Unanimous Good

[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

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.
heck, the very fact that you call him "charmingly chaotic neutral rogue" reeks of hypocrisy: this guy can get away with it because he's charming. if he was gruff and ugly, he'd just be a dirty thief. (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

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.
heck, the very fact that you call him "charmingly chaotic neutral rogue" reeks of hypocrisy: this guy can get away with it because he's charming. if he was gruff and ugly, he'd just be a dirty thief. (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.

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.

[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}