of the fruits of your own labour, of what you've made with your time and your determination.

And that's the core of the evilness of thief, when it is evil: you're stealing time and efforts of someone.

[And the thing that makes all of this messy is that you can then use your hard earned wealth to buy ownership of something you shouldn't be allowed to own, like the only water source of the region.]

[Pauly]

I don't think anyone actually wants to play that game though.

Having five random strangers tell me my character's motivation is about the least fun thing I can think of; its basically OOC PvP at that point and turns the game from cooperation into hostility.*


As for family connections, yeah, that's a good idea in theory. For years I had games crash and burn before they ever got off the ground because the players would make a bunch of random strangers who had no reason to adventure together and, surprise surprise, they didn't. Now I always make sure that unless I as the GM am going to have a strong reason to compel them to stick together, they have to have a pre established relationship, and I try and talk the other players into doing the same when I PC.

Of course, this is almost universally met with hostility both in person and on the forums as it is seen as being a control freak and overstepping my bounds, so... /shrug


*: Working together to come up with a few goals that we can all enjoy, or at least not be outright contradictory, on the other hand is a lot more collaborative.

The groups I regularly play with either as GM or player have a norm where characters are created at session zero. Coming in with a completed character sheet and back story is strongly discouraged or outright banned.

The rationale is that we are not strictly playing individuals. We are playing a group that needs to collaborate and we to do that there needs to be some degree of common history/shared values/group synergy/compatible goals.

In my view some people take the ‘it’s my character and only I have a say in it’ too far. Yes it is your character, but the character needs a reason to ge part of this group for this campaign. I have found the best way to achieve that is by collaboration with the other players and the GM.

That’s not to say pre conceived broad character concepts are a bad thing. My view is that it’s best to be flexible so that collaboration can occur. It seems to me that the lack if character design collaboration is more common in D&D and Pathfinder where long term planning on how your character will develop as they level up is the done thing. Most of the systems I play are more skills based such as Traveller or Call of Cthulhu which have more flexible character advancement, so people generally are less invested in preordained advancement paths.

[GloatingSwine]

If you have trouble getting your players to work on a shared goal, maybe try a structure like Dark Heresy where you explicitly all work for someone and they are the ones giving you a shared objective that needs completing.

[Satinavian]

Sounds like we need Consequentialist/Deontological as the z-axis of alignment...
To make it even more unwieldy ? And get fun forum threads about "Can a consequentalist chaotic evil person be in a mostly deontological chaotic good group" or "I have a consequentialist good character but some of my plans failed spectacularly recently and now my DM pushes me to consequentialist evil, but that is not how i understand the alignment"

And of course lets not forget all the new beings of the new outer planes being personifications of various consequentialist/deontologist outlook engaging in endless bloody violent battle as the only true method of philosophical discussion.





Alignments are silly and can't be repaired that easily.

[GloatingSwine]

To make it even more unwieldy ? And get fun forum threads about "Can a consequentalist chaotic evil person be in a mostly deontological chaotic good group" or "I have a consequentialist good character but some of my plans failed spectacularly recently and now my DM pushes me to consequentialist evil, but that is not how i understand the alignment"

And of course lets not forget all the new beings of the new outer planes being personifications of various consequentialist/deontologist outlook engaging in endless bloody violent battle as the only true method of philosophical discussion.





Alignments are silly and can't be repaired that easily.

Yes.

The only value of alignment is arguing about it on the internet anyway, so the solution is always to have more of them.

[Quertus]

The groups I regularly play with either as GM or player have a norm where characters are created at session zero. Coming in with a completed character sheet and back story is strongly discouraged or outright banned.

The rationale is that we are not strictly playing individuals. We are playing a group that needs to collaborate and we to do that there needs to be some degree of common history/shared values/group synergy/compatible goals.

In my view some people take the ‘it’s my character and only I have a say in it’ too far. Yes it is your character, but the character needs a reason to ge part of this group for this campaign. I have found the best way to achieve that is by collaboration with the other players and the GM.

That’s not to say pre conceived broad character concepts are a bad thing. My view is that it’s best to be flexible so that collaboration can occur. It seems to me that the lack if character design collaboration is more common in D&D and Pathfinder where long term planning on how your character will develop as they level up is the done thing. Most of the systems I play are more skills based such as Traveller or Call of Cthulhu which have more flexible character advancement, so people generally are less invested in preordained advancement paths.

Eh… starting with existing characters has pros and cons, and requires different skills to “groupify” successfully. For example, it’s best to have a roster of *numerous* existing characters, more than the just several “general ideas” that would be best to bring to session 0. And the counterpart to cheesy “beloved sibling” is that you have to accept working equally cheesy “bonding moments” (“Martha”) into the pre-adventure setup.

The advantages include that it’s easier to see the pitfalls, pre-existing characters are much stronger load-bearing structures to hang the story off of, and are generally much better roleplayed.

Also, sharing in-character stories tend to largely replace OOC Monte Python references. Whether that’s a pro or con depends on your tastes, I suppose.

[Talakeal]

So I talked to my DM about the stealing tangent. His response was "if theft is a matter of good and evil, what is even the point of having a lawful / chaos axis? To stop jaywalkers?" Which, while I don't agree with him, does show that this does not actually appear to be an issue in our game.


Again. Obvious exceptions when the person who has something did actually obtain it via some evil actions of their own. I just find it problematic to create an alignment system where that's assumed to be the norm rather than a conditional placed on the norm. Doubly so if we're assuming some sort of PC profession/class of "thief/rogue", right? It's pretty unlikely that said character developed their second story B&E and lockpicking skills only by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Actually, scratch that. It's absurd to think that.

So, I know I wanted to drop this, but I was just thinking about this point specifically.

Doesn't that line of thinking imply that rogues should be an evil only class, and thus banned in most campaigns? And that the skills themselves should be restricted to evil (or maybe formerly evil) characters?

That actually reminds me of another one of my horror stories. Something very similar actually broke up my group about ten years ago. The party kept getting stymied by locks, and we didn't have a rogue, so we decided someone needed to pick up the skills. We asked the monk as she had some skill points to burn and the highest dexterity in the party and she refused, claiming that her character was neutral and that lock-picking was an innately evil skill. Her husband, who was another player, and whose father is a professional locksmith, took great offense at this, and it spiraled into a huge fight. In the end, they both decided to leave the game for the sake of their marriage.

[kyoryu]

The groups I regularly play with either as GM or player have a norm where characters are created at session zero. Coming in with a completed character sheet and back story is strongly discouraged or outright banned.

The rationale is that we are not strictly playing individuals. We are playing a group that needs to collaborate and we to do that there needs to be some degree of common history/shared values/group synergy/compatible goals.

In my view some people take the ‘it’s my character and only I have a say in it’ too far. Yes it is your character, but the character needs a reason to ge part of this group for this campaign. I have found the best way to achieve that is by collaboration with the other players and the GM.

That’s not to say pre conceived broad character concepts are a bad thing. My view is that it’s best to be flexible so that collaboration can occur. It seems to me that the lack if character design collaboration is more common in D&D and Pathfinder where long term planning on how your character will develop as they level up is the done thing. Most of the systems I play are more skills based such as Traveller or Call of Cthulhu which have more flexible character advancement, so people generally are less invested in preordained advancement paths.

I think part of it is the OC/NeoTrad culture of play.

In Classic play, you come in with a character (usually randomly rolled up), and explore the world. You don't know what's going to happen. But there's a shared goal of "explore stuff" that's helping create cohesion.

In Trad play, you're playing through the story as presented.

But in OC/NeoTrad play, in a lot of cases, the point of the game is to play through your character's story. The game, the GM's plot, all of these things are really just the base that serves to facilitate those.

And when you have five players sitting down, each with their own idea of their character arc that they want to see happen, the chance for conflict goes up exponentially. Because now it's not just "can these characters go through the story/explore the dungeon/wilderness together?" it's more like "do these character arcs work together?" Not that these conflicts couldn't exist earlier (and truly Classic play has other solutions for that), but I do believe this presumption many players have makes it worse.

[Batcathat]

That actually reminds me of another one of my horror stories. Something very similar actually broke up my group about ten years ago. The party kept getting stymied by locks, and we didn't have a rogue, so we decided someone needed to pick up the skills. We asked the monk as she had some skill points to burn and the highest dexterity in the party and she refused, claiming that her character was neutral and that lock-picking was an innately evil skill. Her husband, who was another player, and whose father is a professional locksmith, took great offense at this, and it spiraled into a huge fight. In the end, they both decided to leave the game for the sake of their marriage.

Huh. Suddenly opinions like "poison is evil" seem almost reasonable by comparison. Did anyone ask how she felt about her character's skill at brutally beating people to a pulp with her bare hands?

[Satinavian]

Doesn't that line of thinking imply that rogues should be an evil only class, and thus banned in most campaigns? And that the skills themselves should be restricted to evil (or maybe formerly evil) characters?I don't think most campaigns ban evil characters.

Also not every rogue is a thief.

[KorvinStarmast]

As for D&D alignment, it is incoherent IMO. The game simultaneously is built around three traditions:
1: A bronze age sword and sorcery setting with amoral heroes and where cosmic powers are chaos and law rather than good and evil.
2: A medieval high fantasy tradition where montheism and monarchy are the norm and all morality and authority ultimately comes from the same divine source.
3: A western ideal about a frontier that is the bulwark protecting civilization against barbaric savages. Sorry, point three needs a comment. The Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians also had problems with item 3. :smallwink: And it's not just western. There's a country that built a very large wall to keep the barbarians out. You can see the wall from outer space.
Similarly, a wall was built in Westeros to keep some other undesirables out: the ice fiends and the Wildlings aka Barbarians.

So like:
"Theft is justified in this case" - perhaps it is, explain to me why
Nice.

"Skinning people alive is justified in this case" - you're probably wrong and possibly psycho. I'll evaluate your argument if there's time, but if you're walking around with a knife ready to start skinning, then I'm going to assume you need to be stopped ASAP. Wait, did they run out of lotion? :smalleek:

A) Someone is having a new TV delivered, and you steal it en-route.
B) You break into someone's house and take their TV.
C) You break into someone's house and steal nothing, instead leaving a note saying "I know where you live" and a dead pigeon.
In case C they provided a free meal ingredient, namely, fresh meat. :smallbiggrin:

And the second most annoying PC choice over Kender? Paladin. Naay, I'd go with Tieflings. Let's compare apples to apples. Kender is a race, Tieflings are a race. Paladin is a class.

The third problem with paladins are the GMs who try to force paladins to break their vows. Gotcha GMing. Seen it, don't like it, try my best not to fall into that trap.

The core of the Robin's Hood story is that the "richs / tax collectors" (depending on the version you use) are considered immoral to have the wealth they have. That would be due to the point of view or the author, or the narrator, of the tail. Not something absolute.

And that's the core of the evilness of thief, when it is evil: you're stealing time and efforts of someone.
Which is stealing a part of their life, given the time and effort thay put into creating or trading for that stolen thing. And in some cases, stealing the pig or goat leaves the family to starve.

[Talakeal]

I don't think most campaigns ban evil characters.

Also not every rogue is a thief.

My experience is evil characters are banned more often than not. AFAICT is it banned in the RPGA, Adventurer's League, and Pathfinder Society. I know my last DM banned them outright, and does The Angry DM.


No, not all rogues are thieves, but most rogues have the same skills as thieves, and the argument was that someone is not going to develop said skills if they aren't planning to use them for nefarious purposes.


Sorry, point three needs a comment. The Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians also had problems with item 3. :smallwink: And it's not just western. There's a country that built a very large wall to keep the barbarians out. You can see the wall from outer space.

To clarify, I don't mean western as in "western society" I mean western as in the "Cowboys and Indians" genre.

[kyoryu]

My experience is evil characters are banned more often than not. AFAICT is it banned in the RPGA, Adventurer's League, and Pathfinder Society. I know my last DM banned them outright, and does The Angry DM.


Evil PCs are a fairly high trust thing in my opinion. There can be lots of good ones, but there's also lots of bad ones. In a typical, collaborative situation with a more or less open table, I'm probably going to ban them just on principle. With a group of players I trust? I might allow them, but I'd ask what the intent was.

[KorvinStarmast]

To clarify, I don't mean western as in "western society" I mean western as in the "Cowboys and Indians" genre. All you did here was dig a deeper hole. The pastoralist verus settled tension predates that trope by about 5,000 years, taking us back to Sumer, Assyria, Babylon, etc, and even before that.

Beyond that AL allowed Lawful Evil if they were in the Zhentirim faction. Otherwise, yes, AL did not permit that alignment due to the problems that it causes at the table.

[Satinavian]

My experience is evil characters are banned more often than not. AFAICT is it banned in the RPGA, Adventurer's League, and Pathfinder Society. I know my last DM banned them outright, and does The Angry DM.I think that much of that has more to to with the open table setting playing standard scenarios. Evil characters and actually nearly all characters with complex motivations or personalities are less suited for that as there is neither time nor desire to explore it.

But open tables playing standardized series of short scenarios are not exactly my idea of a typical tabletop group. Partly because all three barely exist in my country if at all. (specificalla RPGA does not exist, AL only as "unofficial" discord server for online groups and PS seems to have shut down after very limited success ) And i have never experienced any of them.

I think i have never actually met a group that banned evil characters specifically.



No, not all rogues are thieves, but most rogues have the same skills as thieves, and the argument was that someone is not going to develop said skills if they aren't planning to use them for nefarious purposes.As skill monkeys there tend to be very different ways to build rogue, many don't have the same skill set as a thief. And even if they do, there are other potential reasons for it. The classical one is the Spy or secret agent. I think in the last decades i have seen more of those than actual thiefs.

[Telonius]

Personally I don't outright ban Evil characters. But characters have to be able to work within the party. If you've got a Belkar, he has to be pointed at the antagonists, not the party; and the rest of the group has to be okay with the level of Evil that they're going to be portraying.

In session zero, I usually check with the players to see - if the campaign were a movie, what rating would you want it to be; and are there any topics that you would be uncomfortable addressing in the game. (This is to set expectations and boundaries; and to respect players that might have particular triggers). Setting that can also be a limit on exactly how Evil a character could be. Evil is a big alignment. It encompasses everything from a person who loves kicking somebody when they're down, to the omnicidal maniac. All it requires is a general attitude and history of going out of your way to hurt others, disrespecting life, or ignoring the dignity of sentient beings. It's perfectly possible for an Evil character to exist in a mostly-Good party without shattering it. (The exception is with a Paladin; personally I think the "no Evil characters in the party" clause is stupid, and I houserule it away).

[Talakeal]

As skill monkeys there tend to be very different ways to build rogue, many don't have the same skill set as a thief. And even if they do, there are other potential reasons for it. The classical one is the Spy or secret agent. I think in the last decades i have seen more of those than actual thiefs.

For sure. I don't think anyone would object to sending in a scout or a spy to steal a dangerous artifact from the evil overlord, but that is exactly the sort of situation you are condemning with statements declaring that the skills themselves are evil or that a good person would have no reason to learn them.


All you did here was dig a deeper hole. The pastoralist verus settled tension predates that trope by about 5,000 years, taking us back to Sumer, Assyria, Babylon, etc, and even before that.[/I]

Of course these tensions have existed for as long as agriculture; this is more about the sort of stories which Gygax et al. were drawing upon to craft the framework for D&D. Conan and John Wayne IMO had a way bigger impact than actual history or period sources.

[Satinavian]

but that is exactly the sort of situation you are condemning with statements declaring that the skills themselves are evil or that a good person would have no reason to learn them.I never made those statements.

[Talakeal]

I never made those statements.

No you didn't. I was using a hypothetical generic you. I apologize if you thought I was talking to you directly.

[King of Nowhere]

If you have trouble getting your players to work on a shared goal, maybe try a structure like Dark Heresy where you explicitly all work for someone and they are the ones giving you a shared objective that needs completing.
knowing talekeal's group, I'd think in a few sessions somebody would either try to leave their boss, or outright attack them



So, I know I wanted to drop this, but I was just thinking about this point specifically.

Doesn't that line of thinking imply that rogues should be an evil only class, and thus banned in most campaigns? And that the skills themselves should be restricted to evil (or maybe formerly evil) characters?

That actually reminds me of another one of my horror stories. Something very similar actually broke up my group about ten years ago. The party kept getting stymied by locks, and we didn't have a rogue, so we decided someone needed to pick up the skills. We asked the monk as she had some skill points to burn and the highest dexterity in the party and she refused, claiming that her character was neutral and that lock-picking was an innately evil skill. Her husband, who was another player, and whose father is a professional locksmith, took great offense at this, and it spiraled into a huge fight. In the end, they both decided to leave the game for the sake of their marriage.

this is just silly.
first, nowhere does it say that rogues must steal. a rogue is a dexterity-based fighter and a skill monkey; nothing more, nothing less.
Second, while stealing is evil outside of some strict circumstances, killing is universally agreed to be evil in almost all circumstances. and guess what, all adventurers have abilities centered on killing; by this reasoning, they are all evil and should not be played.
a d&d campaign just have a tendency to put people in situations where the use of those skills - whether thieving or killing - is justified.





There are situations where ownership is evil.

There are things you shouldn't be allowed to own according to moral, going from conscious individuals to public necessities (like the air around you).

on a tangent here, in my world the church of hextor made a point of privatizing the air. they said that trees produce the oxygen you breath, and the church-state owns the forests that produce the oxygen, so they own the oxygen - just like the owner of an orchard also owns the fruits of the trees - and they are justified in taxing you for breathing it.
they also taxed sunlight, rain, stepping on the public soil, and a few other things. they also used to have a tax on internal organs, but people used to get a kidney removed to pay less, and then they were less healty and worked less, so that tax was abolished (despite heavy protests of some government factions claiming it would "set a dangerous precedent").

then the party forced them to change.

within a few years (new campaign set into the same world a century later) hextor was rebranded from the god of tyranny to the god of ultraliberism. all those old taxes were forbidden, indeed taxes were forbidden entirely. instead, all those commodities were owned by private corporations that made you pay "fees" (which are absolutely not taxes, we no longer tax people, we are now the country of freedom) to use them.
The population went along with it, propaganda is great. I paid good money to buy shares of the road society so that now the road belongs also to me and I have a right to walk on it. If somebody else who didn't buy shares walks on MY road, he's trespassing on MY private property! how dares he! I pay the police to harrass people too poor to pay the police, that's what police is for. we certainly would not want them to start asking questions to honest people
obviously, the players hated the church of hextor immediately. great villains.


There's a country that built a very large wall to keep the barbarians out. You can see the wall from outer space.

actually, you can't. it's a myth. doesn't matter that it's long, it's too thin to see. just like a DNA molecule is over a meter long, but you can't see it because it's thin... well, like a molecule.
doesn't change anything else about your post, of course

[gbaji]

Outside of the fact that D&D economies are so broken that it's much easier to justify a lot of behaviour that wouldn't work IRL, I believe that the core of the question is on the morality of ownership. The core of the Robin's Hood story is that the "richs / tax collectors" (depending on the version you use) are considered immoral to have the wealth they have.

I disagree.The core of the Robin Hood story is that theft is immoral. The key bit to realize is that the Sheriff is the thief. He has stolen the property belonging to "the people" and is using it for his own ends instead of for the good of the whole. The mere act of collecting taxes is not immoral. But those who do take on that role/power have an obligation to use it for the good of the whole. That's why they exist (and trust me, I'm far from someone who thinks taxes are a good thing, but they are necessary).

Robin Hood isn't a hero because he steals stuff from the rich. He's a hero because he is standing up to the evil sheriff who is himself stealing, not only the wealth of "the people", but the power that comes with his position by using it in a selfish manner.


There are situations where ownership is evil.

There are things you shouldn't be allowed to own according to moral, going from conscious individuals to public necessities (like the air around you).

Sure. But the "ownership" of cash, or rare paintings, or other forms of "wealth" is none of those things. Since these are what people usually steal when we speak about stealing, then what you are talking about isn't really relevant to a discussion about whether "theft is <good/evil/none-of-the-above>".

We're still left looping back to the point that if you are stealing something from someone else just because you want it for yourself, then none of the above objections/exceptions really apply. It's still "evil". That is the default state of that action. Ownership by itself is neither good nor evil, but taking something that you didn't follow whatever existing rules are there to obtain is an evil act. In the same way that killing someone is evil, unless you are doing it in accordance with lawful punishment or war, right? If you do these things because you want to do them, and they benefit you to do them, then that is an evil act, and you are (likely) of evil alignment.



That doesn't mean that every ownership is either evil or neither good/evil. The core of "good" ownership is the one you talked about the most, and that is absent of the examples I've given about evil or dubious ownership: ownership of the fruits of your own labour, of what you've made with your time and your determination.

And that's the core of the evilness of thief, when it is evil: you're stealing time and efforts of someone.

[And the thing that makes all of this messy is that you can then use your hard earned wealth to buy ownership of something you shouldn't be allowed to own, like the only water source of the region.

I mentioned Locke earlier. I seriously recommend reading his writings on property (just have to fluff your way past the flowery/religious language in there though). It's not what you think, and actually excludes ownership of the things you most find to be "evil or dubious ownership". Propery is not things, it's all that makes up you. Your body. Your thoughts. And your actions. Things you own are extensions of that (fruits of your labor). But he speaks also about having property which is not used in any productive way as useless and theft. Taking food and letting it rot is theft (I think he calls it "robbery"). Now, taking food (using labor to gather, or farm) and then exchanging it for something more durable (like gold, silver, or currency) is *not* theft or robbery. Because others got to use the food you gathered/grew and as a result of the fruits of your labors were fed instead of starved.

Theft is the taking of the fruits of other people's labors, or I suppose, the taking of things that others may use to create fruits of their labors (taking food and then letting it rot).

Recovery of things previously stolen is not really theft. Again, assuming that recovery and return to an original/natural state is the objective. If you're just taking it for yourself, then you're just as bad as the first thief.

I'd spend some time talking about wealth and how that's also not what most people think it is, but this post is lengthy enough already (hint: Wealth actually measures what you have given to others, and not what you have taken from others. I know. Mind blown!). Again though, assumming no theft is in action in the first place.


So I talked to my DM about the stealing tangent. His response was "if theft is a matter of good and evil, what is even the point of having a lawful / chaos axis? To stop jaywalkers?" Which, while I don't agree with him, does show that this does not actually appear to be an issue in our game.

What's the difference between Xykon and Redcloak? Both kill people without having any moral opposition to it based solely on it being murder. Answer what makes them different, and you will understand what the chaos/law axis is about. You still seem to think that law=="obeying the law", and therefore chaos="not obeying the law". That's just not it.

But hey. If you and your GM both are in agreement with how to manage it, then by all means go for it. But it does seem as though there's some conflict on the good/evil axis, and I'm suggesting that maybe the fact that you are both pushing a lot of that axis into the law/chaos one may be part of the problem. You can't really play an "evil" character because both of you have restricted "evil" down to a level that requires only the most absurd and overtly and senseless harmful acts to qualify.

Your GM is requesting "evil but not crazy", but the definition of evil he's using pretty much requires sociopathic behavior (ie: crazy). That might just be the root of the problem.



Doesn't that line of thinking imply that rogues should be an evil only class, and thus banned in most campaigns? And that the skills themselves should be restricted to evil (or maybe formerly evil) characters?

First edition thieves were "mostly evil" alignment. For the exact reason that it was assumed that this was their actual profession, and not just a skillset. Later editions changed the class to "rogue" specifically to allow for the assumption that people could learn these sorts of skills without being a person who robs other people of things. Adventurers might have all sorts of reasons to need to sneak, hide, climb, pick locks, check for and disarm traps, etc, without also being someone who breaks into people's homes and steals their stuff.


That actually reminds me of another one of my horror stories. Something very similar actually broke up my group about ten years ago. The party kept getting stymied by locks, and we didn't have a rogue, so we decided someone needed to pick up the skills. We asked the monk as she had some skill points to burn and the highest dexterity in the party and she refused, claiming that her character was neutral and that lock-picking was an innately evil skill. Her husband, who was another player, and whose father is a professional locksmith, took great offense at this, and it spiraled into a huge fight. In the end, they both decided to leave the game for the sake of their marriage.

Yup. Or a tow truck guy who can break into cars. Or a security expert. Or white hat hacker. There's a large list of legitimate professions which have a lot of overlap into the same sorts of skills that a rogue might have. The skills themselves don't have any alignment associated with them, but what you do with them. Now, I could argue certain skills are hard to have without using them in "evil" ways (like say pick pockets). But those are a pretty small set. Disarming traps and locks? I don't see any reason why merely having those skills would make one evil.

[Quertus]

I don't think anyone would object to sending in a scout or a spy to steal a dangerous artifact from the evil overlord,

Of course there exist people who would object. Just as there doubtless exist people who would object to spies stealing dangerous weapons (even ones of mass destruction) from world leaders in (a science fiction version of) this world (even one where precognition / time travel meant it was an absolute certainty such things were about to be used badly unless the party intervened). There are plenty of reasons why one might object, including people just being principled, and having principles against theft. I’ll admit that, for the unprincipled, it’s pretty easy to devise a scenario such that it’s obvious that the benefits outweigh the costs, and, even if they consider theft “evil”, most will simply dub it a “necessary evil” in that particular scenario.

I feel there’s probably some branches of philosophy and/or psychology that have more generalized terms for such concepts. Shrug. I just know that, while such things may be true of a majority of individuals, such conformity of beliefs isn’t a reality, and evaluating the potential range of responses to such a proposed course of action is not quite as simple as you perceive it to be.

[DeMouse]

As has already been mentioned the answer is to run a proper session 0 to make sure the party is on more or less the same page. Establish an overall tone for the campaign so the players and GM aren't in conflict when it comes to what kind of overall story you are going for. It isn't about eliminating all conflicts between characters, but make sure that noting is going to come up that would cause an irreconcilable split in the party.

For example you might establish that this is a heroic campaign where overall you are saving people. This would make playing some kind of serial killer pretty clearly out of the question. But a player might still be able to fit a ruthless mercenary who would otherwise be evil in with the party by establishing that he cares about his reputation and is loyal to his crew. So he won't act on his brutality, just advocate for more ruthless tactics to the party which can lead to some fun role playing as the other characters react to his suggestions.

Also generally alignment systems suck and you should try to either do away with them entirely or at least be flexible with what they mean.

[Talakeal]

this is just silly.
first, nowhere does it say that rogues must steal. a rogue is a dexterity-based fighter and a skill monkey; nothing more, nothing less.
Second, while stealing is evil outside of some strict circumstances, killing is universally agreed to be evil in almost all circumstances. and guess what, all adventurers have abilities centered on killing; by this reasoning, they are all evil and should not be played.
a d&d campaign just have a tendency to put people in situations where the use of those skills - whether thieving or killing - is justified.

Note that I am specifically responding to:

"It's pretty unlikely that said character developed their second story B&E and lockpicking skills only by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Actually, scratch that. It's absurd to think that."

I don't agree with the idea that certain skills are innately bad because you wouldn't pick them up without evil intentions. I have seen that argument before though; for example 3E labelled many spells "evil" even though they have benevolent uses, and people argued that said uses were rare enough that any wizard who bothered to learn the spell should still have an evil alignment.

I kind of have a hard time accepting that a rogue is a "dexterity-based fighter". I think a better fit for that would be the duelist or, well, a dexterity-based fighter.

All rogues have way too many abilities centered around stealth and larceny and not enough based around combat for me to buy that.

And yeah, I have already pointed out how hypocritical D&D is that it tries to be all objective and deontological for everything but violence, but then tries to bend over backwards to justify violence.


As has already been mentioned the answer is to run a proper session 0 to make sure the party is on more or less the same page. Establish an overall tone for the campaign so the players and GM aren't in conflict when it comes to what kind of overall story you are going for. It isn't about eliminating all conflicts between characters, but make sure that noting is going to come up that would cause an irreconcilable split in the party.

For example you might establish that this is a heroic campaign where overall you are saving people. This would make playing some kind of serial killer pretty clearly out of the question. But a player might still be able to fit a ruthless mercenary who would otherwise be evil in with the party by establishing that he cares about his reputation and is loyal to his crew. So he won't act on his brutality, just advocate for more ruthless tactics to the party which can lead to some fun role playing as the other characters react to his suggestions.

That's what we do.

The thread is about how I almost always play villainous characters to better fit in with the group for the sake of avoiding conflict.

The problem is that, as a result, I (or really any of us) haven't actually been able to enjoy playing a proper heroic character in years.


Also generally alignment systems suck and you should try to either do away with them entirely or at least be flexible with what they mean.

I have not played a game with a formal alignment system in years.

[King of Nowhere]

Note that I am specifically responding to:

"It's pretty unlikely that said character developed their second story B&E and lockpicking skills only by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Actually, scratch that. It's absurd to think that."

then why are you quoting me and not whoever said that? I expoused a very different opinion




I kind of have a hard time accepting that a rogue is a "dexterity-based fighter".
All rogues have way too many abilities centered around stealth and larceny and not enough based around combat for me to buy that.

Yeah, it's funny how different tables play differently.
I remember only once seeing a rogue that was based around stealth and larceny and not on combat. We don't have all that many occasions to use stealth and larceny at my table, because those things are easy to protect against. Plus, you can't infiltrate with the rest of the party - the others have no stealth skills - so you have to go alone; and at this point, a single failed roll will leave you surrounded by hostiles, and rogues have poor survivability.
my table always preferred to either fight our way through, or to talk and resort to politics. "I try to get in from that window up there" is very rarely done, as the risk/reward ratio is unfavorable. So rogues at my table become first and foremost fighters, and they use their skill points to be scouts and diplomats.


That's what we do.

The thread is about how I almost always play villainous characters to better fit in with the group for the sake of avoiding conflict.

The problem is that, as a result, I (or really any of us) haven't actually been able to enjoy playing a proper heroic character in years.


I realize that you probably did and it didn't work out because your players are special, but:
have you tried proposing it?
Like, "hey guys, I would like to play a genuinely heroic character for once, and I know some of you feel the same, but I can't do it in a party of murderhobos. So we would have to all agree in advance to be good guys. I would like to try a campaign like that; who is up for it?"

[Talakeal]

then why are you quoting me and not whoever said that? I expoused a very different opinion

Because I was responding to you quoting me responding to gbaj.


I realize that you probably did and it didn't work out because your players are special, but:
have you tried proposing it?
Like, "hey guys, I would like to play a genuinely heroic character for once, and I know some of you feel the same, but I can't do it in a party of murderhobos. So we would have to all agree in advance to be good guys. I would like to try a campaign like that; who is up for it?"

I probably will next time.

This time was a bit different because one player had his heart set on playing a pirate going into session zero, and I knew Bob had always wanted to play a necromancer and so I suggested he play one as that is a school that needed playtesting.

And of course when they heard pirate and necromancer, any idea of playing a heroic character was long gone.

[animorte]

I would like to toss out the unforgivable curses from HP: Kill, torture, and control. All of these are considered evil, no exceptions, despite there being other ways to create the same effects in an otherwise poorly designed magic system. Are those effects still considered evil without the specific curse itself? Probably, unless it's strictly in self-defense (perhaps justifiably only chaotic).

I still strongly believe that your character's actions should determine their alignment, especially considering how often I've seen people write an alignment at the top of their character sheet and never think about it again, not to mention straying from it just because (this makes sense for my character). Ok, then we'll adjust your alignment accordingly (that you barely cared for anyway). The only time this becomes a legitimate issue is class features/etc. directly having a mechanical function in accordance with alignment, which I would assume you're aware of prior.

[zzzzzzzz414]

The latter half of this whole thread really underlines why i just never use alignment at all.

Like all it takes is for the charmingly Chaotic-Neutral rogue to spy a wealthy-looking merchant baron at the market and go "Hey that guy isn't gonna miss that sixth gold brooch, imma swipe it and barter for a nice meat pie to split with the party's precocious urchin sidekick," and then the DM goes "Alright, cool, roll Sleight of Hand and I'll go ahead and mark this as a tick towards Chaotic Evil," and then the rogue's player goes "yo what the f**k," and then the DM goes "Hey look, that guy is a captain of industry and that brooch is a collateralized asset, you're hurting the economy for your own selfish wants," and then it's like three hours later and the player and DM are hip-deep in a heated argument over Proudhonian philosophy while everyone else plays a thoroughly awkward game of Cards Against Humanity in the other room. Completely unworkable.

[Vahnavoi]

@zzzzzzzz414:

That's gotta be the silliest strawman as of yet.

Experientially, no playgroup that's capable of playing Cards Against Humanity will behave the way you pose. "You are Chaotic Evil now, you thief!" is exceedingly mild compated to anything in CAH and virtually anyone who can play CAH without throwing a fit, can just accept alignment determinations as part of the game, without arguing.

Furthermore, trying to draw your conclusion that alignment is "completely unworkable" from threads such as these is weak for several other reasons:

1) you presume members of a playgroup conduct themselves the same way as strangers on the internet.
2) you presume a forum discussion is equivalent to a game with a referee figure who has final say.
3) you presume it would take a lot of time to solve an ethical argument in person

None of these is true as any general rule.

It isn't hard to find players who agree on what is or is not moral. It isn't hard to find players who, even if they disagree, will accept a game master's ruling simply because that's what the game rules say. It isn't hard to find people who can make their case and solve a disagreement in minutes, easily capable of being done within a session, or just agree to have the debate after the game is over as a matter of courtesy.

Hence, alignment is very much workable. Talakeal's group is special in that it has interpersonal and moral conflicts even when no alignment system is in play. Talakeal's playgroup might get upset if one of them had their character called Evil for stealing, but they demonstrably get upset over many other things that are completely ordinary gaming events. Just ask Talakeal for a list.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hence, alignment is very much workable. Talakeal's group is special in that it has interpersonal and moral conflicts even when no alignment system is in play. Talakeal's playgroup might get upset if one of them had their character called Evil for stealing, but they demonstrably get upset over many other things that are completely ordinary gaming events. Just ask Talakeal for a list. That group is borderline dysfunctional, if it behaves as described. As you note, alignment hardly enters into it.

[King of Nowhere]

Like all it takes is for the charmingly Chaotic-Neutral rogue to spy a wealthy-looking merchant baron at the market and go "Hey that guy isn't gonna miss that sixth gold brooch, imma swipe it and barter for a nice meat pie to split with the party's precocious urchin sidekick,"

If you barter a gold brooch for a meat pie, your alignment immediately moves to true neutral. because your intelligence cannot be higher than 2 :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

But really, I wonder how that "charmingly chaotic neutral rogue" would react if another thief in the marker went "hey that guy isn't gonna miss that sixth magic item, imma swipe it" and stole their ring of protection. Because most players who defend the sanctity of stealing from the rich conveniently forget that they are often richer than the merchant baron himself. Most players would react to an attempted theft on them with lethal force and feel perfectly justified; and in that case, I'd rule that the rogue's alignment is, and always has been, hypocrite evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality).
heck, the very fact that you call him "charmingly chaotic neutral rogue" reeks of hypocrisy: this guy can get away with it because (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewTheRulesImBeautiful) he's charming (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutenessEqualsForgiveness). if he was gruff and ugly, he'd just be a dirty thief (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonCute). (yes, I'm linking tvtropes. Extreme times and all that)
on the other hand, if your chaotic neutral rogue accept that he lost his magic ring with something like "meh, stuff comes and goes, can't get too attached to it", then I'd totally accept that interpretation of chaotic neutral as legitimate. I'd compliment the player on roleplaying.

hey, you gave me a great idea for an encounter: a robin-hood style bandit - that threatens the party and asks for a donation for the poor. the rogue will make the argument that the party is very rich, and a couple of magic items can feed a village for months. if the party investigate, they can discover that this guy actually donated half of his earnings to the poor - though he still makes a hefty profit from what he keeps.
if the party is genuinely heroic, they can point out their own good deeds and make a diplomacy check to persuade the guy to let them go. they can fight and kill, but they'd have to drop any excuse of morality for their own actions. escaping (but difficult) or fighting non-lethally could be a good way to keep the middle ground.

[kyoryu]

The latter half of this whole thread really underlines why i just never use alignment at all.

Like all it takes is for the charmingly Chaotic-Neutral rogue to spy a wealthy-looking merchant baron at the market and go "Hey that guy isn't gonna miss that sixth gold brooch, imma swipe it and barter for a nice meat pie to split with the party's precocious urchin sidekick," and then the DM goes "Alright, cool, roll Sleight of Hand and I'll go ahead and mark this as a tick towards Chaotic Evil," and then the rogue's player goes "yo what the f**k," and then the DM goes "Hey look, that guy is a captain of industry and that brooch is a collateralized asset, you're hurting the economy for your own selfish wants," and then it's like three hours later and the player and DM are hip-deep in a heated argument over Proudhonian philosophy while everyone else plays a thoroughly awkward game of Cards Against Humanity in the other room. Completely unworkable.

This is precisely why I prefer a more deontologist view of good/evil in roleplaying games. "Stealing is evil, full stop" is much easier to adjudicate - there's no worrying about where the item came from.

You can even put in a small allowance for it not being evil if you know that the item was not obtained through legitimate means.

This does mean that some "neutral" archetypes will end up evil. C'est la vie. And you may disagree with this view, and that's also fine - but in game terms it's workable.

Also note that as I've pointed out, in general neutral and even good people will occasionally commit evil acts - it's the frequency, conditions, and how they deal with it after that changes. The obvious exception is paladins in 3x and before, who cannot commit evil acts without Falling. But this really is a case where the exception proves the rule, as paladins not being able to commit evil acts is specifically called out - other good characters absolutely can. Not all Good characters are paladins

[Easy e]

I prefer non-alignment based games.

I think of my own personal behavior and it varies a lot based on outside factors like hunger level, sleep levels, group dynamics, etc. These all change how I act and react and sometimes my reactions are more noble than others. :)

I would prefer people create a triangle of personality, a couple bullets of quirks and eccentricities, and a bullet point or two of "Rooting Interests" (reasons why someone might cheer them on) for their character and play to that, rather than the short-hand that alignment was supposed to be.

Therefore, a character might be:

Personality:
- Loyal
- Bold
- Sarcastic

Quirks:
- Loves to read, write, and recite poetry
- Strives to wear fancy clothing

Rooting interests:
- Kind to animals, kids, and charitable to those less fortunate than himself
- Never leaves a friend behind

This helps drive a real character much better than alignment does.

[Talakeal]

This is precisely why I prefer a more deontologist view of good/evil in roleplaying games. "Stealing is evil, full stop" is much easier to adjudicate - there's no worrying about where the item came from.

You can even put in a small allowance for it not being evil if you know that the item was not obtained through legitimate means.

This does mean that some "neutral" archetypes will end up evil. C'est la vie. And you may disagree with this view, and that's also fine - but in game terms it's workable.

Also note that as I've pointed out, in general neutral and even good people will occasionally commit evil acts - it's the frequency, conditions, and how they deal with it after that changes. The obvious exception is paladins in 3x and before, who cannot commit evil acts without Falling. But this really is a case where the exception proves the rule, as paladins not being able to commit evil acts is specifically called out - other good characters absolutely can. Not all Good characters are paladins

I can't enjoy a game like this.

I know it is D&D RAW, but something just rubs me the wrong way about typical murder-hobos being able to write LG on their sheets but I am out here using my real life ethics to work out tough moral problems, and I have to write CE on my sheet because sometimes I decide it the best course of action to steal from the greedy baron to feed the starving peasants, or painlessly kill some villain poison rather than hacking him to bits and blasting him with fireballs, or to animate the farmer's dead mule as a zombie to finish plowing his fields before the end of the season.

Its workable on a mechanical level, but then again so is any weird sort of simple alignment mechanic. Not so workable on a social one IMO.


@zzzzzzzz414:

That's gotta be the silliest strawman as of yet.

Experientially, no playgroup that's capable of playing Cards Against Humanity will behave the way you pose. "You are Chaotic Evil now, you thief!" is exceedingly mild compated to anything in CAH and virtually anyone who can play CAH without throwing a fit, can just accept alignment determinations as part of the game, without arguing.

Furthermore, trying to draw your conclusion that alignment is "completely unworkable" from threads such as these is weak for several other reasons:

1) you presume members of a playgroup conduct themselves the same way as strangers on the internet.
2) you presume a forum discussion is equivalent to a game with a referee figure who has final say.
3) you presume it would take a lot of time to solve an ethical argument in person

None of these is true as any general rule.

It isn't hard to find players who agree on what is or is not moral. It isn't hard to find players who, even if they disagree, will accept a game master's ruling simply because that's what the game rules say. It isn't hard to find people who can make their case and solve a disagreement in minutes, easily capable of being done within a session, or just agree to have the debate after the game is over as a matter of courtesy.

Hence, alignment is very much workable. Talakeal's group is special in that it has interpersonal and moral conflicts even when no alignment system is in play. Talakeal's playgroup might get upset if one of them had their character called Evil for stealing, but they demonstrably get upset over many other things that are completely ordinary gaming events. Just ask Talakeal for a list.

Strawman it may be, but it is something I have seen a lot, and not just in my crazy group.

DM's like to use alignment as a method of control, and I have been in plenty of games (or discussions) where the DM would forbid a character's action because it would result in a minor alignment infraction.

I remember talking to one particularly eccentric old GM about how he used arbitrary taxes to balance his game; any time the PCs got too powerful he had the king send a tax man to take their magic items, and they weren't allowed to resist because not paying your taxes was evil and he didn't allow evil PCs.


If you barter a gold brooch for a meat pie, your alignment immediately moves to true neutral. because your intelligence cannot be higher than 2 :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

But really, I wonder how that "charmingly chaotic neutral rogue" would react if another thief in the marker went "hey that guy isn't gonna miss that sixth magic item, imma swipe it" and stole their ring of protection. Because most players who defend the sanctity of stealing from the rich conveniently forget that they are often richer than the merchant baron himself. Most players would react to an attempted theft on them with lethal force and feel perfectly justified; and in that case, I'd rule that the rogue's alignment is, and always has been, hypocrite evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality).
heck, the very fact that you call him "charmingly chaotic neutral rogue" reeks of hypocrisy: this guy can get away with it because (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewTheRulesImBeautiful) he's charming (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutenessEqualsForgiveness). if he was gruff and ugly, he'd just be a dirty thief (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonCute). (yes, I'm linking tvtropes. Extreme times and all that)
on the other hand, if your chaotic neutral rogue accept that he lost his magic ring with something like "meh, stuff comes and goes, can't get too attached to it", then I'd totally accept that interpretation of chaotic neutral as legitimate. I'd compliment the player on roleplaying.

hey, you gave me a great idea for an encounter: a robin-hood style bandit - that threatens the party and asks for a donation for the poor. the rogue will make the argument that the party is very rich, and a couple of magic items can feed a village for months. if the party investigate, they can discover that this guy actually donated half of his earnings to the poor - though he still makes a hefty profit from what he keeps.
if the party is genuinely heroic, they can point out their own good deeds and make a diplomacy check to persuade the guy to let them go. they can fight and kill, but they'd have to drop any excuse of morality for their own actions. escaping (but difficult) or fighting non-lethally could be a good way to keep the middle ground.

Yeah, players are, as a rule, psychotic loot whores.

I don't know if its loss aversion or a sort of solipsism, but that is certainly the case.

I could write a book about all the times PCs have gone to the ends of the Earth to avenge or recover lost or stolen property.

The Spoony One has a whole video about this phenomenon. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVxkpOolpKw)

Of course, I find that it doesn't even have to be stealing. For example, if the PCs kill a monster and find a +1 weapon, its a "meh, cool, throw it in the back". But if said monster is a rust monster and it destroys a +1 weapon its "Waaaaaaaaagh! Killer DM! My PC is ruined! How could you do this to me! I'm screwed forever! It's so unfair!!!!!"

[Vahnavoi]

Strawman it may be, but it is something I have seen a lot, and not just in my crazy group.

DM's like to use alignment as a method of control, and I have been in plenty of games (or discussions) where the DM would forbid a character's action because it would result in a minor alignment infraction.

I remember talking to one particularly eccentric old GM about how he used arbitrary taxes to balance his game; any time the PCs got too powerful he had the king send a tax man to take their magic items, and they weren't allowed to resist because not paying your taxes was evil and he didn't allow evil PCs.

What you're describing is not what the other person was describing.

What you describe does happen, but ironically, it is a) more explicitly part of rules in games other than D&D and b) not actually part of basic D&D alignment.

For a), there's examples like CODA Lord of the Rings. Player actions that go against the vein of Tolkienian heroism net Corruption points, and enough Corruption points means a character becomes an NPC. A lot of games have variations of this, they can be called "yellow card, red card" or "three strikes" rules. These aren't a problem in the abstract. Fundamentally, all game rules are about setting limits to and controlling what happens in a game. The real issue is game masters micromanaging player decisions or otherwise being controlling in ways that aren't necessary.

Which is how we get to b). Alignment under basic rules is descriptive, not prescriptive. Out-of-alignment actions aren't forbidden, a game master is meant to change character alignment based on player behaviour, rather than player being forced to change their behaviour based on character alignment. Like arbitrary taxes to balance player wealth, forbidding out-of-alignment actions is something tacked on to the system.

[Quertus]

I prefer non-alignment based games.

I think of my own personal behavior and it varies a lot based on outside factors like hunger level, sleep levels, group dynamics, etc. These all change how I act and react and sometimes my reactions are more noble than others. :)

I would prefer people create a triangle of personality, a couple bullets of quirks and eccentricities, and a bullet point or two of "Rooting Interests" (reasons why someone might cheer them on) for their character and play to that, rather than the short-hand that alignment was supposed to be.

Therefore, a character might be:

Personality:
- Loyal
- Bold
- Sarcastic

Quirks:
- Loves to read, write, and recite poetry
- Strives to wear fancy clothing

Rooting interests:
- Kind to animals, kids, and charitable to those less fortunate than himself
- Never leaves a friend behind

This helps drive a real character much better than alignment does.

I’m not sure I understand the “rioting incidents”… er, “rooting interests“ (Darn autocorrect) bit. What would you call the rooting interests for MCU Thor or Dr. Strange? For TNG Data or Riker or Troi? For Han Solo or Luke Skywalker or R2-D2? I think I can describe “personality” or “quirks” of characters, but I’m drawing a blank on rooting interests.

[King of Nowhere]

I can't enjoy a game like this.

I know it is D&D RAW, but something just rubs me the wrong way about typical murder-hobos being able to write LG on their sheets but I am out here using my real life ethics to work out tough moral problems, and I have to write CE on my sheet because sometimes I decide it the best course of action to steal from the greedy baron to feed the starving peasants, or painlessly kill someone the villain poison rather than hacking him to bits and blasting him with fireballs, or to animate the farmer's dead mule as a zombie to finish plowing his fields before the end of the season.

Its workable on a mechanical level, but then again so is any weird sort of simple alignment mechanic. Not so workable on a social one IMO.


I agree on that. and if there is some actual moral debate to be had, I would generally accept the player motivations and not try to force them into doing anything.



Strawman it may be, but it is something I have seen a lot, and not just in my crazy group.

DM's like to use alignment as a method of control, and I have been in plenty of games (or discussions) where the DM would forbid a character's action because it would result in a minor alignment infraction.

I remember talking to one particularly eccentric old GM about how he used arbitrary taxes to balance his game; any time the PCs got too powerful he had the king send a tax man to take their magic items, and they weren't allowed to resist because not paying your taxes was evil and he didn't allow evil PCs.

then again, we are also talking of very different concept. I've never seen a dm forbid actions because they are evil - though all dm in my group would not like strongly evil ones.
sure, I can say that the petty larceny in the example is evil because it's hypocritical and protagonist centered, but it's not a major evil, and it's not something that disrupts the party - unless you do it when you risk getting caught. So, while I may argue that the character is evil, whether he has written on the character sheet "neutral with evil tendencies" or "mildly evil" doesn't change anything. We adventure together, the party is fine, if there is a paladin it's still the kind of stuff he can close an eye on.
heck, in years of adventuring we never even decided if the wizard pc is evil or not. the couple times it became relevant because he was hit by a detect evil, it was described as pinging weakly. we never formally abolished alignments, but we certanly don't give them much weight. we play in a world with shades of grey anyway, and for that a description like "he registers as strongly evil" or "he registers as slightly evil" is a lot better and it saves arguments - because we may disagree on where exactly the line is drawn between evil and neutral, but nobody denies that a strong sense of ruthlessness counts for something.
We'd be in trouble if we had to decide whether the AC bonus from protection from evil applies, but then, we all have those same AC bonuses from other sources anyway. and if necessary, we can handwave.

[Quertus]

I can't enjoy a game like this.

I know it is D&D RAW, but something just rubs me the wrong way about typical murder-hobos being able to write LG on their sheets but I am out here using my real life ethics to work out tough moral problems, and I have to write CE on my sheet because sometimes I decide it the best course of action to steal from the greedy baron to feed the starving peasants, or painlessly kill some villain poison rather than hacking him to bits and blasting him with fireballs, or to animate the farmer's dead mule as a zombie to finish plowing his fields before the end of the season.

Its workable on a mechanical level, but then again so is any weird sort of simple alignment mechanic. Not so workable on a social one IMO.

That… sounds like a really good reason not to use Alignment. You’re playing your own system, right? It doesn’t have Alignment, does it?

[KorvinStarmast]

Alignment under basic rules is descriptive, not prescriptive. Out-of-alignment actions aren't forbidden, a game master is meant to change character alignment based on player behaviour, rather than player being forced to change their behaviour based on character alignment. Like arbitrary taxes to balance player wealth, forbidding out-of-alignment actions is something tacked on to the system. I wish more people understood it this way. This way makes for better play. :smallcool:

[kyoryu]

I can't enjoy a game like this.

I know it is D&D RAW, but something just rubs me the wrong way about typical murder-hobos being able to write LG on their sheets but I am out here using my real life ethics to work out tough moral problems, and I have to write CE on my sheet because sometimes I decide it the best course of action to steal from the greedy baron to feed the starving peasants, or painlessly kill some villain poison rather than hacking him to bits and blasting him with fireballs, or to animate the farmer's dead mule as a zombie to finish plowing his fields before the end of the season.

Its workable on a mechanical level, but then again so is any weird sort of simple alignment mechanic. Not so workable on a social one IMO.


Did I say any of that? You're really extrapolating what I said into a bunch of weirdness.

[Talakeal]

That… sounds like a really good reason not to use Alignment. You’re playing your own system, right? It doesn’t have Alignment, does it?

No, my system does not have alignment. Agreed that is a good reason not to use it.


Did I say any of that? You're really extrapolating what I said into a bunch of weirdness.

No. I was describing D&D (3.X) RAW, which is a straightforward deontological system that is easy to adjucate, and is, indeed a bunch of weirdness.

[zzzzzzzz414]

Which is how we get to b). Alignment under basic rules is descriptive, not prescriptive. Out-of-alignment actions aren't forbidden, a game master is meant to change character alignment based on player behaviour, rather than player being forced to change their behaviour based on character alignment. Like arbitrary taxes to balance player wealth, forbidding out-of-alignment actions is something tacked on to the system.

Well the real problem, imo, isn't descriptive vs perscriptive; it's the fact that, either way, one person's (rigid, by design) opinion on the morality of an ingame action is being given absolute narrative and potentially mechanical weight. Whether the action taken by the DM is forbidding a player's action or changing the alignment listed on their character sheet, they are being told to make a hard call on whether it was an Ethical Thing to Do, based on the categories of a rather simple and often ill-defined alignment system.

This is a situation that, regardless of whatever the mechanical impact is, is absolutely primed to lead to bad feelings, in a way that other DM-Player disagreements really aren't. Being told you are wrong about the height of that wall or the number of goblins within that 3ft cube is a simple information gap with no further connotations; being told that you are wrong about the moral alignment of your actions by some NPC in-universe, even, is just the opinion of that NPC. Being told, directly by the GM, that you are wrong about the moral alignment of your actions is essentially an attack on your personal OOC moral code, and that will rarely end well.

This is sort of alleviated with alignment in the classic-ish sense of it being a descriptor of whether you are aligned with certain cosmic and supernatural forces, or a direct function of divine hegemony, because then it just goes back to being the in-universe opinion of some NPC, but in the sense of "an out-of-universe measure and description of a character's moral stannding", nah, disaster waiting to happen.

[Vahnavoi]

Well the real problem, imo, isn't descriptive vs perscriptive; it's the fact that, either way, one person's (rigid, by design) opinion on the morality of an ingame action is being given absolute narrative and potentially mechanical weight.

Your opinion is bad because it's just complaining about the referee, or rather, that a referee figure even exists.

Plenty of games, even outside of roleplaying games, work on the principle that one person's say is the deciding factor for how the game works. This, by the way, includes Cards Against Humanity. The scoring of that game literally works by, each turn, naming one person as the arbiter of which played card(s) are the most fun.

A game master deciding character alignment is no more exotic and no more of a problem.


Whether the action taken by the DM is forbidding a player's action or changing the alignment listed on their character sheet, they are being told to make a hard call on whether it was an Ethical Thing to Do, based on the categories of a rather simple and often ill-defined alignment system.

It's not actually any harder than being a referee in any referee sport. Indeed, to a large degree, it's only as hard as the game master makes it for themselves, since a game master has freedom of interpretation and can use any additional clarifying source they want to, up to and including any real treatise on morality. Or they can just do what kyoryu and use simplified game morality, without worrying too much how it maps to anyone's real beliefs.


This is a situation that, regardless of whatever the mechanical impact is, is absolutely primed to lead to bad feelings, in a way that other DM-Player disagreements really aren't. Being told you are wrong about the height of that wall or the number of goblins within that 3ft cube is a simple information gap; being told that you are wrong about the moral alignment of your actions by some NPC in-universe, even, is just the opinion of that NPC. Being told, directly by the GM, that you are wrong about the moral alignment of your actions is essentially an attack on your personal OOC moral code, and that will rarely end well.

Horse hockey.

Again, we can use Cards Against Humanity as comparison game. That game is deliberately set up to produce shocking and disagreeable statements and then puts someone in the spotlight to tell which of those statements fits their sense of humour. That game is much more likely to reveal some unsavory detail of a co-player's mind than D&D, yet is eminently playable.

On the flipside, nothing demands that a player actually play their character to their real moral code. A player picking an alignment is just saying what kind of in-game conduct their character is following, based on definitions given by a game. So, for example, if a game master shifts my thief from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil, under normal circumstances, all this means is that I was confused what in the game is considered Evil.

It's not an attack on my personal morality. To take an in-game determination of alignment as a personal attack would require me to either make the mistake of assuming that game morality has to follow my own, or that my morality has to follow the game's. Neither needs to be true.


This is sort of alleviated with alignment in the classic-ish sense of it being a descriptor of whether you are aligned with certain cosmic and supernatural forces, or a direct function of divine hegemony, because then it just goes back to being the in-universe opinion of some NPC, but in the sense of "an out-of-universe measure and description of a character's moral stannding", nah, disaster waiting to happen.

When was the last time you actually read any edition's rules on alignment?

Because the "classic" sense is how the rules actually operate. Law, Chaos, Good and Evil as game terms are applied to characters by game operators. Alignment is by default in-game and in-universe determination, thinking of it as "out-of-universe measure and description of a character's moral standing" is an unnecessary extra step.

But even if you take that extra step, I don't agree it's a disaster waiting to happen. I have frank moral discussions with my players outside of games all the time, including complete strangers at conventions. The normal reaction to "your characters are honestly bad persons" is "LOL I know, rite?". Again, it isn't hard to find players who are in agreement over basic morals. People self-awarely playing bad characters is common as dirt.

Do you know where I actually do see people having heated debates over morality of fictional characters? In fan circles of large established franchises, when toxic people get over-invested in their favorite characters. Which once again strongly suggest alignment is fairly innocent, and the actual problem is elsewhere.

[Quertus]

Cards Against Humanity

Iirc (Darn senility), you’re comparing apples and oranges.

Cards Against Humanity doesn’t ask (the equivalent of) whether it’s moral to kill baby Hitler; instead, it asks (the equivalent of) is making a dead baby Hitler float using two scoops of dead baby Hitler and one scoop of ice cream funny?

I think, for an apples to apples comparison, you’d need a game that calls its players out as evil for believing certain things. I’m… not aware of such a game to use for comparison offhand. Although I suspect philosophy-based games might exist that do just that. “Let’s play ‘test your Kantian Values’!” Or something. Seems the kind of thing some professor or students somewhere might have made.

[Talakeal]

snip


snip.

I am going to agree with Z here.

A game where one person gets to pass moral judgements on the other players (not their characters mind you but the players) is not a recipe for a good time.

[zzzzzzzz414]

Plenty of games, even outside of roleplaying games, work on the principle that one person's say is the deciding factor for how the game works. This, by the way, includes Cards Against Humanity. The scoring of that game literally works by, each turn, naming one person as the arbiter of which played card(s) are the most fun.

Alright so since this is already the second time it's been brought up I feel I should point out that the cards against humanity line in my original post was like. A joke. It was the first thing that came to mind when considering "things a DnD group might sit around awkwardly playing because they can't play DnD, and would likely prefer DnD to". Could have been Monopoly, could have been Trouble, could have been Spades, could have been Wii Sports Resort, literally does not matter, easily the least relevant part of the whole discussion thus far.


It's not actually any harder than being a referee in any referee sport. Indeed, to a large degree, it's only as hard as the game master makes it for themselves, since a game master has freedom of interpretation and can use any additional clarifying source they want to, up to and including any real treatise on morality. Or they can just do what kyoryu and use simplified game morality, without worrying too much how it maps to anyone's real beliefs.


On the flipside, nothing demands that a player actually play their character to their real moral code. A player picking an alignment is just saying what kind of in-game conduct their character is following, based on definitions given by a game. So, for example, if a game master shifts my thief from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil, under normal circumstances, all this means is that I was confused what in the game is considered Evil.

These two statements (if I'm understanding what you're saying) are incompatible. The first states that that it's up to individual DM interpretation, the second states that it's on the rules and definitions given by the game. The first is closest to the truth, because the guidelines set out by the books are vague, simplistic, and open to reinterpretation under any number of various frameworks concerning "how" evil something is and when and where and why and what circumstances mitigate it and whether moral frameworks are really even separable from the legal constructs of the society they are in, to the point that "Is stealing an evil act?" is sufficient to generate several pages of charged discussion. There is no clear RAW interpretation of where many of the acts an adventuring party is likely to commit fall on the DnD alignment chart. So it is largely up to the DM's interpretation, and, especially on the very charged question of "Good" versus "Evil", conflict between player and GM interpretation will immediately escalate to OOC conflict, because alignment resolution is in most cases handled on the GM level (most settings don't have an in-universe Alignment Church that shows up and scolds you or whatever), and its conclusion has direct implications on the disagreeing party's moral character. The problem isn't whether the judgement is "hard" - the problem is that the judgement is happening at all, and being given mechanical and narrative weight.

In a game of football, if you and the referee disagree on whether a foul was committed, the only implication is that you are wrong about where a ball or player or body part was. In a game of DnD, if you and the DM disagree on whether your rogue has committed an Evil act by stealing from a rich baron, the implication is that your philosophical moral core is wrong, which, naturally, never goes over well.

Does "Alignment", in some editions, refer to an idiosyncratic set of behaviors or cosmic allegiances that don't necessarily have anything to do with irl concepts of Good or Evil? Yes. Is it used that way in actual play? Not usually, no. Most people assume Good and Evil are labels applying to people/behaviors that are good and evil, in the irl moral sense, respectively. Weird, I know.


When was the last time you actually read any edition's rules on alignment?

Because the "classic" sense is how the rules actually operate. Law, Chaos, Good and Evil as game terms are applied to characters by game operators. Alignment is by default in-game and in-universe determination, thinking of it as "out-of-universe measure and description of a character's moral standing" is an unnecessary extra step.

Fifth Edition PHB pg 121:


A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic,
or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.

Seems pretty non-diegetic to me, makes no mention of it being a judgement imposed by in-universe actors. Now *does* alignment sometimes come into play in-universe? Yes, sometimes, in the form of outer planes bull****. So you could even make an argument that it has elements of both in-universe cosmic force and out-of-universe moral assessment. But you can't argue that the moral assessment part isn't there at all.

And to be clear, I said "somewhat mitigates" before, because being told by a divine emissary of the all-powerful big good god of goodliness that the action you took is evil isn't *much* better than just being told directly by the GM.


But even if you take that extra step, I don't agree it's a disaster waiting to happen. I have frank moral discussions with my players outside of games all the time, including complete strangers at conventions. The normal reaction to "your characters are honestly bad persons" is "LOL I know, rite?". Again, it isn't hard to find players who are in agreement over basic morals. People self-awarely playing bad characters is common as dirt.

The issue in question isn't players who know their characters to be evil and are self-awarely choosing to have their characters take evil actions. The issue is players who were under the assumption that they had taken a neutral or even Good action, and then being informed by the GM that the action was in fact Evil, in contradiction to the player's actual irl moral code. Which leads to questions which leads to argument which leads to bored players sitting in the living room trying to beat each others' scores in Wii Sports Canoeing and studiously ignoring the calls for the liberation of the global proletariat issuing from the kitchen.

(The second half of that last sentence was a joke.)

[Vahnavoi]

Alright so since this is already the second time it's been brought up I feel I should point out that the cards against humanity line in my original post was like. A joke. It was the first thing that came to mind when considering "things a DnD group might sit around awkwardly playing because they can't play DnD, and would likely prefer DnD to". Could have been Monopoly, could have been Trouble, could have been Spades, could have been Wii Sports Resort, literally does not matter, easily the least relevant part of the whole discussion thus far.

It doesn't matter that is was a joke, it's a joke that undermindes all the points you are trying to make nonetheless. For anyone who knows what Cards Against Humanity is and how it works, the punchline becomes that a player is throwing a fit over a trifle matter. A world where CAH exists and is demonstrably played by people, proves your opinions on how and why alignment is "completely unworkable" are hyperbolic or outright wrong.


These two statements (if I'm understanding what you're saying) are incompatible. The first states that that it's up to individual DM interpretation, the second states that it's on the rules and definitions given by the game.

No they aren't. A top level rule in D&D is that the game master has final say over game events. This is equal to all other rules in all other games that give some person the authority act as a game referee. When a game master interpretes or issues a ruling on alignment, they are making a statement of game rules and definitions.


In a game of football, if you and the referee disagree on whether a foul was committed, the only implication is that you are wrong about where a ball or player or body part was. In a game of DnD, if you and the DM disagree on whether your rogue has committed an Evil act by stealing from a rich baron, the implication is that your philosophical moral core is wrong, which, naturally, never goes over well.

Repeating a fallacious claim does not make it less fallacious. A game master's judgement on game matters doesn't have to adhere to any player's real moral code, not even their own; for example, I can and have run deliberately absurd games, where all of the human species is considered evil and deserving of destruction. The implication only exist if you believe in one of the two mistaken assumptions I already outlined. Make no such mistake, and a game master setting boundaries to Good and Evil is no different from a referee setting physical boundaries to a football field.

You also clearly do not know much about sports refereeing. The rules of physical sports are rarely complete, the reason why there are referees is in part because sometimes unexpected things not already covered by the rules happen, and thus a ruling is required. The referee has final say, so even if the player disagrees with them, they have to abide by the ruling. It's not simply a matter of perception, even if a referee misperceives something, a player still has to abide by their ruling; at best, they can appeal to an even higher body of referees to overrule a field referee.

Outside the playing field, referee rulings are frequently contested and debated, but such discussions are not directly indicative how well those rulings go over and work in any given game - just like internet debates between strangers over alignment aren't indicative of how the system works in actual play.


Does "Alignment", in some editions, refer to an idiosyncratic set of behaviors or cosmic allegiances that don't necessarily have anything to do with irl concepts of Good or Evil? Yes. Is it used that way in actual play? Not usually, no. Most people assume Good and Evil are labels applying to people/behaviors that are good and evil, in the irl moral sense, respectively. Weird, I know.

"Most people" ought to read the rules rather than assume, then. Is it fair to criticize as system based on popular misconceptions of the system?


Fifth Edition PHB pg 121:

Seems pretty non-diegetic to me, makes no mention of it being a judgement imposed by in-universe actors. Now *does* alignment sometimes come into play in-universe? Yes, sometimes, in the form of outer planes bull****. So you could even make an argument that it has elements of both in-universe cosmic force and out-of-universe moral assessment. But you can't argue that the moral assessment part isn't there at all.

I don't own fifth edition books, so I cannot quote rules right back at you. I can tell you are quoting the wrong part of rules, though. The part you ought to be quoting is about who gets to define what alignment terms mean, and what purpose these definitions serve, similar to:

1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, page 9,
"Approaches to playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons": "A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion, an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting past-time, something that can fill a few hour or consume endless days, as the participant desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously."

1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, page 24, "Alignment": "Each of these cases for alignment is, of course, stated rather simplistically and ideally, for philosophical and moral reasoning are completely subjective according to the acculturation of an individual. You, as the Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the division between rightful and good as opposed to hurtful and evil."

The former is about principles covering all rules, while the latter is of alignment specifically. In any case, it's abundantly clear from context that all alignment determinations are game determinations. Nowhere am I denying that a game master can use their real moral reasoning, the actual point is that a player has no real reason to buy into the implication you are getting worked over.

The rest of your post contains nothing that hasn't already been addressed.

[Talakeal]

snip.

You get that things in games can be offensive even if they are clearly fictional, right?

Like, you understand how people could be upset about how D&D uses a lot of tropes about real world indigenous peoples to paint certain races as acceptable targets for violence. Or that FATAL claims that fat people or small busted women are objectively ugly.

What I, and I think others, are saying is that we find it offensive that D&D RAW (atleast in 3.5) claims that people who use consequentialist morality are objectively evil and acceptable targets for violence within the game world.

Likewise, in my experience no small number of DMs use the authority the rules grant them as an excuse to railroad or pass moral judgements on their players, even if they are, in theory, just arbitrating the game rules, and that is an unpleasant social dynamic.

[GloatingSwine]

Likewise, in my experience no small number of DMs use the authority the rules grant them as an excuse to railroad or pass moral judgements on their players, even if they are, in theory, just arbitrating the game rules, and that is an unpleasant social dynamic.

That's because the DMG only tells them about rule 0, not rule -1 which is "don't be a **** about rule 0".

[Batcathat]

Yeah, while I'm usually the first one to slam the use of alignment for a variety of reasons, I don't think "people can use it as an excuse to be *******s" rank very highly on that list, because that's true of pretty much anything.

[NichG]

Yeah, while I'm usually the first one to slam the use of alignment for a variety of reasons, I don't think "people can use it as an excuse to be *******s" rank very highly on that list, because that's true of pretty much anything.

Eh, I do think alignment-like things tend to bring out jerk behavior more than just being a space in which it can occur. I've seen the same thing with Honor in L5R for example. It doesn't even have to be malicious. It's sort of a Stanford Prison Experiment type of thing - telling one person that their job is to judge and punish another changes the social dynamic and more often in the direction of callousness and cruelty than in the direction of beneficence and empathy.

That's not to say that someone can't do it in a friendly and fair way, but its a more strenuous test of their maturity than other things.

[Pauly]

A lot of the last 2 pages is more or less about protagonist syndrome. Anything the protagonist does can be justified as well and good (or in the case of anti-heroes understandable and justified) and everything the antagonist does is just plain wrong.

For example: In the teen drama hour in the middle of Avatar 2 one of Sully’s kids starts a fight with the lighter blue kids who are bullying his adopted sister. He starts the fight with a sucker punch. I’m not sure where James Cameron grew up, but I grew up in a place and time where teen disputes where often resolved by rolling on the two fisted combat resolution table, and sucker punches were always considered a coward’s move. James Cameron presents it as a clever way to even the odds.
In Rian Johnson's attempt to kill the Star Wars franchise he has Poe falsely claim a parlay/flag of truce in order to delay General Hux so the Rebels can achieve their mission. This violates all long standing rules of war because misusing a flag of truce is a precursor to the enemy just shooting anyone who tries using a flag of truce. Again this is presented as a clever and smart way for the hero to defeat a superior enemy.

In both examples if the bad guys did what the protagonists did it would be presented as a heinous dishonorable act.

In an RPG our characters are our protagonists and players tend to find ways to justify their character’s actions as fitting their character’s alignment. When a GM takes issue with a PC’s action on the grounds of alignment the GM is treated as the antagonist, and is therefore being unreasonable.

Changing the definition of alignment won’t alter it. Changing how alignment is enforced in game won’t change it.

The only thing that will change it is players and GMs willing to be open minded, listen to the points of view of others and capable of negotiating acceptable outcomes when there is dispute.

[GloatingSwine]

In both examples if the bad guys did what the protagonists did it would be presented as a heinous dishonorable act.


That's because deontological morality is not widely accepted any more. We know that the good guys winning will have good outcomes, and so the methods by which they achieve them are acceptable.

[False God]

A lot of the last 2 pages is more or less about protagonist syndrome. Anything the protagonist does can be justified as well and good (or in the case of anti-heroes understandable and justified) and everything the antagonist does is just plain wrong.

For example: In the teen drama hour in the middle of Avatar 2 one of Sully’s kids starts a fight with the lighter blue kids who are bullying his adopted sister. He starts the fight with a sucker punch. I’m not sure where James Cameron grew up, but I grew up in a place and time where teen disputes where often resolved by rolling on the two fisted combat resolution table, and sucker punches were always considered a coward’s move. James Cameron presents it as a clever way to even the odds.
In Rian Johnson's attempt to kill the Star Wars franchise he has Poe falsely claim a parlay/flag of truce in order to delay General Hux so the Rebels can achieve their mission. This violates all long standing rules of war because misusing a flag of truce is a precursor to the enemy just shooting anyone who tries using a flag of truce. Again this is presented as a clever and smart way for the hero to defeat a superior enemy.

In both examples if the bad guys did what the protagonists did it would be presented as a heinous dishonorable act.

In an RPG our characters are our protagonists and players tend to find ways to justify their character’s actions as fitting their character’s alignment. When a GM takes issue with a PC’s action on the grounds of alignment the GM is treated as the antagonist, and is therefore being unreasonable.

Changing the definition of alignment won’t alter it. Changing how alignment is enforced in game won’t change it.

The only thing that will change it is players and GMs willing to be open minded, listen to the points of view of others and capable of negotiating acceptable outcomes when there is dispute.

Nu-Wars complaints aside, it always amuses me when people complain about the Rebels "breaking the rules" when they are functionally terrorists, against an Empire that regularly commits genocide.

Rules? Lol wut rules?

[kyoryu]

That's because deontological morality is not widely accepted any more. We know that the good guys winning will have good outcomes, and so the methods by which they achieve them are acceptable.

{Scrubbed}

[GloatingSwine]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[KorvinStarmast]

That's because the DMG only tells them about rule 0, not rule -1 which is "don't be a **** about rule 0". Thank you.

That's because deontological morality is not widely accepted any more. We know that the good guys winning will have good outcomes, and so the methods by which they achieve them are acceptable. In Hollywood 'the ends justifies the means' often shows up. They are out to make a profit, not necessarily do anything moral.

... when people complain about the Rebels "breaking the rules" when they are functionally terrorists, against an Empire that regularly commits genocide.
Rules? Lol wut rules? I've got about six rejoinders that are outside of forum rules, but you did get a laugh out of me. :smallyuk:

The Geneva Conventions would like a word.
They are irrelevant to RPGs.

[icefractal]

For example: In the teen drama hour in the middle of Avatar 2 one of Sully’s kids starts a fight with the lighter blue kids who are bullying his adopted sister. He starts the fight with a sucker punch. I’m not sure where James Cameron grew up, but I grew up in a place and time where teen disputes where often resolved by rolling on the two fisted combat resolution table, and sucker punches were always considered a coward’s move. James Cameron presents it as a clever way to even the odds.
I think this is a YMMV thing, because personally? I don't consider the concept of a "fair fight" to have inherent moral value.

At the most basic level - being stronger doesn't mean you "deserve" to win, in an ethical sense. That would depend on various factors (importantly, why you're fighting) but having the person who's better at fighting win the fight is a bad outcome as often as a good one.

So with that in mind, the only case where a fight being fair has value is when it's a contest (like MMA) or a mutually-agreed duel. And the former of those has weight classes and leagues for a reason. The fight above, where you're talking about several people vs one smaller person? That's already not remotely "fair" - a sucker punch isn't going to make it any less so.

And that leads into the thing that a lot of "rules of fair combat" were created by the powerful, for the benefit of the powerful. Things that would let peasants defeat knights - dishonorable. Things that knights are good at - fine and honorable. And they change over time as who's in power does. Many of the tactics used by the American forces in the revolutionary war were considered dishonorable by the standards of the time, but we won (and wrote the history), and so now those tactics are not only acceptable but considered common sense.

[Pauly]

Nu-Wars complaints aside, it always amuses me when people complain about the Rebels "breaking the rules" when they are functionally terrorists, against an Empire that regularly commits genocide.

Rules? Lol wut rules?

The complaint is that something that is widely accepted as a bad faith act, not just on morality grounds but on the practical grounds of the consequences doing an act carries, is presented as good because it done by good people with good intentions.

For me that was the exact moment I noped out of Nu Wars. Not just the Rebels doing it and it being presented as good, but the what I infer was meant to be comedic response to it by the bad guys who look like the Empire but aren’t the Empire whose name I can’t remember.

[False God]

The complaint is that something that is widely accepted as a bad faith act, not just on morality grounds but on the practical grounds of the consequences doing an act carries, is presented as good because it done by good people with good intentions.

Again, the Empire's intentions were to kill them all anyway. "Oh no, the heroes did something that broke the rules in order to save their lives against enemies who plan to murder them wholesale!" is a pretty flat complaint in my book. Rebels vs Imperials isn't a war. There is no equitable conflict between the two. The "rules of war" quite flatly don't apply.

[Witty Username]

On the Star Wars stuff, I recommend the short story from the Halo franchise, The Impossible Life and Possible Death of Admiral Preston J. Cole.
As some of the why & why not is a direct topic of one of the chapters.
--
Also, in the Poe vs Hux thing, I don't recall the scene well, but I am pretty sure Poe and Hux were fully aware this wasn't a genuine surrender, and that Blake's 7 villan logic is fully in play, to quote:
"An enemy does not cease being an enemy simply by having surrendered"

[Pauly]

Again, the Empire's intentions were to kill them all anyway. "Oh no, the heroes did something that broke the rules in order to save their lives against enemies who plan to murder them wholesale!" is a pretty flat complaint in my book. Rebels vs Imperials isn't a war. There is no equitable conflict between the two. The "rules of war" quite flatly don't apply.

Then the situation changes from “goods guys -v- bad guys” to “some guys -v- some other guys who are arguably worse”.

[hamishspence]

Rebels vs Imperials isn't a war.

To be fair, the intro to ANH does say "It is a time of civil war..."

[MetroAlien]

it's quite a futile exercise to apply the regimented "morals" of RPG-systems to a novice writer's failed attempt to communicate the real-world idea of "moral relativism".

For one, RPG systems with alignments specifically included in their mechanical rules usually do so for a reason.
In case of D&D, it's because certain spells/items/effects will affect you in different ways depending on how you acted.
At face value, that's an intriguing concept, imho, but it does make for a very specific kind of game.

If you want to play a game where "moral relativism" is actively explored, you should either discuss it with the table in advance or seek out a rules system with a corresponding mechanic.

In my experience, this rarely becomes an issue in more "rules-light" RPG systems, compared to D&D.
I'm inclined to say it's because in "rules-light" games with minimalist character sheets, players tend to imagine playing a "person" and try to think how that person would act.
Also, the idea of a "party" is usually less rigid, and PvP doesn't disrupt the gameplay as much as a result.

In D&D, inexperienced players more often see the character sheet as a template and fill in the blanks. This way of thinking about your character is more prone to pigeon-holing them into alignment stereotypes.
Coupled with the D&D-specific preconception of a dungeon-delving team of adventurers vying for the same goal, mismatched pigeon-holes are bound to create some uncomfortable friction.

[KorvinStarmast]

To be fair, the intro to ANH does say "It is a time of civil war..." Yeah, and there was an entire rebel fleet with military ranks and such. :smallcool:

If you want to play a game where "moral relativism" is actively explored, you should either discuss it with the table in advance or seek out a rules system with a corresponding mechanic.

In my experience, this rarely becomes an issue in more "rules-light" RPG systems, compared to D&D.
I'm inclined to say it's because in "rules-light" games with minimalist character sheets, players tend to imagine playing a "person" and try to think how that person would act. Also, the idea of a "party" is usually less rigid, and PvP doesn't disrupt the gameplay as much as a result.
That's a nice post, you are awarded one *golf clap*. :smallsmile: I liked the whole post, but that bit really stuck out as good advice.

[Easy e]

I’m not sure I understand the “rioting incidents”… er, “rooting interests“ (Darn autocorrect) bit. What would you call the rooting interests for MCU Thor or Dr. Strange? For TNG Data or Riker or Troi? For Han Solo or Luke Skywalker or R2-D2? I think I can describe “personality” or “quirks” of characters, but I’m drawing a blank on rooting interests.

Just to be clear, a Rooting Interest is a reason to cheer for or support the character. So, for the examples you have I would say (but this is not an exact science) that they are:

Thor- Learns humility through adversity in the very first film, tries to be a hero in the first film, and is loyal to his friends and family in the first film.

Dr. Strange- Learns humility (a common theme in first outing films), masters a difficult task despite disadvantages in the first film, and has another person in his life who cares about them in the first film.

Data- Perhaps the easiest, his rooting interest is his search to be a human. He knows he is "flawed" and is seeking to understand and overcome it.

Riker- Grow a manly beard. No, he is a competent and capable officer, looks out for his crew, and cares about those around him.

Han Solo- Is a bad person surrounded by worse people, has a sense of humor. has an obvious skill at piloting, eventually makes the right decisions, and has another character who cares about him in the first movie.

Luke Skywalker- He is from a rural area (like many of the audience), is surrounded by folks who care for him, and treats the droids with care, he obviously has some skill with machines as well, in the first movie right out of the gate.


Those are all reasons an audience (or other people) might relate to or care for the character. Some are character arcs, some are personality traits, and others might even be quirks; but the Rooting Interest is something a bit different as it is usually action and dialogue based.

Note: It is also possible for villains to have a "Rooting Interest" and that often makes the best villains.

[Talakeal]

I am less concerned about the resistance using fake surrenders to trick the First Order in the ST than I am about Obi Wan doing it in The Clone Wars film, he doesn't really have so many excuses.

[kyoryu]

I think this is a YMMV thing, because personally? I don't consider the concept of a "fair fight" to have inherent moral value.

At the risk of cynicism, most advocates of "fair fighting" define it in a way that gives advantages to whatever strengths they have.

That said, while I don't think there's a lot of value in any kind of defined standard of what a "fair fight" is, I do think there's moral value in (in some circumstances) sticking to the agreed upon parameters of a fight (even if implicit).

[King of Nowhere]

At the risk of cynicism, most advocates of "fair fighting" define it in a way that gives advantages to whatever strengths they have.

there is some truth in that, but not much.
My knowledge is that the general concept of fair fight has the purpose of limiting casualties. there are rules because if everyone respects those rules, we can probably wrap this up with the least amout of dead. and yes, there is no moral right to being the better fighter, but if you are the better fighter, then chances are you'll win anyway in a dirty fight too, so it's better for me to recognize it and give up and get to walk away from it on my legs.

some examples

- no fake surrenders: obvious. if you surrend and i let you live, nobody gets hurt. if you surrend and then you try to fight, the next time I'm not taking the risk and I'm just killing you. So you won't surrend but will fight to the death. in any case, a lot more people will die.
- no stabbing in the back, ambushing, or stuff. let's meet in the agreed place and have a pitched battle. Pitched battles are brutal, but they resolve the war in one day - with perhaps 10% casualties on the armies involved, maybe 20%; then everyone can go home. If the weaker party does guerrilla stuff and ambushes, the stronger party will have to answer by destroying food supplies - to draw the rebels out - and mass abuse on the population. the war will be protracted, with damage to the agricultural system.
- duel of the champions: ok, we have no reason to surrender just because we lost a 1 on 1. But if our champion lost to their champion, statistically it means they are probably better trained than we are, and better equipped. We are probably going to lose, so it's better to just accept the outcome.
- respect the prisoners: if the enemy does not surrender, it will be very costly for you to finish them off. if they know they can surrender and be treated well, they are more likely to surrender. and you will lose less men, while still neutralizing the enemy. And after the war ends, there will be more people who will get to go home.
- no poison: in d&d you poison your blade and it deals additional damage, but reality does not work that way. Poison is slow. If you poison your blade, it won't help you win the fight. It just means that the guy you wounded lightly is going to die tomorrow, instead of recovering. Or, you're poisoning food. In both cases, though, if you do it the enemy can do it too, and the result will be a lot more people dead.

I could go on for a while, but I think the point is made.
The code of honor is associated with the middle age knights, and they fought all the time - like, every year there was a "war" - but those were nearly bloodless. A few hundred knights would meet on each side, they would fight for a while, one side would surrender once things start to go poorly. A few dozen dead, maybe a few hundreds. A dispute settled. A war fought without rules is a lot more bloody. though they do happen when none of the sides want accept defeat and is willing to endure more dead.

[kyoryu]

there is some truth in that, but not much.
My knowledge is that the general concept of fair fight has the purpose of limiting casualties. there are rules because if everyone respects those rules, we can probably wrap this up with the least amout of dead. and yes, there is no moral right to being the better fighter, but if you are the better fighter, then chances are you'll win anyway in a dirty fight too, so it's better for me to recognize it and give up and get to walk away from it on my legs.

I was talking more "street fight" kinda stuff, rather than "war crimes" type stuff. War crime stuff generally exists to make war the least dirty and nasty as it can be. And that's why it's usually a two-directional agreement - if you don't use medical buildings for actual army stuff outside of healing, we won't bomb them. If you make sure all your troops are identifiable, we won't shoot civilians. That kind of stuff.

I was talking more stuff like "stand up fight only, just punches, no low blows" kind of stuff, which is usually argued for by big and strong people. Being a "better" fighter is probably true within a certain set of parameters.... as a simple example, if there's a "fair fight" rule of "don't kick people when they're down", then a style of fighting that, if you fail, is likely to leave you on the ground when they're not is going to have advantages that it wouldn't have without that rule.



- no stabbing in the back, ambushing, or stuff. let's meet in the agreed place and have a pitched battle. Pitched battles are brutal, but they resolve the war in one day - with perhaps 10% casualties on the armies involved, maybe 20%; then everyone can go home. If the weaker party does guerrilla stuff and ambushes, the stronger party will have to answer by destroying food supplies - to draw the rebels out - and mass abuse on the population. the war will be protracted, with damage to the agricultural system.

It's kinda funny, because a lot of European countries had more or less standardized on that, and it's now considered "dumb". We won the Revolutionary War by not doing that.... and now all wars are guerilla wars and really suck.

[Batcathat]

I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).

[Talakeal]

I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).

Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

[KorvinStarmast]

I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).
I had to chuckle at that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1274.html), given the most recent comic strip. :smallsmile:

[Batcathat]

I had to chuckle at that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1274.html), given the most recent comic strip. :smallsmile:

Yeah, it was rather topical, wasn't it? I suppose I'm more of a Julia(?) than a Roy, though I will admit that not wanting to potentially sacrifice children is quite a bit better than the typical not wanting to act dishonorably, as far as reasons go.

[King of Nowhere]

I was talking more stuff like "stand up fight only, just punches, no low blows" kind of stuff, which is usually argued for by big and strong people. Being a "better" fighter is probably true within a certain set of parameters.... as a simple example, if there's a "fair fight" rule of "don't kick people when they're down", then a style of fighting that, if you fail, is likely to leave you on the ground when they're not is going to have advantages that it wouldn't have without that rule.

even in that case, fair fighting is likely to result in less dire injuries.
so yes, it's still a case of "we both agree to limit violence"



It's kinda funny, because a lot of European countries had more or less standardized on that, and it's now considered "dumb". We won the Revolutionary War by not doing that.... and now all wars are guerilla wars and really suck.
the thing is, rules are all fine when you're fighting to conquer, or for treasure. it's not really important. you lose, so you'll have a different face printed on a coin, but one emperor or another isn't really going to change much. you have to reason to fight to the bitter end.
but when there are involved ideals that we consider worth dieing for - nationalism, freedom, maybe religion - then you have much less reasons to hold back.


I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).
yes, I agree this is a very, very idiotic time to call in a fair fight.
like many traditions, it has some pretty good reasons to exhist, but it becomes dumb to try and keep applying it once those reasons are no longer

[Batcathat]

even in that case, fair fighting is likely to result in less dire injuries.
so yes, it's still a case of "we both agree to limit violence"

That seems like it would depend a lot on the circumstances. One person immediately knocking the other one out with a cheap shot arguably leads to less injuries than two people beating each other half to death in a fair fight. Sometimes fighting fair will lead to less injuries, sometimes it will lead to more, I think it's hard to generalize.

[MetroAlien]

leaving aside whether fighting dirty is a "decent" thing to do or not, I often (not always) dislike stories where the protagonists are portrayed as fighting dirty.
Specifically in the case of a "fake surrender", the supposed "hero" is taking advantage of the supposed villain's mercy and trust - two traits that I (by default) consider "heroic".

Of course, a good story can feature a villain who displays heroic traits, but in that case it must be a developing or establishing moment, i.e. we learn that this villain is merciful and trusting, etc...

If it just happens casually, then either
A) the plot will seem childish, like it's friends playing pretend on a schoolyard
or
B) the heroes' gains will feel cheap because they haven't "narratively" earned them
or
C) in the worst case, give me "moral whiplash" because the heroes will come off as scumbags and the writers as tone-deaf

The Star Wars sequels example isn't "bad" because of the above two points.
I'd even say that, in theory, the scene could work... in a comedy.
But Star Wars movies aren't meant to be comedic. A scene like that simply doesn't fit the expected tone.

Yes, there are funny moments in original and prequel Star Wars. But it's rarely because a character purposely tells jokes or quips. It's almost always circumstantial comedy, often happens in the background and - most importantly - never influences the plot.

[NichG]

leaving aside whether fighting dirty is a "decent" thing to do or not, I often (not always) dislike stories where the protagonists are portrayed as fighting dirty.
Specifically in the case of a "fake surrender", the supposed "hero" is taking advantage of the supposed villain's mercy and trust - two traits that I (by default) consider "heroic".


For me, you can have a story where the protagonist never fights dirty, but that's only satisfying if there really was never any need for the protagonist to fight dirty and no negative consequences for choosing not to do it. An OP protagonist who releases enemies back into the ecosystem because they really have the power to guarantee their future behavior, who turns their back on a downed enemy because they outclass them so much it doesn't matter, etc, that's fine.

But if anyone ever dies or comes to grievous harm because of the protagonist's sense of fairness, the protagonist goes under a microscope for me. If that sense of fairness was ever applied inconsistently (hello using really lethal stuff against nameless mooks who probably die offscreen but suddenly being squeamish about using lethal force against the named antagonist) and/or if the protagonist at any point forcefully took authority or responsibility over deciding how things would be handled (e.g. stopping a companion from using lethal force themselves, or stepping forward and saying 'I'll deal with it!' so others do not or things like that), then to me that reads as being almost as bad as if the protagonist had willfully chosen to intentionally cause that outcome themselves.

So if the rest of the story is clean and bright, a clean and bright protagonist is fine to me. But if the story is dark, if bad stuff happens that could have been prevented by the people who made it their responsibility to prevent it by them doing something dirty, then failing to follow through means that when they stood up and said 'I can be responsible for this', that was not 'heroic' in the positive sense.

[MetroAlien]

your explanation makes a lot of sense.

I should clarify that I was talking about "heroic" protagonists specifically. Anti-heroes play by different rules (that's why they're "anti")

But maybe my definition of "fighting dirty" is more narrow than other people imply in their comments.
To me, it's specifically using the villain's positive traits against them.

In my mind there are two kinds of trickery/deception:
1. by misinformation only
2. emotional/moral gaslighting

I don't consider the 1st case as "fighting dirty".
Gaslighting includes stuff like "fake surrender", "fake forgiveness", "fake love/friendship", etc...
The trojan horse is a classic example. Although by modern standards Odysseus may fall on the anti-hero side, if not outright "villain-protagonist" (according to some critics).

(ngl, I went through a phase as a teenager after first learning the differences between the "E-rated Iliad" and "R18-rated")

An antagonist who's liable to being gaslit doesn't seem like a worthy "final boss" in the first place. Arguably, it's realistic, idk... but such a trait decisively reduces the character's threat level and lowers the stakes of the story, imho.

[NichG]

your explanation makes a lot of sense.

I should clarify that I was talking about "heroic" protagonists specifically. Anti-heroes play by different rules (that's why they're "anti")

But maybe my definition of "fighting dirty" is more narrow than other people imply in their comments.
To me, it's specifically using the villain's positive traits against them.

In my mind there are two kinds of trickery/deception:
1. by misinformation only
2. emotional/moral gaslighting

I don't consider the 1st case as "fighting dirty".
Gaslighting includes stuff like "fake surrender", "fake forgiveness", "fake love/friendship", etc...
The trojan horse is a classic example. Although by modern standards Odysseus may fall on the anti-hero side, if not outright "villain-protagonist" (according to some critics).

(ngl, I went through a phase as a teenager after first learning the differences between the "E-rated Iliad" and "R18-rated")

An antagonist who's liable to being gaslit doesn't seem like a worthy "final boss" in the first place. Arguably, it's realistic, idk... but such a trait decisively reduces the character's threat level and lowers the stakes of the story, imho.

For me something like the trojan horse wouldn't even rate. But something like faking being in love with the villain or becoming their confidant in order to later betray and thereby unmake them could go either way for me. There's fighting dirty and there's unnecessary cruelty and those are not the same thing. I guess maybe a way I'd put it is, just as for me a hero has to justify not killing someone when the stakes have already proven to be life and death, if they're using cruel methods then they also do need to justify the necessity of that cruelty. It won't necessarily make me cheer - definitely can take stories in a bittersweet direction - but a well-constructed cruelty of conscience is something I can accept. I can also accept at some degree of not strictly necessary cruelty against a foe who has demonstrated equal or worse cruelty in their own behavior, though that becomes very much down to the details of exactly how things are written.

As an example, currently reading a HP fic where the protagonist knows what's up with the Riddle Diary and is basically pretending vulnerability to it to extract information about Voldemort. A schemer protagonist gaslighting teenage Voldemort who is simultaneously trying to gaslight them is completely fine by me.

[Satinavian]

For me, fake surrenders are generally a step to far for a protagonist who is portrayed as on the good side. It is roughly on the level as capturing the villains family and slowly torturing his children to death until he gives up.

There is a lot of edgy behavior that can be rationalized as "the ends justify the means" but that is not heroic at all.


If stories do include such things, i want the stories to treat them as the immoral transgressions they are. Some anguish, some allies moving away in disgust, retaliation in kind etc.
The hero doing a fake surrender and it being treated just as a clever ploy ? I really really hate this.

[Batcathat]

For me, fake surrenders are generally a step to far for a protagonist who is portrayed as on the good side. It is roughly on the level as capturing the villains family and slowly torturing his children to death until he gives up.

While a fake surrender obviously won't win any morality awards, I'm curious as to why you'd put it at that level. (And yes, doing it in reality is illegal, but so is dressing up like the enemy which roughly every hero ever has done (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DressingAsTheEnemy)).

[Satinavian]

While a fake surrender obviously won't win any morality awards, I'm curious as to why you'd put it at that level. (And yes, doing it in reality is illegal, but so is dressing up like the enemy which roughly every hero ever has done (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DressingAsTheEnemy)).
Because fake surrender is not just a warcrime.

It is an action that punishes people for taking prisoners instead of killing everyone. It is also an action that will remove "taking prisoners" as an option because too risky. It will lead to many additional casualities and both sides and in future conflicts. And then there is direct retaliation it just invites.

Using fake uniforms is not something i am too happy about, but find far more forgivable. The consequences are mostly people being more careful in the future and possibly the enemy using the same tactics. I would not object to people being found out doing so being treated as spies not proper combatants afterwards though.

But an action i put as equally bad as a fake surrender is abusing Parlimentaires to launch an attack. Because if negotiation becomes impossible through distrust, only the fight to the death remains.

[NichG]

If I think about it, I can't really think of many situations in which a protagonist doing a fake surrender would bother me. It would pretty much require an extremely reasonable villain or a 'technical' villain whose only problem is just being on the other side of something.

[Batcathat]

Because fake surrender is not just a warcrime.

It is an action that punishes people for taking prisoners instead of killing everyone. It is also an action that will remove "taking prisoners" as an option because too risky. It will lead to many additional casualities and both sides and in future conflicts. And then there is direct retaliation it just invites.

Using fake uniforms is not something i am too happy about, but find far more forgivable. The consequences are mostly people being more careful in the future and possibly the enemy using the same tactics. I would not object to people being found out doing so being treated as spies not proper combatants afterwards though.

But an action i put as equally bad as a fake surrender is abusing Parlimentaires to launch an attack. Because if negotiation becomes impossible through distrust, only the fight to the death remains.

Sure, there are absolutely plenty of situations where it's counter-productive in the long run, for the same reasons that it could be counter-productive to use something like nukes or chemical weapons, since it'd likely just lead to your opponent doing the same thing.

But if it's used to, say, defeat the Evil Empire who commits ten war crimes before breakfast, I wouldn't find it inherently horrible. (Not good certainly, but not horrible).

[Satinavian]

Sure, there is always escalation logic and if the other side doesn't follow the rules, why should the own side do so ?

But in this case, wouldn't it be justified as well to torture the emperors children to death (if he had any known or cared about them or could make him give up instead of fueling his rage) ?

You can do that. Tell a story about en escalated ruthless conflict without boundaries and no quarter given. But you can't do that while having one side being evil and the other not. That is grey, dark and gritty storytelling.

[Witty Username]

I would generally entertain the idea that anyone engaged in war is generally leaning towards non-good. With some affordances for exceptional circumstances.

[NichG]

Sure, there is always escalation logic and if the other side doesn't follow the rules, why should the own side do so ?

But in this case, wouldn't it be justified as well to torture the emperors children to death (if he had any known or cared about them or could make him give up instead of fueling his rage) ?

You can do that. Tell a story about en escalated ruthless conflict without boundaries and no quarter given. But you can't do that while having one side being evil and the other not. That is grey, dark and gritty storytelling.

For me at least, not following the rules or escalating before things become a problem are generally positive traits for me to see in protagonists. A major component of protagonism for me is doing what seems impossible to do, or doing what others cannot conceive of doing. If people are dying because of adherence to a code of honorable battle against what is actually an existential threat, the character who is the first to realize that 'yes this is an existential threat, time to get rid of those rules' is a pretty standard heroic protagonist stereotype at least by my tastes.

But being arbitrarily cruel (e.g. cruel without purpose or need or cause) is definitely a non-heroic trait for me. I would find it much less likely that an author would be able to set things up so that 'torturing the emperor's children to death' is really the thing to do to avoid harms or resolve the situation effectively. I won't completely rule out that a very clever author could somehow pull it off, but I'd have to see it done.

[Batcathat]

I would generally entertain the idea that anyone engaged in war is generally leaning towards non-good. With some affordances for exceptional circumstances.

Would being attacked qualify as exceptional circumstances? While doing questionable things while defending oneself is definitely possible, it feels like defensive warfare itself would be pretty non-indicative of alignment.


But being arbitrarily cruel (e.g. cruel without purpose or need or cause) is definitely a non-heroic trait for me. I would find it much less likely that an author would be able to set things up so that 'torturing the emperor's children to death' is really the thing to do to avoid harms or resolve the situation effectively. I won't completely rule out that a very clever author could somehow pull it off, but I'd have to see it done.

Yeah, pretty much this.

[Satinavian]

Another problem with the false surrender is that it only ever works if the enemy does not expect it.

But if the enemy does not suspect it, the conflict obviously has not yet escalated to that particular level. So false surrenders are always escalating things or rather ineffective.

[Batcathat]

Another problem with the false surrender is that it only ever works if the enemy does not expect it.

But if the enemy does not suspect it, the conflict obviously has not yet escalated to that particular level. So false surrenders are always escalating things or rather ineffective.

If "that particular level" means specifically using fake surrenders, then yeah, obviously. But it could still have escalated to a level where one could find using it justifiable.

But you're right that using it as a standard tactic would obviously not work for long, so even regardless of morality it should probably only be used when there's a chance for complete victory or some other very important gain.

[NichG]

Another problem with the false surrender is that it only ever works if the enemy does not expect it.

But if the enemy does not suspect it, the conflict obviously has not yet escalated to that particular level. So false surrenders are always escalating things or rather ineffective.

I guess I have two problems with this. One is, I don't see escalation as inherently unheroic or unprotagonistic. Recognition of the severity of a threat that others are blind to can be a significant heroic trait.

The other is, there are lots of situations I can think of where an enemy might anticipate false surrender but basically cannot afford to treat all surrenders as false, or where the enemy's goals are specifically to capture and hold (but with the consequences of capture and holding being at a much higher level of stakes). Or you can have situations where the conflict is heterogeneous and the enemy would expect a false surrender from one element of the conflict but not another, and the deception includes also disguising the one as another.

A fictional example that comes to mind is an invading force that wants to execute the king goes to a city they think is ruled by a noble who is on their side, but who has been secretly converted over to the king's side. The noble sends out a messenger who says 'we want to surrender but we have some partisan forces inside the city and your loyalists aren't in full control. We surrender, but let us deal with these rebels so you don't tire your troops, it'll only take a few hours.' Which of course ends up being a delaying tactic for the king's forces to pincer the invaders. To my standards at least that sort of thing is perfectly fine for a heroic protagonist to do.

[Satinavian]

If "that particular level" means specifically using fake surrenders, then yeah, obviously. But it could still have escalated to a level where one could find using it justifiable. Sure, escalation logic is a thing and it might be justified.

But in such a case, as mentioned, i want it to be treated with the severity it deserves and not as a clever plan.


The other is, there are lots of situations I can think of where an enemy might anticipate false surrender but basically cannot afford to treat all surrenders as false, or where the enemy's goals are specifically to capture and hold (but with the consequences of capture and holding being at a much higher level of stakes). Or you can have situations where the conflict is heterogeneous and the enemy would expect a false surrender from one element of the conflict but not another, and the deception includes also disguising the one as another. If the enemy anticipates a false surrender, they are on guard and won't really be caught unprepared. One might still get a benefit from it, but it is a minor one.
Now, the case with a heterogeneous conflict and using a false surrender while pretending to be another party : That is something prone to really piss off your allies/ that particular third party with all that entails.


A fictional example that comes to mind is an invading force that wants to execute the king goes to a city they think is ruled by a noble who is on their side, but who has been secretly converted over to the king's side. The noble sends out a messenger who says 'we want to surrender but we have some partisan forces inside the city and your loyalists aren't in full control. We surrender, but let us deal with these rebels so you don't tire your troops, it'll only take a few hours.' Which of course ends up being a delaying tactic for the king's forces to pincer the invaders. To my standards at least that sort of thing is perfectly fine for a heroic protagonist to do.Now i wouldn't count that scenario as false surrender at all. It is centered around a turncoat timing his betrayal for the most devastating effect. That is indeed something turncoats tend to do with no one batting an eye.

[NichG]

If the enemy anticipates a false surrender, they are on guard and won't really be caught unprepared. One might still get a benefit from it, but it is a minor one.
Now, the case with a heterogeneous conflict and using a false surrender while pretending to be another party : That is something prone to really piss off your allies/ that particular third party with all that entails.


The sort of thing I'm thinking of is, say, an enemy force thinks that the citizenry in general won't fight back - maybe they'll be enslaved or some of them killed later anyhow, but not today. So in general they push for a surrender and then leave only a skeleton of forces to keep order while advancing past and extending their logistics support through those areas. The population of one town has actually been seeded with guerilla forces, the town surrenders, and then the guerilla forces use the position behind lines and low security to sabotage the supply lines. In particular if the invading force is either momentarily or even on the whole stronger, its not even necessarily foolish of that force to keep accepting surrenders to move more quickly even if some towns end up being traps like that, so its not like triggering this sort of trick means automatically that the enemy is going to stop to kill everyone in their path, especially if the trick is reserved for cases in which the enemy actually is under some time pressure to move rapidly (they're trying a blitz before allies can muster support or because they have other conflicts waiting in the wings and don't want to be caught on multiple fronts, etc).

I'm certainly not saying 'its always smart to do this' or 'it will never have consequences worse than what is gained to do this', but especially when the stakes of the conflict are at the scale of life and death or enslavement of a populace, this for me would easily be within the leeway I'd give to a defender.

I guess maybe it helps to also say, if the stakes aren't at the scale of life and death or enslavement of a populace or things at least around the severity of what might happen to a soldier in a conflict as a matter of course, neither side can really count as a heroic protagonist for me. The act of using war to resolve something of lesser import than the innate consequences of war would itself count as unheroic.

[Satinavian]

The sort of thing I'm thinking of is, say, an enemy force thinks that the citizenry in general won't fight back - maybe they'll be enslaved or some of them killed later anyhow, but not today. So in general they push for a surrender and then leave only a skeleton of forces to keep order while advancing past and extending their logistics support through those areas. The population of one town has actually been seeded with guerilla forces, the town surrenders, and then the guerilla forces use the position behind lines and low security to sabotage the supply lines. Now that is super fishy. Because it is using those civilians as shields and outright inviting retaliation on them. That is not something heroes do.

The other part about what kind of wars are justified in the first place are to close to politics for me to discuss in detail.

[NichG]

Now that is super fishy. Because it is using those civilians as shields and outright inviting retaliation on them. That is not something heroes do.

The other part about what kind of wars are justified in the first place are to close to politics for me to discuss in detail.

Well the reason I raise the point is that if we're talking about stuff heroes are doing in a war, for me that automatically means we're already talking about a conflict where the cost of losing is that the civilians die, suffer extremely, or lose things important enough for them to weigh their lives against them. So to my mind, protecting some of them from retaliation today at the cost of letting all of them be slain tomorrow isn't heroic. If the nature of the story is that there are other effective solutions available and the protagonist takes them, fine. If the story is that the protagonist has this option, doesn't take it, and then the story progresses with lots of those people dying anyhow during the events following the blitz, that protagonist can't be a hero for me unless as a result of seeing the consequence of their inaction they have a change of heart about whichever values they used to justify holding back on a possible viable path to avoiding the outcome.