Good Evil and Free Will in D&D

[Snadgeros]

I actually find the whole good-evil system flawed and in need of a total overhaul. The entire idea of it is completely subjective. I mean, sure it's simple if you're in a situation like, "Bad demon man wants to hurt people! You're a goody-goody paladin! Stop him!" This doesn't lend itself to good roleplaying or flexibility in ethical dilemmas.

Example: A town's under attack. You can either run and save half of the people, or stand defending them and have a 50:50 chance of saving them all or killing everyone including yourself. Either choice you make can screw you over, as running away dooms innocent people, and fighting has a chance to doom them all. You'd be penalized for allowing evil to happen through negligence. You could have saved them, but chose not to! (Before you all tear my example apart, realize that it's just an example and there are many other situations where the good-evil scale presents complications.)

My idea for an alignment system would not include good and evil, being how subjective they are. Instead it would run on two scales, Motivation and Morality. Motivation is "for the greater good" on one end an "for myself" on the other, with middleground in between the two. It may SEEM like good/evil, but selfishness is not necessarily evil, just as serving others is not necessarily good (to what ends are you serving them?) Morality would be most similar to lawful/chaotic, which I never really had a problem with. One end of the scale is adherence to a strict honor code, where the other is Machiavellian, by any means necessary. Overall I think this system would give a lot more leeway in alignment, allowing for better roleplaying while still keeping players in line.

Thank you, and good night.

[Kompera]

My idea for an alignment system would not include good and evil, being how subjective they are. Instead it would run on two scales, Motivation and Morality. Motivation is "for the greater good" on one end an "for myself" on the other, with middleground in between the two. It may SEEM like good/evil, but selfishness is not necessarily evil, just as serving others is not necessarily good (to what ends are you serving them?) Morality would be most similar to lawful/chaotic, which I never really had a problem with. One end of the scale is adherence to a strict honor code, where the other is Machiavellian, by any means necessary. Overall I think this system would give a lot more leeway in alignment, allowing for better roleplaying while still keeping players in line.

The problem with such a system is twofold:

It allows a sufficiently bright or persuasive player to concoct a motivation for any action at all which can be argued to serve "the greater good".

The player may not be willing or able to conceptualize a belief system which differs enough from his or her own such that the situations in which the player finds it difficult to make a decision would be crystal clear and not at all ambiguous to the character.

[Tempest Fennac]

That is a good point. I'd say that changing it so that characters pick a certain number of personality traits before role-playing them would be a better idea (classes with alignment restrictions could instead need certain traits: eg: Paldins could be required to be honest, loyal and helpful, while Barbarians could need to be free-spirited and distrustful of authority). Ironically enough, regarding the comments Renrik made about non-human-type races is that I'm more likely to be sympathetic towards gnolls then humans due to the fact that I like hyenas and I don't get on that well with humans.

[Snadgeros]

That is a good point. I'd say that changing it so that characters pick a certain number of personality traits before role-playing them would be a better idea (classes with alignment restrictions could instead need certain traits: eg: Paldins could be required to be honest, loyal and helpful...

You see, right there is another example of the flawed alignment system. Being both honest and loyal would be conflicting when faced with goblins asking you where the rest of the party is hiding. You either become chaotic for lying to them, or you become evil for revealing your party's location. It's lose-lose.

[Tempest Fennac]

That's a good point (unless there are exceptions for people who are trying to harm you, but that that leads to other issues which Kompera mentioned earlier regarding the "greater good".

[hewhosaysfish]

Your games don't include conversation?

Time for another tongue-in-cheek quote methinks. There was an author, male, (whose name I forget) who was once asked who he managed to write such convincing dialogue between his female characters replied:

"I simply imagine that women, when alone together, speak to each other as thought they were human beings."

*Disclaimer: May not be precise wording.*

[Manticorkscrew]

You see, right there is another example of the flawed alignment system. Being both honest and loyal would be conflicting when faced with goblins asking you where the rest of the party is hiding. You either become chaotic for lying to them, or you become evil for revealing your party's location. It's lose-lose.

Or you could just keep your mouth shut. There's nothing in the alignment system that says you have to speak.

[Prophaniti]

And, of course, there's the option of killing all the goblins with your bare hands. Then who is there to lie to?

[Kompera]

You see, right there is another example of the flawed alignment system. Being both honest and loyal would be conflicting when faced with goblins asking you where the rest of the party is hiding. You either become chaotic for lying to them, or you become evil for revealing your party's location. It's lose-lose.

You've just made my point for me. To the player it may appear to be lose-lose, depending on his or her own belief system. To the character the thing to do would be obvious and would come naturally.

It is, after all, a role-playing game. If you want the advantages that come with being a Paladin, you must role-play them or face losing them. If you can't handle that role-play, play a Neutral Rogue and do what ever you like.

[Riffington]

Time for another tongue-in-cheek quote methinks.

If that worked, it would be a question to ask one's eighth-grade English teacher. Yet it's a rare skill amongst even great authors.

[kamikasei]

Time for another tongue-in-cheek quote methinks. There was an author, male, (whose name I forget) who was once asked who he managed to write such convincing dialogue between his female characters replied:

That would have been Neil Gaiman.