5e Alignment "Guide" & end-of-2017 argument thread

[krugaan]

Don't be too harsh, there's nothing worse then grasping an impressive looking rod only to be left disappointed.

And with some kind of ... "curse."

/wellPlayedSir

I happen to agree with both of you, though. It seems unfair to force a character to roleplay differently, but equally unfair to have it have no negative effects.

I'd prefer the penalty to enforce the roleplay, like making the drinking blood requirement extra agonizing.

Not quite sure how to handle a belt of opposition or something, though.

[Keral]

No one has said that a change in alignment means you need to change how you act. In fact I would specifically tell my players not to change how they act because that throws the whole alignment calculus off and leads to silly characters. I object to the idea of alignment as a roleplaying guide because I feel it could lead to players, particularly new players making decisions purely based on alignment. Leading to unrealistic characters and arguments based on player contortions of alignment.

It's implied in the first post.
As I said, if it tells you can use alignment as a guide on how to act and also that the dm may require an alignment change, it's sort of implied that it's telling people they need to use another guide (ie change behaviour) if there's an alignment shift.
[Barring magical changes. That's another matter]

That said it seems to me that I'm the only one seeing this problem. So perhaps I'm just making it bigger than it is.
Sorry if I wasted your time.

[smcmike]

And with some kind of ... "curse."

/wellPlayedSir

I happen to agree with both of you, though. It seems unfair to force a character to roleplay differently, but equally unfair to have it have no negative effects.

I'd prefer the penalty to enforce the roleplay, like making the drinking blood requirement extra agonizing.

Not quite sure how to handle a belt of opposition or something, though.

The ideal case is enthusiastic buy-in from the player. Without that, I agree that magical alignment changes stink. With it, though, they seem like campy good fun.

[Naanomi]

The ideal case is enthusiastic buy-in from the player. Without that, I agree that magical alignment changes stink. With it, though, they seem like campy good fun.

It is like any other long-term mind control, that takes buy-in. I played a game where in the second part, the party gets charmed by an obvious villain and does his bidding to collect stuff out of a dungeon... it only takes one player to refuse to go along with it or intentionally sabatoge things to ruin that kind of story

[Luccan]

It is like any other long-term mind control, that takes buy-in. I played a game where in the second part, the party gets charmed by an obvious villain and does his bidding to collect stuff out of a dungeon... it only takes one player to refuse to go along with it or intentionally sabatoge things to ruin that kind of story

I've always thought playing a suddenly alignment changed or mind-controlled PC could be fun, but the potential issues make it too risky in the eyes of many a DM. Understandable, but disappointing all the same.

[Tanarii]

It's implied in the first post.
As I said, if it tells you can use alignment as a guide on how to act and also that the dm may require an alignment change, it's sort of implied that it's telling people they need to use another guide (ie change behaviour) if there's an alignment shift.
[Barring magical changes. That's another matter]

That said it seems to me that I'm the only one seeing this problem. So perhaps I'm just making it bigger than it is.
Sorry if I wasted your time.

Keral, I completely agree there is a potential for the player to view a DM telling them to change their Alignment as telling them they need to change their PC's behavior for the new Alignment. There is also the potential for a player to view a DM telling them to change their Alignment as telling them they were playing their Alignment wrong, and to disagree strongly. In fact, the latter is by far the most common reason for players (and often trolls) to start threads on Alignment.

That's because Alignment behavior interpretations are subjective at the Player/DM level, they're intentionally loose, and they're not designed to get in the way of roleplaying. So opinions on what each means can vary dramatically. Even when definitions were super strict and explained in two very detailed books, this still was the case. People disagreed, usually strongly, on what it meant.

And when the player is sure of their interpretation, and the DM is sure of her interpretation, there's a conflict. Ideally the conflict is solved reasonably, but it's an unfortunately reality that people often are not reasonable, and get invested in their rightness. Especially when it's about "my character" vs "my campaign". (Edit: and of course on forums people, including me, get even more invested in their rightness. )

This issues is the root of why Alignment is so contentious. You're not the only one seeing the problem, it is THE problem with Alignment. There is no solution to it, no way to phrase it, without the table establishing exactly how they choose to handle Alignment, out of the possible options.

You have raised a new possible table rule though:
Player writes down his Alignment for the PC and that's the PC's alignment for characterization.
DM writes down her Alignment for the PC and that's the PC's Alignment for mechanical effects.

It's a valid solution.

(Edit: removed some contentious language.)

[Unoriginal]

I would like it if people stopped saying "alignments are subjective".

No, they are not. Neither in- or out-of- universe.


5e's alignments are objective. They're a short ended version of the objective description of a particular behavior people have.

At best, people could argue if X behavior is part of Y alignment, but 90% of the time it's people either cherry-picking one thing without looking at the whole behavior, or are trying to loophole their way into an alignment that doesn't fit their behavior for some reasons.

There is a reason why alignment debates threads are almost always stuff like "imy PC has only been stealing stuff and lied to the King about finding his lost magic sword he could keep it for himself, and my DM says he can't be lawful neutral, it's so unfair" or "I want to play a PC who act cruelly and who kill servants who do anything to displease her, based on X character, do you think she's neutral?" or "a player had his orc kill a little girl and eat her corpse, but he says the orc is unaligned due to being really dumb. Is he right?"


5e Alignments are simple and should really not warrant so much discussions about them. People are just for some reason opposed to simply fill the box that fits their PC's behaviors and be done with it.

[Tanarii]

I would like it if people stopped saying "alignments are subjective".

No, they are not. Neither in- or out-of- universe.

I can only suggest you go read the definitions of subjective and objective. Because interpreting Alignment behaviors are clearly subjective, based on or influenced by the individuals opinions. They are not real in our reality, nor something provable outside of opinion.

(Edit: /sigh, removed some of my bad attitude.)

[Naanomi]

There is a reason why alignment debates threads are almost always stuff like...

It doesn’t help that people will generally respond with a huge variety of possible alignments

The last time I tried I got answers including TN, LN, NE, LE, CE

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ful-philosophy

[Unoriginal]

It doesn’t help that people will generally respond with a huge variety of possible alignments

The last time I tried I got answers including TN, LN, NE, LE, CE

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ful-philosophy

And all those responses but one are false. Your "rigid follower of a chaotic god's doctrine" is obviously LN, as the PHB indicates.

[Naanomi]

And all those responses but one are false. Your "rigid follower of a chaotic god's doctrine" is obviously LN, as the PHB indicates.

A neutral God actually but... still shows a lot of different argument over what is (to me at least) a relatively simple example... compared to the ‘what alignment is Batman/Punisher/etc’ you sometimes see

[Unoriginal]

A neutral God actually but... still shows a lot of different argument over what is (to me at least) a relatively simple example...

Because people didn't look at it factually. They tried to argue something that was not in what you described.

compared to the ‘what alignment is Batman/Punisher/etc’ you sometimes see

That kind of debate is different because a) there is a lot of versions of those characters (and it's often not clear which version it is), with different behaviors each time, while an alignment only apply to the behavior of one version of a particular being and b) they're trying to define alignments for non-D&D characters, which is kind of like trying to determine the Humanity of a non-Vampire The Masquerade character (ie not relevant).

I can only suggest you go read the definitions of subjective and objective.

Objective
ADJECTIVE
1(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective
ADJECTIVE
1Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Because interpreting Alignment behaviors are clearly subjective, based on or influenced by the individuals opinions.

Wrong.

There is nothing subjective in determining if someone "do the best they can to help others according to their needs" or "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust." Those are both objective descriptions of certain behavior, because "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

It's literally:

-Do they behave X way and not Y way? y/n
-if yes, then they are X.

They are not real in our reality, nor something provable outside of opinion.

This is wrong at best and a non-sequitur at worse.

It's not because something is not real that it can't be a fact *within the fictional world*. And if something is described as happening in said fictional world, it is a provable fact, not an opinion.

"Gandalf uses a sword" is an objective statement, which happen to be correct. How do I know that? Because the books he appears in describes him using a sword. There is no opinion involved.

"Asmodeus is lawful evil" is an objective statement, which happen to be correct. How do I know that? Because the books he appears in describes his typical behavior, which fits the " methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" description of lawful evil. There is no opinion involved.

"Angels are neutral evil" is an incorrect statement. How do I know that? Because the books they appear in describes their typical behavior, which does not fit the "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms". There is no opinion involved.

If someone argued "Angels are all neutral evil, because after reading their description I think they would kill innocent people just to get what they want" would be a subjective statement, and an incorrect one, because the Angels are not described that way no matter how this someone want to interpret their MM entry.

5e's alignment are a factual, objective description of your behavior.

-------------------------------------


Also, no offense meant, Tanarii, but if you want to argue you might want to not disagree with your own guide:

Is Alignment objective?
The majority of folks appear to consider 5e Alignment to still be an in-universe objective thing.
In other words, it's possible for a objectively Evil character to believe they are good, and vice versa.

which you contradict by saying:

That's because Alignment behavior interpretations are subjective at the Player/DM level, they're intentionally loose, and they're not designed to get in the way of roleplaying.

I can only suggest you go read the definitions of subjective and objective. Because interpreting Alignment behaviors are clearly subjective, based on or influenced by the individuals opinions.

In other word, this:

Player writes down his Alignment for the PC and that's the PC's alignment for characterization.
DM writes down her Alignment for the PC and that's the PC's Alignment for mechanical effects.

is not valid.


What would be legitimate would be to say "you are playing a collective game, not trying to 'win' at internet philosophy. If the need arise, work with your DM (or your players, if you are a DM) in order to have both of you agree on the character's alignment."

[Tanarii]

It's hard for me to respond, because If you honestly believe that interpreting alignment behavior isn't opinion, I find it deeply disturbing. I can't discuss Alignment with someone who can't recognize that something that cannot be proven in the real world, and must be open to differing opinions of what qualifies, is not objective in the real world.

It can easily be objective in-universe. The player or DM just needs to say what Alignment the character is, and they objectively are in-universe. Regardless of what the PC believes.

But there is no DM or player or diety objectively designating which opinion on Alignment behavior in the real world is objectively correct.

[Unoriginal]

It's hard for me to respond, because If you honestly believe that interpreting alignment behavior isn't opinion, I find it deeply disturbing. I can't discuss Alignment with someone who can't recognize that something that cannot be proven in the real world, and must be open to differing opinions of what qualifies, is not objective in the real world.

...Ok, first why are you talking about the real world. We're talking about D&D 5e and its alignment system. Not the real world. There are no alignment system in the real world, and I've never talked about the real world.

It can easily be objective in-universe. The player or DM just needs to say what Alignment the character is, and they objectively are in-universe. Regardless of what the PC believes.

...

The characters are objectively of an alignment because their typical behavior fits the description of the alignment. That's it.

A character who "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else" is objectively chaotic neutral. A character who "act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes" is objectively lawful neutral. Someone whose usual actions are best described as "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms" is objectively neutral evil.

Because alignments are an objective description of the character's behavior.

But there is no DM or player or diety objectively designating which opinion on Alignment behavior in the real world is objectively correct.

First, opinions are by nature not objective.

Second, what opinion? 5e's alignment is "if you behave like X, you are of Y alignment". It's not a question of opinions.

Third, again, why are you talking about the real world?



Also, about this part...

It's hard for me to respond, because If you honestly believe that interpreting alignment behavior isn't opinion, I find it deeply disturbing. I can't discuss Alignment with someone who can't recognize that something that cannot be proven in the real world, and must be open to differing opinions of what qualifies, is not objective in the real world

... err, how should I put it...

Ah. I've believe I've seen this before. You're someone that believes that Alignment is somehow "real" at the DM/Player level?

[Tanarii]

Maybe an example will help illustrate my point. I'm using a real world one, but assume for a second that cars exist in D&D, because the point here is opinions on what qualifies as an Alignment behavior, not that cars don't exist in D&D, and Alignments don't exist in the real world.

A person regularly exceeds the speed limit. They generally obey all the big "important" laws, but little laws like traffic laws or other minor things, they think their own judgement is sufficient.

Would you say that their ignoring the speed limit and generally thinking their opinion is suffient for "minor laws" is failing to "do the right thing as expected by society?"

Ask any 20 people, and I'm fairly sure you'll get different answers. Those answers are opinions on their interpret ion of the phrase.

That Alignment has a defined behavior doesn't make reasonable variation in interpretation any less opinions. And given that the behavior descriptions are intentionally a little loose to allow for variation in behavior, differing opinions are inevitable. In that regard, the interpretations of the behaviors are subjective. It's possibly fair to say the behavior itself is not, because it is defined. But what the behavior means, exactly, is subjective.

Point of this being: the DM any players in his group may reasonable have differing opinions / disagree on what the behavior means, both for using it to determine appropriate actions for their PC and on the end result behavior. That makes it subjective at their level.

Conversely, once it's been decided what Alignment a PC is (however that is decided), and that's written down, that is now objectively the character's in-universe objective alignment. Regardless of what the PC believes their actions to be.

And there's no particular reason a player can't intentionally play their character to behave one way, but have the character believe (and claim) their actions are something different. Not everyone seperates player and PCs that way, but it's entirely possible. As long as the player & DM agree on what the characters actual alignment is, it's all good. What the PC believes about themselves doesn't change it.

[Vaz]

Unoriginal, your argument is reliant on the fact that the alignment in DnD is different from what current life says is good and evil, when they are exactly the same. That is nonsense and you might as well say that Blue in DnD means something different to what real life is.

Alignment in D&D is influenced and decided by what life says is good and evil, which then boils down to what can be considered good and evil, and how subjective good and evil is.

The concept of good and evil is entirely down to the perspective of the individual regarding the event.

An angel might be composed of a substance, and a devil another, but that doesn't mean that it is Good and Evil, in the sense that they are composed of good acts and evil acts. Trying to align an angels acts of devastation and destruction with a particular alignment can't be done, because the act itself is subjective to the individual. You have never provided a satisfactory answer to back up the reasoning other than 'the book says so', which is subjective to the person who wrote the book.

Angels commit evil acts. The hobgoblin won't look at the angel who killed her husband and say 'well his Character Sheet says he's evil, so his death is justified, it's okay'.

An angels interpretation over what is good and evil is subjective. Even if it aligns with anothers interpretation of good and evil perfectly, then it's subjective.

So, no. We can't get away from the fact that good and evil is a subjective concept and down to interpretation. To a person who can see in black and white, blue does not look like blue. You can say that things the same shade of grey are blue, but they cannot actually experience that. When I look at an object that is blue while wearing Night vision goggles, i cannot tell whether it is blue or not. My perspective is what tells me that blue is blue.

Good and evil is defined by the PHB. Loosely, vaguely, badly. Good and evil in the PHB is defined by the human condition.

The acts of good and evil do not have boundaries as defined by tbe PHB. Is making a dam to provide irrigation evil or good? it can be beneficial for certain reasons, and negative for others. Good is beneficial, and negative is not.

Is a farmer evil if they grow food for an army of conquest? They have through their actions caused the death of mny more people. Is burning the farm to the ground acceptable then to save your countrymen? Does it make a difference if they're not your countrymen? At what stage do you draw the line between causality? Is preventing 'evil' acts good? Can making an evil action do good? In which case is it an evil act ib the first place?

Real life is what allows us to define certain things. Is Teal Blue, or is it Green? Or is it grey? It is subjective and

[Unoriginal]

Maybe an example will help illustrate my point. I'm using a real world one, but assume for a second that cars exist in D&D, because the point here is opinions on what qualifies as an Alignment behavior, not that cars don't exist in D&D, and Alignments don't exist in the real world.

A person regularly exceeds the speed limit. They generally obey all the big "important" laws, but little laws like traffic laws or other minor things, they think their own judgement is sufficient.

Would you say that their ignoring the speed limit and generally thinking their opinion is suffient for "minor laws" is failing to "do the right thing as expected by society?"

Yes. Regularly endangering others' lives because you think you know better than the law is specifically failing to "do the right thing as expected by society" by the definitions of those terms.

Ask any 20 people, and I'm fairly sure you'll get different answers. Those answers are opinions on their interpret ion of the phrase.

Those opinions are irrelevant to the facts. And the facts are that this D&D person who has a car is regularly breaking the law and risking to kill other people due to their ego. There is no interpretation, it's the objective facts of the situation you're using as exemple.

Now, that's only one part of this D&D person's behavior. If you had asked "is this person lawful good?", then I couldn't answer, because you presented only point, and you can't judge a behavior with only one point. As you wrote in your guide, people don't behave 100% of the time as according to their alignment.

If you asked me "what is this person's alignment", I would have to say "I don't know, but this example doesn't point toward lawful, and show a certain disregard of other people's lives. Maybe the rest of his typical behavior is more lawful and benevolent, since you said he respected 'important' laws, but it seems like he arbitrarily decides which are important, so he's probably not lawful."

That Alignment has a defined behavior doesn't make reasonable variation in interpretation any less opinions.

You have a behavior. What your behavior objectively is defines what is your alignment.

There is no

And given that the behavior descriptions are intentionally a little loose to allow for variation in behavior, differing opinions are inevitable.

Only

In that regard, the interpretations of the behaviors are subjective. It's possibly fair to say the behavior itself is not, because it is defined. But what the behavior means, exactly, is subjective.

Nope. What you're arguing here is "the behavior is defined and objective, but which behavior fits this definition is subjective". Which is self-contradictory.

"D&D Car Owner is breaking the law and endangering himself and others due to his self-confidence, therefore he's not doing what is right as expected by society in this instance" is an objective statement.

"Orc Warlord Dokto killed the already-wounded Great Warlord in singular combat in order to become the new Great Warlord. The fight was judged valid by orc customs. Therefore, Dokto took what he wanted, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" is an objective statement. Does it mean that Dokto is lawful evil? No, because it's just ONE moment of his life, while most of the time he "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by his greed, hatred, or bloodlust", which means he is actually chaotic evil.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's something interesting: what are the explanations given for the default (non-binding) alignments of the PC races?

Dragonborn tend to extremes, making a conscious choice for one side or the other in the cosmic war between good and evil. Most dragonborn are good, but those who side with evil can be terrible villains.

Most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order.

Elves love freedom, variety, and self- expression, so they lean strongly toward the gentler aspects of chaos. They value and protect others’ freedom as well as their own, and they are more often good than not. The drow are an exception; their exile has made them vicious and dangerous. Drow are more often evil than not.

Gnomes are most often good. Those who tend toward law are sages, engineers, researchers, scholars, investigators, or inventors. Those who tend toward chaos are minstrels, tricksters, wanderers, or fanciful jewelers. Gnomes are good-hearted, and even the tricksters among them are more playful than vicious.

Half-elves share the chaotic bent of their elven heritage. They value both personal freedom and creative expression, demonstrating neither love of leaders nor desire for followers. They chafe at rules, resent others’ demands, and sometimes prove unreliable, or at least unpredictable.

Half-orcs inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orc parents and are not strongly inclined toward good. Half-orcs raised among orcs and willing to live out their lives among them are usually evil.

Most halflings are lawful good. As a rule, they are good-hearted and kind, hate to see others in pain, and have no tolerance for oppression. They are also very orderly and traditional, leaning heavily on the support of their community and the comfort of their old ways.

Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and the worst are found among them.

Tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there. Evil or not, an independent nature inclines many tieflings toward a chaotic alignment.

Thoughts: the two parts of the alignment are definitely referred to as if they were separate axes. Independence and creative expression are hallmarks of chaotic alignments, tradition and a desire to lead or follow are given as those of law. Being good-hearted, kind, hating to see others in pain, and not tolerating oppression, as well as a sense of fair play are called out as good; viciousness and dangerousness (presumably to others) are called out as hallmarks of evil.

[Unoriginal]

Unoriginal, your argument is reliant on the fact that the alignment in DnD is different from what current life says is good and evil, when they are exactly the same. That is nonsense and you might as well say that Blue in DnD means something different to what real life is.

D&D gaves its definitions for what alignments are. What is considered good and evil in real life is not clear cut. Meaning that no, they aren't the same.

The concept of good and evil is entirely down to the perspective of the individual regarding the event.

Arguable. You cannot disprove Kantian absolutism, nor can you disprove post-modernist views on morality.

Angels commit evil acts.

Angels never "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust", nor do they "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms" or "take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order". They don't act malevolently either.

The hobgoblin won't look at the angel who killed her husband and say 'well his Character Sheet says he's evil, so his death is justified, it's okay'.

Hobgoblins consider being brutal but efficient tyrants and slavers to be the best thing. They wouldn't disagree that they fit the definition of lawful evil, if said definition existed in-universe, they simply think that it's great to be a power-hungry, monstrous jerks.

Is making a dam to provide irrigation evil or good? it can be beneficial for certain reasons, and negative for others. Good is beneficial, and negative is not.

What is benefitial and what is not has little to do with good or evil. What is benevolent and malevolent is much more relevant.

And no, "genociding the orcs because you think it's benevolent" is not benevolent. You clearly were malevolent toward the orcs.

Is a farmer evil if they grow food for an army of conquest?

The act itself wouldn't cause them to fit the description of any of the evil alignment. Their entire behavior might do, though.

Is Teal Blue, or is it Green? Or is it grey? It is subjective

"Teal is a medium blue-green color, similar to cyan." It is objective, as much as a definition decided by consensus can be.


I could dissect your "farm and army" questions for a while, but it'd be pointless. As I said before, it's typical of alignment discussion: cherry-picking a point in the situation to make it less clear than the whole.

An hobgoblin farmer who, on his own free will, has slaves work to death in his fields to feed the army bent on transforming enslaving more people and make the hobgoblins the masters of all humanoids is certainly lawful evil, for example. But D&D doesn't categorize all acts of war as evil, even if you do strike first.

Thoughts: the two parts of the alignment are definitely referred to as if they were separate axes. Independence and creative expression are hallmarks of chaotic alignments, tradition and a desire to lead or follow are given as those of law. Being good-hearted, kind, hating to see others in pain, and not tolerating oppression, as well as a sense of fair play are called out as good; viciousness and dangerousness (presumably to others) are called out as hallmarks of evil.

The two parts of the alignment are referred separately, but there is no real "axes", if you get what I mean. Each individual is both part of their alignment at once, they're not "look at where they stand on axis X, then where they stand on axis Y, and where they cross is this guy".

[Tanarii]

Yes. Regularly endangering others' lives because you think you know better than the law is specifically failing to "do the right thing as expected by society" by the definitions of those terms.

Those opinions are irrelevant to the facts. And the facts are that this D&D person who has a car is regularly breaking the law and risking to kill other people due to their ego. There is no interpretation, it's the objective facts of the situation you're using as exemple.

Okay. Then we're done here. Not meant in a hostile way, but the fact that you think your opinion is a fact means we cannot continue.

The opinion you expressed as fact is the exact reason I chose speeding as my example. Many people mistakenly think the opinion you have stated as fact, that it endangers others lives, is a fact.

[Unoriginal]

Okay. Then we're done here. Not meant in a hostile way, but the fact that you think your opinion is a fact means we cannot continue.

It's not an opinion.

As for the "not meant in a hostile way" part... you can just say you think I'm wrong and an biased idiot, you know, no need to go with the polite way.

The opinion you expressed as fact is the exact reason I chose speeding as my example. Many people mistakenly think the opinion you have stated as fact, that it endangers others lives, is a fact.

I don't want to do an against-the-rules political debate, but that speeding endanger lives is a proved fact.

Driving safely requires being able to react on time. Going fast diminishes your window of reaction. The government set speed limits to, aside from making drivers know the speed other cars will move at and to avoid things like noise in residential areas, make so you have the time to react (which is why the speed limit is lower when you're entering a tunnel, for example). By going faster than the speed limit, you are not followings the rules that were designed to make you drive safely. Ergo, since driving unsafely is dangerous for both you and others, you are endangering lives.

It doesn't mean you will take a life, or that you will ever have an accident. But you are increasing the likelyhood of this event.

The same way that not following the security measures when working with a construction machine endanger lives.

[Tanarii]

It's not an opinion.

I don't want to do an against-the-rules political debate, but that speeding endanger lives is a proved fact

Like I said, that what I think is your opinion on this is a fact, means we're done. We can't have a discussion on it any more because that's not a point we're going to be able to move on. And it also means that it's hardly surprising that you'd think what I think are varied opinions on Alignment behavior are also fact or wrong, and thus it's objective.

[Unoriginal]

Like I said, that you think your opinion on this is a fact means we're done.

If you think that I'm wrong, then demonstrate I'm wrong.

Otherwise, what will you do when people say something is incorrect in your guide? Just ignore them?

It's hardly surprising that you'd think opinions on Alignment behavior are also fact, and thus it's objective.

As I've said several times, with no one providing any argument against it, 5e's alignments are descriptions of behaviors. There is no opinion in them. "The dragon acts with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust" is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

Also, please do not try to make my position look bad in such a transparent manner. I do not think opinions are facts, I've said it more than once.

[Tanarii]

If you think that I'm wrong, then demonstrate I'm wrong.

Theres literally no way to "disprove" something that's just an opinion. That's my point. What you hold to be a fact, I hold to be an opinion, neither provable nor disprovable. As are differing opinions.

Also, please do not try to make my position look bad in such a transparent manner. I do not think opinions are facts, I've said it more than once.

Yeah. I was editing my post when you replied. Because my post was more hostile than I intended, and was written with the assumption that I was correct on what's an opinion and what is not. But that's the entire point, we can't argue which it is, we can only hold what we believe to be true to be true. So an assumption of correctness on my part is still an assumption, just as You are holding it. That's why we can't get past that.

[Unoriginal]

Theres literally no way to "disprove" something that's just an opinion. That's my point. What you hold to be a fact, I hold to be an opinion, neither provable nor disprovable. As are differing opinions.

You can prove that it is not a fact. It would demonstrate that my stance is wrong.

Yeah. I was editing my post when you replied. Because my post was more hostile than I intended, and was written with the assumption that I was correct on what's an opinion and what is not. But that's the entire point, we can't argue which it is, we can only hold what we believe to be true to be true. So an assumption of correctness on my part is still an assumption, just as You are holding it. That's why we can't get past that.

I will freely admit that my assumption of correctness was incorrect if you can demonstrate that what I call a fact, ie speeding = endangering yourself and others, is not a fact.

[Tanarii]

You can prove that it is not a fact. It would demonstrate that my stance is wrong.

No, I cannot. Actually, trying to do so concedes the other person's position that it's not an opinion issue, and that it is a factual issue, about which facts are correct or not correct. Getting drawn into debating the points as factually correct or incorrect requires setting aside having looked at the various points of view and having come to the conclusion that it's actually opinions, not factual.

Which is, of course, insanely frustrating for someone that believes their position is factual. And usually results in that person believing in that case, they've had their position vindicated. Unsurprisingly.

Despite totally understanding that intellectually, I've also been the person many times who thinks my views are factual in a forum discussion, so I know how that feels when the other person won't engage.

[Unoriginal]

No, I cannot. Actually, trying to do so concedes the other person's position that it's not an opinion issue, and that it is a factual issue, about which facts are correct or not correct. Getting drawn into debating the points as factually correct or incorrect requires setting aside having looked at the various points of view and having come to the conclusion that it's actually opinions, not factual.

Which is, of course, insanely frustrating for someone that believes their position is factual. And usually results in that person believing in that case, they've had their position vindicated. Unsurprisingly.

Despite totally understanding that intellectually, I've also been the person many times who thinks my views are factual in a forum discussion, so I know how that feels when the other person won't engage.

Then you could explain your position on the subject and why you think it's an opinion.

[War_lord]

Theres literally no way to "disprove" something that's just an opinion. That's my point. What you hold to be a fact, I hold to be an opinion, neither provable nor disprovable. As are differing opinions.

Actually, that's incorrect. If your opinion is "speeding laws are unnecessary", that can be disproved by citing data about reaction times while driving at faster speeds. If your opinion is that "the world is flat", that can be disproved by anything from photographic evidence to mathematics based on shadows. If your opinion is that "Angels in the game system D&D are Neutral Evil" that can be disproved by citing the Monster Manual. The opinion that "alignment within the game system D&D is considered subjective" can be disproved in much the same way.

You're confusing your conscious refusal to adjust your stances in the face of evidence that they're at least partially incorrect, with some sort of truth. That's not truth, that's truthiness. If that really is your stance, no one is obligated to take your opinions seriously on here. You're essentially admitting that, not only do you knowingly have an emotional attachment to those opinions that makes them essentially unchangeable, but you believe that since it's an opinion, you have no duty to revise it in the face of evidence that (at least partially) invalidates it. Why should anyone bother discussing anything with you?

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact.

[Unoriginal]

Actually, that's incorrect. If your opinion is "speeding laws are unnecessary", that can be disproved by citing data about reaction times while driving at faster speeds. If your opinion is that "the world is flat", that can be disproved by anything from photographic evidence to mathematics based on shadows. If your opinion is that "Angels in the game system D&D are Neutral Evil" that can be disproved by citing the Monster Manual. The opinion that "alignment within the game system D&D is considered subjective" can be disproved in much the same way.

You're confusing your conscious refusal to adjust your stances in the face of evidence that they're at least partially incorrect, with some sort of truth. That's not truth, that's truthiness. If that really is your stance, no one is obligated to take your opinions seriously on here. You're essentially admitting that, not only do you knowingly have an emotional attachment to those opinions that makes them essentially unchangeable, but you believe that since it's an opinion, you have no duty to revise it in the face of evidence that (at least partially) invalidates it. Why should anyone bother discussing anything with you?

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact.

I wouldn't have worded it as aggressively, but it true.


On the topic of alignment and objectivity, here's a demonstration:

Is a PC who has the same behavior as Asmodeus objectively lawful evil?: y/n

If you say yes, then you agree that alignments are objective.

If you say no, then you are claiming that Asmodeus is only subjectively lawful evil, which means that someone thinking Asmodeus is neutral good is just as valid.

[Naanomi]

Good and Evil are objective, measurable things in the Great Wheel Cosmology. The fact that you can’t see it as such is a weakness of your mortal perspective, and an Angel that isn’t Good isn’t an Angel anymore. There are beings that can literally see the Good and Evil in another being. The Hobgoblin who seems himself and his culture as Good is objectively, and to some degree measurably wrong on the cosmic scale. It is arbitrary in the sense that the universe itself is arbitrary, but it isn’t subjective in any meaningful sense.

It may be arguable that Good and Evil in the cosmological sense are not perfectly equivalent to Right and Wrong in the moral sense which for some is a bit of a linguistic non-sequitor, but is true in the larger Great Wheel setting.