PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Pet Peeves



Reaver
2013-04-16, 10:45 PM
This isn't about any game in particular, just something I notice a lot in roleplaying games of all kinds. In pretty much everything that has an alignment system of some sort, conversational options for alignment are horribly thought out. I've yet to run across a game where the Evil or Ruthless options weren't rude or pointlessly aggressive, (ignoring the fact that Evil and Ruthless should NOT be treated the same) while Good or Kantian choices are always polite.

This applies to conversations with party members too, which really grinds my gears. Being rude or cruel to those you fight beside isn't good or evil, it's just plain stupid. Pissing off someone who you fight beside is a good way to end up on the receiving end of some friendly fire or to be left behind the moment it's convenient.

For an evil group that seems to embody the way conversations SHOULD go, Look at Tarquin and Malack. Always polite to each other and to others, but still undeniably evil. They might torture you or condemn you to be crucified, but they certainly won't be rude about it.

Since it seems highly unlikely that game developers are going to lose their desire to allow your character to be a **** anytime soon, I really wish that conversational options would always have at least 4 options for every Good and Evil Choice. Good-*******, Good-Polite, Evil-******* and Evil-Polite.

Seem reasonable or is this never going to happen?

Amaril
2013-04-16, 10:59 PM
I think the best thing to do is have ordinary conversation be entirely separate from alignment in games. A character should be judged on their actions, not their words--let the player decide what they say and why they say it. Are they complimenting a party member because they want to make them happy, or because they just want to get them in bed? Either makes sense, but both would, in this case, be accomplished with a compliment, so the dialogue option should be the same. Let the character say whatever they want, and still be a good person or a jerk based on the choices that really matter, like saving or wiping out species.

BWR
2013-04-16, 11:04 PM
This was admittedly a problem in our early days of gaming, along with not tracking encumbrance and killing and looting every NPC we came across (in our defense, the very first non-dungeon NPCs we met we tried to talk to and they tried to kill and loot us, so...), but Evil people being polite, or at least being able to function in society at large, came rather early on. The Good = polite has been a bit harder to get rid of in some of our groups.

awa
2013-04-16, 11:15 PM
torment did it the best way i ever saw in a computer game paraphrasing one.
I wont grave rob while i'm in the tomb
I wont grave rob while i"m in the tomb (lie)

and some npcs could tell when you were lying as well.
you could be evil and you didn't have to be stupid about it.

It doesn't seem so complicated but ive never seen it done that well again much less better and considering that torment is over 10 years old that's kinda sad.

Kerrin
2013-04-16, 11:38 PM
I've always thought along the lines of EVIL and GOOD not being the same things as being ruthless, polite, a cheater, greedy, nice, etc.

The greedy merchant who tips the scales in his favor is not EVIL, he's just a greedy, cheating merchant.

In the same way, GOOD doesn't mean having to be nice.

Mnemnosyne
2013-04-17, 01:29 AM
In video games, I think Dragon Age 2 did it well. They had those three personalities that altered the tone and behavior of your character, and the exact wordings of your options. They had an 'aggressive,' a 'polite', and a 'comical' personality, and it came off really well. Despite the criticism the game received, I hope that system, at least, is something that catches on.

Fighter1000
2013-04-17, 02:42 AM
When I run roleplaying games, I just say screw alignments. They're not needed. I don't have an alignment system. Just roleplay your character dammit.
Moral ambiguity can be fun

JadedDM
2013-04-17, 03:09 AM
I have this problem with most of my players. It drives me nuts. They always assume anyone who is nice is Good and anyone who is rude is Evil. Likewise, anyone who refuses to risk their lives to help them (the PCs) for no gain--also Evil.

Sometimes it's fun to mess with them, by having a villain who's really charming and polite and even nice, and then watching them get totally fooled by his/her actions and walking right into a trap. But overall, it gets annoying that they always make this assumption.

Mastikator
2013-04-17, 07:38 AM
Never do alignments. For personality traits do actual personality traits, like patience, greed, optimism, etc. For factionalism do actual factionalism, don't do "the good side vs the evil side", do "the silver flame vs the lords of dust". Alignment simplifies to the point of absurdity and encourages poorly thought out character concepts.

Totally Guy
2013-04-17, 08:12 AM
I prefer writing out a personal philosophy tied to a goal. Or I like to make a choice of how I wish this character to gain experience or whatever other metagame rewards the game uses.

See Burning Wheel's Beliefs, The Shadow of Yesterday's Keys or Dungeon World's Alignment. They are textbook examples of good alternatives to D&D's alignment system.

BWR
2013-04-17, 08:12 AM
I'll admit that I have toyed an idea where you don't so much have Detect Evil/Good but Detect How-much-the-target-agrees-with-My-morality spells, and spells or powers based on alignment really only trigger if the god granting them thinks they should. Which would allow two paladins to smite eachother while still being technically Lawful Good.

Rhynn
2013-04-17, 08:13 AM
This isn't about any game in particular, just something I notice a lot in roleplaying games of all kinds. In pretty much everything that has an alignment system of some sort, conversational options for alignment are horribly thought out. I've yet to run across a game where the Evil or Ruthless options weren't rude or pointlessly aggressive, (ignoring the fact that Evil and Ruthless should NOT be treated the same) while Good or Kantian choices are always polite.

I get the impression you're talking about vidja games, in which case this is the wrong sub-forum...

Joe the Rat
2013-04-17, 08:59 AM
Indeed. Too late now!

Alignment (values) and Personality are two different things.

There's the broad perception of Good-is-Nice, Evil-is-Nasty, which is what makes Friendly-Evil (Affably Evil) such a go-to-to-the-point-of-obviousness interaction plot twist.

Alignment and "conversational options" in tabletop rpgs have been separate since the death of alignment languages. :smallbiggrin:

Seharvepernfan
2013-04-17, 07:16 PM
I think alignment and personality are often tied together. Evil people are never nice, unless they're being deceptive. Good people are nice by nature, but might act not-nice for a variety of reasons.

The thing is, barring detection spells or witnessing a highly good/evil act, you're not going to know.

I agree that most of the times in roleplaying games you can't play your characters the way you want. That's not an alignment problem, that's a developer/producer problem.

Reaver
2013-04-17, 07:43 PM
I think alignment and personality are often tied together. Evil people are never nice, unless they're being deceptive. Good people are nice by nature, but might act not-nice for a variety of reasons.

The thing is, barring detection spells or witnessing a highly good/evil act, you're not going to know.

I agree that most of the times in roleplaying games you can't play your characters the way you want. That's not an alignment problem, that's a developer/producer problem.
I disagree that evil is never nice. the fact that it can be is pretty much the entire reason for the existence of this trope. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

awa
2013-04-17, 09:37 PM
being polite is about what you say being good is about what you do.
If you regularly jump into burning building to save orphans and puppies you don't stop being good becuase you failed to be polite to the reporters who mob you afterwords

there are probably thousands of example of no-nonsenses hard bitten heroes who are not particularly polite but would be good aligned.

Mr Beer
2013-04-17, 10:20 PM
The softly spoken, genial villain is the best villain. Current game: the smiling, hospitable elf who was cracking jokes drugged the party, chained them up to the oars and only then felt free to indulge his sadistic tendencies. Even then, he was still friendly and cheerful about the whole thing. Cruel and tumescently sadistic, but cheerful.

EDIT

If you want to bring any realism at all to the alignment system, evil members of standard races pretty much have to at least pretend to be decent people. If you go around drooling and snarling and muttering 'must be more EVIL today!', you're going to get knocked off quickly.

Mr Beer
2013-04-17, 10:23 PM
there are probably thousands of example of no-nonsenses hard bitten heroes who are not particularly polite but would be good aligned.

Case in point, a solid 50% of dwarf fighters. Grumpy bearded hard-drinkers who still do the right thing.

Seharvepernfan
2013-04-18, 02:32 AM
I disagree that evil is never nice. the fact that it can be is pretty much the entire reason for the existence of this trope. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

I'm confident that it's always an act.

Black Jester
2013-04-18, 03:59 AM
I'm confident that it's always an act.

Not necessarily, no. After all, we are talking about fictional characters and thus their behavior and presentation are pretty much exchangeable storytelling devices. An effective villain (and that is usually the role of proclaimed evil characters after all) can be very effective when he has clear sympathetic streaks and is friendly as well as a mean-spirited thug; these are different forms of representation which all have their place. After all, the purpose of these guys is only to create memorable tales of adventure, and for that purpose most representations work, as long as they are not overused and have at least a minor impact on the overall story of the PCs.

In my opinion, one of the most effective type of villains are usually those who are utterly convinced that they are doing something for the greater good and that their aim is so grand that it justifies any means. Of course such an idealist (who can have quite horrible ideals, after all) can be extremely friendly, charming and empathic. They are probably even relatively likely to appear sympathetic and confident, after all they have a clear sense of mission.

I personally find the D&D set of alignments a bit heavy-handed at times. I think that alignments could either work as a descriptor of actual moral behavior, or as a cosmic affiliation descriptor, but not both at the same time. What I particularly dislike however is the idea that any sentient creature which more or less human level of intellect and a similar relationship to their environment could be shoehorned into a certain moral category; in my opinion, one of the defining elements of sentience is the ability to chose and make moral decisions of one own and this does not work very well with a predetermined alignment. I vastly prefer to treat all 'normal' or 'natural' creatures (what normal and natural actually means in the typically magic-ridden worlds of D&D varies naturally), are just treated as true neutral all the time and for all purposes and alignments are used only as indicators of cosmic affiliation or origin- it just does make more sense to me and fits better with my aesthetic or pseudo-philosophic ideas.

Lorsa
2013-04-18, 03:59 AM
I agree. Being evil and being rude is not the same thing. I have a friend who is always rude in games (he seems to get off on it) whereas I can't. I find it to be mostly stupid. As you say, being rude to your companions, or even people you just met should logically have the consequence of people not joining your cause, or leaving it, not giving you quest, raising prices on stuff the sell you etc. The worst part of these conversation options in video games isn't that they are there or thought of as good or evil, it's that the consequences for being rude to people are non-existant.


torment did it the best way i ever saw in a computer game paraphrasing one.
I wont grave rob while i'm in the tomb
I wont grave rob while i"m in the tomb (lie)

and some npcs could tell when you were lying as well.
you could be evil and you didn't have to be stupid about it.

It doesn't seem so complicated but ive never seen it done that well again much less better and considering that torment is over 10 years old that's kinda sad.

The problem with that is that you have to decide, when answering, if you are lying or not. What if you end up not grave-robbing anyway, even if you chose the (lie)? And if you do speak the (truth), will the game actively prevent you from grave-robbing? I know NWN2 also has options that are (lies) and they will cause you to become chaotic. Problem is, if something is a lie or not should be based on what you do after. A chaotic person might break their promises when their conscience dictates such while still being 100% honest at the time. So unless the game actively reduces your future options in-game when you speak the truth then this doesn't really work.

PlusSixPelican
2013-04-18, 04:10 AM
I tend to play on the Chaotic Good end of the spectrum, in a space where I'm well-intentioned, but I'm not about to arbitrarily do what I'm told to do when it's a bad idea, or contrary to a (reasonable) personal want.

Socratov
2013-04-18, 04:12 AM
the problem with alignment is that people (in dnd at least) treat them like a straight jacket. Instead it's a representation on your outlook on life.

In your example: politeness is all about protocoll, and thus something lawful types would be.

similar, chaotic will be more jerk-like or at least more direct. good versus evil is the readyness to steal, cheat, kill etc.

Sure a good character can kill as much as he likes, but a goo dcharacter wouldn't like killing so much, unless redemption is way out of the window. Similarly, people change. Fast. If you think your character starts out lawful good (a nice young man/woman just out of school and parent's home), but becomes more ruthless and direct, shifting slowly but surely towards chaotic evil should im my book totally happen. Alignment is not something rigid, but something fluid. It's a bit like reputation: if you are lawful good people will hear of it and treat you with respect. If you are chatoic evil they will fear your reputation.

Besides, the oft berated point about alignment is about paladins. But it's not the alignment that screws paladins over, but his code and a sick, sadistic DM trying to make the paladin fall for comic value. (gotta love the greyguard)

PlusSixPelican
2013-04-18, 04:49 AM
Paladins can be hilarious when played correctly. In a game I'm in my bard is romantically pursuing the Paladin to prove that she can. So far, all she's done is prove he's not asexual or uninterested. The Paladin only becomes a problem when the try to make others adhere to their code, which is where the reputation comes from.


EDIT:
The following was meant to be in the previous post:

Personally, I never liked the idea of Good (and Law, since they get conflated) being always -right-. There's times when it's entirely Lawful and Good to do something (by RAW), but really, really wrong. Things such as wiping out a tribe of orcs because they worship an 'evil' god (talk about relativism!).

Speaking of, one of the characters/villains I came up with when I tried to run a campaign was an Aasimar mercenary (Fighter, I think?) who took 'opposing evil' to the point of thrill-killing the women/children/civilians of always-evil species and using magic items/being scary to use undead as meat puppets/outlets for a possibly sexual need to inflict pain. But due to the whole 'descended from Celestials' thing, pinging somewhere in the Neutrals despite being a war criminal. He wasn't exactly 'affable', but he wasn't a total prick. Kind of like Patrick Bateman, nice to the right people, but an utter monster to those 'below' him. That and he looked a lot like Cloud Strife, down to the oversized falchion and silly hair.

Socratov
2013-04-19, 02:55 AM
Paladins can be hilarious when played correctly. In a game I'm in my bard is romantically pursuing the Paladin to prove that she can. So far, all she's done is prove he's not asexual or uninterested. The Paladin only becomes a problem when the try to make others adhere to their code, which is where the reputation comes from.


EDIT:
The following was meant to be in the previous post:

Personally, I never liked the idea of Good (and Law, since they get conflated) being always -right-. There's times when it's entirely Lawful and Good to do something (by RAW), but really, really wrong. Things such as wiping out a tribe of orcs because they worship an 'evil' god (talk about relativism!).

Speaking of, one of the characters/villains I came up with when I tried to run a campaign was an Aasimar mercenary (Fighter, I think?) who took 'opposing evil' to the point of thrill-killing the women/children/civilians of always-evil species and using magic items/being scary to use undead as meat puppets/outlets for a possibly sexual need to inflict pain. But due to the whole 'descended from Celestials' thing, pinging somewhere in the Neutrals despite being a war criminal. He wasn't exactly 'affable', but he wasn't a total prick. Kind of like Patrick Bateman, nice to the right people, but an utter monster to those 'below' him. That and he looked a lot like Cloud Strife, down to the oversized falchion and silly hair.

that's why when runngin alignment in a game (as a player, no dm experience here) I usually duke it out and slightly houserule the concepts of good/evil and law/chaos to mirror more like real world standards. where murdering innocents (even if the majority of a tribe or people is evil, not every single one is) is clearly evil. that said, this is to preference of the players. You might want to eliminate alignment altogether while I think it can definately (when used right) add to the game.

Jon_Dahl
2013-04-19, 05:20 AM
I just hate the word "lawful" because it always makes people think that you're actually a law-abiding citizen.

BWR
2013-04-19, 07:04 AM
I'd argue that lawful entails a general respect for laws and that one usually follows them, even if you don't always agree with them. What else would 'lawful' mean?

Copper
2013-04-19, 07:17 AM
I think the reason so many people play evil rude is that the reason a lot of players play evil because they like the idea of being able to do whatever they want and not be tied down by the ideals of being "good". Those same players are not going to play a polite, refined person. They're going to play someone brash, violent and unrefined.

CombatOwl
2013-04-19, 07:29 AM
I'm confident that it's always an act.

I'm currently playing a neutral evil cleric of mask; he is genuinely helpful and kind... to people who are not getting in the way of his personal goals. He's kind when it doesn't get in his way, and terribly cruel when being nice would be a hinderence. This isn't an act--he just isn't willing to let his own personal feelings get in the way of getting what he wants.

CombatOwl
2013-04-19, 07:33 AM
I'm confident that it's always an act.


I'd argue that lawful entails a general respect for laws and that one usually follows them, even if you don't always agree with them. What else would 'lawful' mean?

That you believe in adhering to the codes or laws that the character personally endorses. For example, a lawful good paladin ought not respect the laws of a demonstrably evil government. A lawful neutral fighter might strictly follow his people's code of conduct, while utterly ignoring any other laws that would interfere with that. A lawful evil merchant might well strictly follow the laws of the country that he's in, not because he respects them, but because those laws offer him protection.

Lawful just means you follow some law or code, not necessarily that you follow all of them, or respect every law ever.

Jay R
2013-04-19, 08:54 AM
The problem that you cannot get past is that the alignment system in D&D is inconsistent with any moral system ever developed.

It's not true that a person first "is" good, and therefore does good things, or "is" evil and therefore does evil things. Each new action is a choice, and people make themselves better or worse each day, by their actions.

As any number of self-help programs and conversions attest, people can change their outlook over time, and as many failed attempts at both attest, neither the temptations nor the situations ago away.

The idea that any sentient creature could be "evil" or "good" separate from their choices or actions is an in-game over-simplification, akin to color-coding dragons for the benefits of dragon-hunters.

Rhynn
2013-04-19, 09:01 AM
I just hate the word "lawful" because it always makes people think that you're actually a law-abiding citizen.


I'd argue that lawful entails a general respect for laws and that one usually follows them, even if you don't always agree with them. What else would 'lawful' mean?

It really doesn't, IMO. It also doesn't mean organized or disciplined.

Lawful means group-minded. Chaotic means individual-minded.

Now, overall, societies may indeed benefit from laws, respect thereof, and organization and discipline, but those aren't the core of the Lawful alignment. Prioritizing group over individual (at least within reason) is Lawful.

A person who dies to save others (particularly strangers) acted Lawfully. A person who abandons friends or family to save himself acted Chaotically. A person who abandons strangers to save himself acted Neutrally.

(Of course, those actions may also have a Good-Evil dimension.)

awa
2013-04-19, 10:19 AM
your confusing good and evil with law and chaos good is not necessarily lawful, chaotic is not necessarily evil

a lawful evil person does not need to sacrifice him self for the greater good as long as he is honorable and loyal to his master and/or ideals.

A chaotic good person can risk his life to save complete strangers from slavers because love of freedom is one of the defining features of chaotic good.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

The difference between chaotic good and lawful good is not that the chaotic person wont risk himself for others but that he is not concerned by laws and regulation when he does. When a chaotic person see a law interfering with his heroics he breaks it if a lawful person sees a law interfering with his heroics he tries to reform the law/ work within the system

mjlush
2013-04-19, 11:08 AM
My pet peeve with alignment in D&D is that its built into the system especially spells and magic items keyed to specific alignments. It makes it harder to ditch the whole sorry mess.

Scow2
2013-04-19, 11:17 AM
The problem that you cannot get past is that the alignment system in D&D is inconsistent with any moral system ever developed.

It's not true that a person first "is" good, and therefore does good things, or "is" evil and therefore does evil things. Each new action is a choice, and people make themselves better or worse each day, by their actions.

As any number of self-help programs and conversions attest, people can change their outlook over time, and as many failed attempts at both attest, neither the temptations nor the situations ago away.

The idea that any sentient creature could be "evil" or "good" separate from their choices or actions is an in-game over-simplification, akin to color-coding dragons for the benefits of dragon-hunters.That's because you're going about it backward. A person is good or evil because they do good or evil deeds.



It really doesn't, IMO. It also doesn't mean organized or disciplined.

Lawful means group-minded. Chaotic means individual-minded.
This is not true - otherwise, Elves wouldn't be able to function as they are written. Law is about standards, codification, and defined patterns for behavior, while chaos has none of that. Law is only "Group-minded" to the extent of implementation of Social Contract, which Chaos lacks (Because chaos lacks any sort of Contract) Socially speaking, chaos is "State of Nature" (Hence, the most extreme Chaotic Good realm being Arborea). Chaotic Good ones favor Rousseu's interpretation, while Chaotic Evil vindicates Thomas Hobbes.

JusticeZero
2013-04-19, 11:19 AM
My peeve is actually the opposite. I have no problem with the alignment being tied to the crunch. My annoyance is with people who actually think it matters in the least bit what alignment they have on their sheet as regards how they want to behave when they are in compliance with their arbitrary divinely derived restrictions. The alignment doesn't tell you how to behave, it just tells what gods think you have cooties at the moment.

Scow2
2013-04-19, 11:22 AM
The alignment doesn't tell you how to behave, it just tells what gods think you have cooties at the moment.
May I sig this?

JusticeZero
2013-04-19, 11:23 AM
Sure. =) It's one of those things that people always forget.

CombatOwl
2013-04-19, 11:50 AM
The problem that you cannot get past is that the alignment system in D&D is inconsistent with any moral system ever developed.

Because morality in D&D is a physical thing. It is actually an objectively detectable thing. There is, objectively, good and evil in D&D. That is not the case in real life. Real life moral systems have ambiguity and subjectivity associated with them... but in d&d such things are objectively determined. Obviously moral systems will be different in a world where you can "discern alignment" and figure out if you're being lawful or chaotic, or good or evil.

It doesn't matter whether you're a nice person or not, if you are objectively evil in d&d, that paladin's smite evil is still going to hurt more.


It's not true that a person first "is" good, and therefore does good things, or "is" evil and therefore does evil things. Each new action is a choice, and people make themselves better or worse each day, by their actions.

Except in d&d people are mechanically good or mechanically evil; there are actual physical differences between good people and evil people in d&d. Your choices matter only in as much as they run the risk of changing your objectively discernible alignment.


As any number of self-help programs and conversions attest, people can change their outlook over time, and as many failed attempts at both attest, neither the temptations nor the situations ago away.

That's real life; in d&d people change themselves in discrete little chunks. One day they're lawful evil, until suddenly they become lawful neutral. And in d&d those two alignments are objectively and demonstrably different.


The idea that any sentient creature could be "evil" or "good" separate from their choices or actions is an in-game over-simplification, akin to color-coding dragons for the benefits of dragon-hunters.

Well, the other way to look at it is a what-if question--what would morality be like if there really WERE an objective good and evil?

Rhynn
2013-04-19, 12:00 PM
I cannot have the exact same discussion in two threads. :smalleek:

Link to the other one. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279535&p=15122189)

JusticeZero
2013-04-19, 01:49 PM
in d&d people are mechanically good or mechanically evil; there are actual physical differences between good people and evil people in d&d. Your choices matter only in as much as they run the risk of changing your objectively discernible alignment.
in d&d people change themselves in discrete little chunks. One day they're lawful evil, until suddenly they become lawful neutral. And in d&d those two alignments are objectively and demonstrably different.
In the real world, your tax and benefits are divided by large, discrete chunks. But income can vary in tiny increments. One can be poor, and have an income such that if they spend five minutes at work longer than they planned, they suddenly become ineligible for a variety of financial assistance they are reliant upon. This is pretty much identical to what is happening here; your actual behavior is all over the place wherever you want, but some external forces are dividing it arbitrarily into discrete blocks for categorization. This isn't even a unique thing to the DnD cosmology, really. It's a consequence of almost every such sorting scheme. The one that the dominant religion in use in the countries that most of the people reading this uses is arguably even more arbitrary than DnD's, which offers a larger selection.

..We were once so close to Heaven, Peter came out and gave us medals declaring us "the nicest of the damned"..

CombatOwl
2013-04-19, 02:56 PM
In the real world, your tax and benefits are divided by large, discrete chunks. But income can vary in tiny increments.

Your alignment cannot. You don't have alignment points; alignments are not thresholds or brackets.


One can be poor, and have an income such that if they spend five minutes at work longer than they planned, they suddenly become ineligible for a variety of financial assistance they are reliant upon.

Which... isn't how alignment works. It's not the case that "one more evil act will push you over the edge." Actions do not add or subtract points from your evil score.


This is pretty much identical to what is happening here; your actual behavior is all over the place wherever you want, but some external forces are dividing it arbitrarily into discrete blocks for categorization.

It does not require an outside force at all; a character can determine a person's full alignment using an epic DC 80 sense motive check. Neither does the assessment change depending on the observer's philosophical views. Obviously alignment is an objective property in the d&d universe.


This isn't even a unique thing to the DnD cosmology, really. It's a consequence of almost every such sorting scheme. The one that the dominant religion in use in the countries that most of the people reading this uses is arguably even more arbitrary than DnD's, which offers a larger selection.

Right, but in real life religions can disagree on the nature of whether an action is good or evil. Not so in d&d, where actions--and people--are objectively good or evil. They're consistently good or evil no matter what the observer believes.

hamishspence
2013-04-19, 03:01 PM
Which... isn't how alignment works. It's not the case that "one more evil act will push you over the edge." Actions do not add or subtract points from your evil score.

Fiendish Codex 2 does have a Corruption score- but that's slightly different- has more to do with "afterlife destination".

Going back into earlier editions, here's what the 2nd ed DMG had to say (page 40):

Player characters can only say what they think their current alignment is. Once they have chosen their alignment, the DM is the only person in the game who knows where it currently stands. A chaotic good ranger may be on the verge of changing alignment- one more cold-blooded deed and over the edge he goes. But he doesn't know that. He still thinks he is chaotic good through and through.

Malrone
2013-04-19, 03:16 PM
Your alignment cannot. You don't have alignment points; alignments are not thresholds or brackets.

You seem to be contradicting yourself-

That's real life; in d&d people change themselves in discrete little chunks. One day they're lawful evil, until suddenly they become lawful neutral. And in d&d those two alignments are objectively and demonstrably different.

Scow2
2013-04-19, 03:28 PM
Your alignment cannot. You don't have alignment points; alignments are not thresholds or brackets.Actually, according to the PHB and DMG, they are.

Which... isn't how alignment works. It's not the case that "one more evil act will push you over the edge." Actions do not add or subtract points from your evil score.Ladies and gentlement, I give you a shining example of the Continuum Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy).




It does not require an outside force at all; a character can determine a person's full alignment using an epic DC 80 sense motive check. Neither does the assessment change depending on the observer's philosophical views. Obviously alignment is an objective property in the d&d universe.It takes an Epic check, which means the person in it is a judge of character on par (if not surpassing) the Greater Gods themselves - and while he may justify his own stance in the moral continuum through his own myopia, he's able to see where others fall in the eyes of the primal forces.


Right, but in real life religions can disagree on the nature of whether an action is good or evil. Not so in d&d, where actions--and people--are objectively good or evil. They're consistently good or evil no matter what the observer believes.That's because, in D&D, there's an objective truth out there, but the mortals have their views skewed by personal myopias. Orcs don't see themselves as Evil - they believe that brutality and rule through might are virtues. But that's a culturally-induced moral myopia fostered by an imperfect mortal view of the world. The colorblind man can infinitely claim This Text is Red, but that's a failure of his own perspective to see the the truth behind it. The coding behind the text marks it as entirely Green.

kardar233
2013-04-19, 04:23 PM
I like to view Law and Chaos as deontological versus teleological ethics, personally. It has its issues, but is at least consistent.

Rhynn
2013-04-19, 04:23 PM
Your alignment cannot. You don't have alignment points; alignments are not thresholds or brackets.

Dragonlance explicitly had those. :smallbiggrin:

Also, alignments are, in fact, brackets - broad categories. Not ever Lawful Good is equivalent. It's clearly a nonsensical idea, so it must be the incorrect interpretation, eh?


Which... isn't how alignment works. It's not the case that "one more evil act will push you over the edge." Actions do not add or subtract points from your evil score.

But it is! Consistently acting out of alignment changes your alignment.

Alignment does not prescribe, it describes.

Janus
2013-04-19, 08:15 PM
Neutral = Kill equal number of good and bad guys for "balance." :smallsigh:

Bogardan_Mage
2013-04-20, 02:48 AM
That's because, in D&D, there's an objective truth out there, but the mortals have their views skewed by personal myopias. Orcs don't see themselves as Evil - they believe that brutality and rule through might are virtues. But that's a culturally-induced moral myopia fostered by an imperfect mortal view of the world. The colorblind man can infinitely claim This Text is Red, but that's a failure of his own perspective to see the the truth behind it. The coding behind the text marks it as entirely Green.
That's just terminology, though. It's not as though evil characters are incapable of telling the difference between good and evil as your colourblindness analogy suggests, it's simply that they've chosen evil for one reason or another. In some cases this may truly be ignorance (or "myopia" as you put it) but I refuse to believe that entire civilisations of "usually evil" races could arise without understanding that they are evil. If you gave an orc a magic item that allowed him to detect alignment at will, I sincerely doubt he would be surprised by what he saw in his evil tribesmen or good enemies. There's no reason orcs should be unaware of what being evil means, they've simply chosen to be evil because they believe it to be better than good (what exactly "better" means is, again, different for each evil character).

JusticeZero
2013-04-20, 04:59 AM
It's likely that the Evil planes are actually pretty fun places to be for an evil character. Valhalla sounds somewhat similar to the Blood War, for instance.
So, 'I'm an Orc, I detect as Evil like my other tribesmen, and we have all been promised a place in Gruumsh's infernal forces. This is an honor!'

CombatOwl
2013-04-20, 09:06 AM
Dragonlance explicitly had those. :smallbiggrin:

And it was specific to the setting.


Also, alignments are, in fact, brackets - broad categories. Not ever Lawful Good is equivalent. It's clearly a nonsensical idea, so it must be the incorrect interpretation, eh?

It is kind of nonsensical. If characters actually had free will, then attaching mechanical effects to one's objective alignment would be absurd. Obviously characters are incapable of actually acting against their alignment, only changing it to something else.


But it is! Consistently acting out of alignment changes your alignment.

Incidentally, the DMG explicitly states otherwise--that it is the DM that controls alignment changes, not players or their character's actions. I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but by a strict reading of the rules...


Alignment does not prescribe, it describes.

IMO, it ought to be considered prescriptive, not descriptive. As the PHB states; "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your
intent to play that character a certain way."

In other words, by picking an alignment, you're kind of saying "I intend to play this character according to these moral principles." That's kind of prescriptive, and by the rules can only be changed by the DM deciding to change your character's alignment. And since there's a mechanical impact from alignment...

In other words, traditional Orcs do actually know that they're Evil, and consider themselves so. Because they detect as evil according to magic, or divine observation, or epic sense motive checks.

I agree that this is kind of nonsensical, but that's d&d for you.

CombatOwl
2013-04-20, 09:19 AM
Actually, according to the PHB and DMG, they are.

The DMG actually states otherwise. :smallbiggrin:


Ladies and gentlement, I give you a shining example of the Continuum Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy).

In what way is that a continuum fallacy? "There is no good and evil, only myriad states of grey between them," would be an example of a continuum fallacy. Actually, my argument is kind of the opposite. I am actually stating that in d&d there are only nine potential alignments; that there is no middle ground between lawful evil and lawful neutral, for example.

Amusingly, that constitutes an attempt at an argument from fallacy...


It takes an Epic check, which means the person in it is a judge of character on par (if not surpassing) the Greater Gods themselves - and while he may justify his own stance in the moral continuum through his own myopia, he's able to see where others fall in the eyes of the primal forces.

It is not in any way related to his own moral beliefs. An evil character correctly identifies other evil characters as evil, because in d&d evil (and law, and chaos, and good) is an objective property of things (and a force in the d&d universe). A character who is using the epic DC 80 sense motive check is not determining whether someone agrees with them or not, they are determining which of the nine objectively discernible alignments they follow.

Incidentally, this should have a pretty significant impact on how characters view their own morality, because they can verify it objectively...


That's because, in D&D, there's an objective truth out there, but the mortals have their views skewed by personal myopias.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that would even remotely suggest that characters only understand alignment through their own personal biases.


Orcs don't see themselves as Evil

Certainly they must.


But that's a culturally-induced moral myopia fostered by an imperfect mortal view of the world. The colorblind man can infinitely claim This Text is Red, but that's a failure of his own perspective to see the the truth behind it. The coding behind the text marks it as entirely Green.

In real life morality is subjective. In d&d, the rules quite explicitly state otherwise. And make it rather simple to objectively confirm it.

Vaern
2013-04-20, 10:31 AM
That you believe in adhering to the codes or laws that the character personally endorses. For example, a lawful good paladin ought not respect the laws of a demonstrably evil government. A lawful neutral fighter might strictly follow his people's code of conduct, while utterly ignoring any other laws that would interfere with that. A lawful evil merchant might well strictly follow the laws of the country that he's in, not because he respects them, but because those laws offer him protection.

Lawful just means you follow some law or code, not necessarily that you follow all of them, or respect every law ever.
Any character can have a personal code that they follow. Even Chaotic characters, who do not respect authority, will have their own list of things that they will or will not do based on their personal beliefs.

Lawful characters are subject not only to their own code, but will also adhere to their church's regulations (if any), as well as any local and national laws that apply to them. They will obey the word of anyone who is recognized as a legitimate authority. That is the difference between a Lawful character and a law-abiding Neutral character, who doesn't necessarily respect the law but does not want to be punished by it either.

However, if a Lawful character's superiors' commands seem suspicious or would compromise the character's alignment on the Good-Evil axis, they are entitled to attempt to prove that those superiors are not a legitimate authority through lawful means.

The paladin in your random example would continue upholding the law of an evil government, unless that requires the paladin to commit an explicitly evil act. However, so long as he is aware that the government he is serving is evil, he will spend any time he can spare attempting to find evidence that could expose their corruption in court.

JusticeZero
2013-04-20, 10:47 AM
It is proscriptive only in the sense that your alignment when you start is expected to be what you think they would have become from an offscreen lifetime of acting like you intend to play them.

Inkidu
2013-04-20, 10:51 AM
I once started a whole brutal inquisition as a lawful good paladin... and got promoted for it. :D

The point I made was that that my religious institution dictated that one was required. I also tried to epitomize and not misuse the laws so I was still good.

Thus brutal inquisition imprisoning hundreds and killing dozens over several months, but hey god was cool with it, and I didn't do it out of greed.

The one alignment I don't really like is chaotic neutral. I think it tends to be abused... if that's really possible...

Scow2
2013-04-20, 11:06 AM
And it was specific to the setting.



It is kind of nonsensical. If characters actually had free will, then attaching mechanical effects to one's objective alignment would be absurd. Obviously characters are incapable of actually acting against their alignment, only changing it to something else.No, you CAN do things against your alignment, which only represents how the cosmic see your outlook and contributions to the world shifting them toward or against their favors - Those who's actions and outlook advance structure and order ping as Lawful. Those who's actions inhibit or destroy order and structure ping as Chaotic. Those who use their free will to further humanitarian and altruistic ends and purge the world of Evil ping as Good, while those who spread unwarranted misery, suffering and tear down Good establishments ping as Evil.

There is nothing preventing someone from changing their outlook and behaviors to something contrary to their alignment. It only results in an alignment shift when the change in their actions becomes so much that the cosmic forces are forced to reassess their opinion on a given character.


Incidentally, the DMG explicitly states otherwise--that it is the DM that controls alignment changes, not players or their character's actions. I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but by a strict reading of the rules... Which furthers the viewpoint that Alignment isn't a measure of constraints on a character's actions, but instead how the cosmic forces view a character. The GM is, under no uncertain terms, allowed to restrict the actions of a player's character - Even magical influence is either "Hijack the character entirely" (Compulsions), "Bad things happen to those who act contrary to magically prescribed behavior" (Geas/Quest, Mark of Justice), "Player needs to change its perspective on a situation"(Charms, Helm of Opposite Alignment), or a more limited variant on the first one (Sanctuary and Command).

The GM is merely a Judge, and if a person is acting out of accordance with one alignment, instead of being told he needs to act in line with it, he is re-assessed and re-categorized.


IMO, it ought to be considered prescriptive, not descriptive. As the PHB states; "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your
intent to play that character a certain way."

In other words, by picking an alignment, you're kind of saying "I intend to play this character according to these moral principles." That's kind of prescriptive, and by the rules can only be changed by the DM deciding to change your character's alignment. And since there's a mechanical impact from alignment...Yes, you intend to do something. But what's intended isn't always how things work out. It's assumed a character that starts with an alignment has been acting in a way to ping as such by the cosmic forces prior to campaign start.


In other words, traditional Orcs do actually know that they're Evil, and consider themselves so. Because they detect as evil according to magic, or divine observation, or epic sense motive checks.

I agree that this is kind of nonsensical, but that's d&d for you.
Yes, Orcs and evil humanoids know they're evil, but their usual outlook on the matter is "If [behavior/mindset X] is wrong, then I don't want to be right!"


The point I made was that that my religious institution dictated that one was required. I also tried to epitomize and not misuse the laws so I was still good.This doesn't make sense. Good doesn't give a rats ass about how laws are used or not. Only law does. The guy who follows cruel laws even as intended is not Good for doing so. The man who misuses and abuses loopholes in laws to protect people from them, on the other hand is Good. You should have at best fallen from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral if the inquisition was brutal and inflicted unneeded suffering and/or wrongfully convicted those innocent of either lawbreaking or vileness. At worst, you can still shift to Lawful Evil for embracing such a vicious inquisition.

Vaern
2013-04-20, 11:07 AM
The point I made was that that my religious institution dictated that one was required. I also tried to epitomize and not misuse the laws so I was still good.
You're synonymizing "lawful" and "good." As a general rule of thumb, if a paladin takes an action against hundreds of innocent civilians that his own player describes as "brutal," then that paladin should probably not be a paladin any more.

Inkidu
2013-04-20, 12:29 PM
You're synonymizing "lawful" and "good." As a general rule of thumb, if a paladin takes an action against hundreds of innocent civilians that his own player describes as "brutal," then that paladin should probably not be a paladin any more.The greater good is always such a great defense isn't it? ;D

Actually, I was spared more because of my promotion. I might have instigated the thing, but a lot of what I did was paperwork. :\

Great allegory huh?

Scow2
2013-04-20, 12:41 PM
The greater good is always such a great defense isn't it? ;D

Actually, I was spared more because of my promotion. I might have instigated the thing, but a lot of what I did was paperwork. :\

Great allegory huh?I am really trying to not delve into real-world precedent about bureaucratic culpability. But yeah... this sort of thing shouldn't happen.

Inkidu
2013-04-20, 12:49 PM
I am really trying to not delve into real-world precedent about bureaucratic culpability. But yeah... this sort of thing shouldn't happen.Actually, when you get the whole story it makes sense.

While my paladin instigated it (it was supposed to be a simple investigation), what it eventually would become was not deemed reasonably foreseeable. So the DM actually put me on paperwork to keep me out of streets or would have the party go do a dungeon crawl when things heated up. After a month out let's say when my paladin got back... he was pissed.

Vaern
2013-04-20, 01:55 PM
Well, I suppose it's not entirely your fault if the DM orchestrated the events to escalate without your knowledge. But I'd personally have Atonement cast on me after dealing with the situation, even if it didn't end up costing my paladinhood.

Inkidu
2013-04-20, 02:05 PM
Well, I suppose it's not entirely your fault if the DM orchestrated the events to escalate without your knowledge. But I'd personally have Atonement cast on me after dealing with the situation, even if it didn't end up costing my paladinhood.Tell me about it. At least it wasn't me. When I DM for fallen paladin's there's always some big personal trial they have to accomplish without their powers. >:D

Jay R
2013-04-20, 04:25 PM
Because morality in D&D is a physical thing. It is actually an objectively detectable thing.

It doesn't matter whether you're a nice person or not, if you are objectively evil in d&d, that paladin's smite evil is still going to hurt more.

Except in d&d people are mechanically good or mechanically evil; there are actual physical differences between good people and evil people in d&d. Your choices matter only in as much as they run the risk of changing your objectively discernible alignment.

That's real life; in d&d people change themselves in discrete little chunks. One day they're lawful evil, until suddenly they become lawful neutral. And in d&d those two alignments are objectively and demonstrably different.

There you go. That's my alignment pet peeve in a nutshell.

Inkidu
2013-04-20, 04:48 PM
There you go. That's my alignment pet peeve in a nutshell.
The only thing that you can hope for is a DM who enjoys playing somewhat loose with alignments.

Rhynn
2013-04-20, 04:49 PM
It is kind of nonsensical. If characters actually had free will, then attaching mechanical effects to one's objective alignment would be absurd. Obviously characters are incapable of actually acting against their alignment, only changing it to something else.

Why?

The effects are all magic. Some magic detects if you're more evil than not (or, in older editions that handle it better, detects if you've done evil lately).


Incidentally, the DMG explicitly states otherwise--that it is the DM that controls alignment changes, not players or their character's actions. I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but by a strict reading of the rules...

Naturally. The DM changes the PC's alignment to match the PC's actions, because otherwise some rules wouldn't work right. If a PC keeps committing evil acts, the DM changes the PC's alignment to evil so that the PC can be detected by detect evil.

The DM does not tell the player "hey, no, your PC doesn't do that because his alignment is X." The DM just adjusts the world (in this case, what the PC registers as, alignment-wise, to magic).


IMO, it ought to be considered prescriptive, not descriptive. As the PHB states; "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way."

Intent, sure. Straight-jacket, never. And absolutely never the DM going "you can't do that because of your alignment."

This is why older editions had XP penalties for changing alignment. It was a terrible rule.


In other words, traditional Orcs do actually know that they're Evil, and consider themselves so. Because they detect as evil according to magic, or divine observation, or epic sense motive checks.

Nope, they don't know it, because they've not cast those spells, and because alignment is more rules than in-world knowledge. (It obviously does cross over.) The orcs quite possibly know that humans, elves, etc. think they are evil. The orcs think humans, elves, etc. are weak fools and that they are doing what's sensible and/or fun and/or their right for being strong enough to do it. Might makes right!

Or, to paraphrase Scow2, "if this is evil, I don't wanna be good!"

Bogardan_Mage
2013-04-20, 06:30 PM
Nope, they don't know it, because they've not cast those spells, and because alignment is more rules than in-world knowledge. (It obviously does cross over.) The orcs quite possibly know that humans, elves, etc. think they are evil. The orcs think humans, elves, etc. are weak fools and that they are doing what's sensible and/or fun and/or their right for being strong enough to do it. Might makes right!

Or, to paraphrase Scow2, "if this is evil, I don't wanna be good!"
Again, it's terminology. I think we agree, but for some reason you're adding on a 'No no no, they don't know that they're evil' when what I think you actually mean is that they don't view evil as being a bad thing. This doesn't mean they don't know they're evil, and whether or not they've cast detect evil on themselves will not change this. Orcs are not known for spellcasting prowess but plenty of "usually evil" races are, so do Drow also not know that they're evil? It's not as though they don't have access to those spells.

We live in a generally Good aligned society so the word "Evil" carries certain connotations that of course this is a bad thing. In an Evil aligned society, being Evil is the assumed course of action so it is seen as desirable. That doesn't make it any less Evil, since it still satisfies all the definitions set out in the alignment rules. And of course, that's not even getting into the fact that Orcish and Undercommon have different vocabulary anyway.

Rhynn
2013-04-20, 07:41 PM
Again, it's terminology. I think we agree, but for some reason you're adding on a 'No no no, they don't know that they're evil' when what I think you actually mean is that they don't view evil as being a bad thing. This doesn't mean they don't know they're evil, and whether or not they've cast detect evil on themselves will not change this. Orcs are not known for spellcasting prowess but plenty of "usually evil" races are, so do Drow also not know that they're evil? It's not as though they don't have access to those spells.

I think it is sort of a point of semantics, yes, but what I'm saying is that orcs don't go around thinking "gee I sure am Lawful [Chaotic in 3E] Evil" (no one does), or even thinking "gee I sure am evil." I think that, even in a D&D world, to the inhabitants of the world, evil and good as words mean what they do to us, and almost no one lives in a way that they consider to be evil. (Or, perhaps more accurately, no one considers the way they live to be evil; this is more the way it works for most people, even if they're doing what most people consider evil...)

The drow, for instance, probably wouldn't call the spells detect good and detect evil at all. After all, Lolth is hardly likely to have come down from her web and explained the spells as having those names. (Indeed, spell names are mostly OOC constructions.) Maybe they call them "detect weakness of spirit" and "detect strength of spirit." After all, the drow are hardly like to find anything they view as good (virtuous, pious, satisfactory, excellent, right, proper, etc.) in a person who pings the priestesses' detect good ability/domain spell.

This probably does seem paradoxical, yes, and I can understand why people would think differently, when I consider Law and Chaos to be more objective concepts or understood philosophies within the world, that people explicitly claim allegiance to. (This dovetails nicely with the aggressive Law-Chaos split in the Lower Planes.) A bit of Poul Anderson and Moorcock, I suppose, there.

:smallbiggrin:

Man on Fire
2013-04-20, 08:07 PM
When I run roleplaying games, I just say screw alignments. They're not needed. I don't have an alignment system. Just roleplay your character dammit.
Moral ambiguity can be fun

I do the same. Alignment is fun to place fictional characters in, but it's terrible as game mechanic.

JusticeZero
2013-04-21, 07:10 AM
I tell people not to worry about alignments either, just RP your character. But that doesn't mean I don't track them, if there is crunch that requires they be tracked.

Inkidu
2013-04-21, 07:27 AM
I wonder what would happen if I started viewing good and evil more in terms of selfishness versus selflessness, kind of a Buddhist thing instead of simply right and wrong. I mean, it's still mostly objective. It's not hard to pick out a selfish or narcissistic act from a selfless humble one. I think it might work.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-04-21, 07:42 AM
The drow, for instance, probably wouldn't call the spells detect good and detect evil at all.
No, as I said they'd call them something in Undercommon. It would still mean exactly what the rules say constitutes good or evil though. I can assure you that it won't literally mean "strength of spirit", although it may carry that connotation it will still be literally translated as "evil" because that's what it means. Where we differ is that you seem to be married to the connotations our good-aligned society has placed on these words to the point that you can't conceive of a language that doesn't do the same.

So I agree and I don't agree. I agree that evil characters don't believe themselves to be "evil" in the way that you or I would understand it, but I don't agree that such a distinction is at all meaningful. They still tick every evil box and they will heartily agree that they do so, the only point of difference is a subjective one. That doesn't mean they don't think they're evil, it means they understand evil in different way to you or I.

Rhynn
2013-04-21, 09:46 AM
No, as I said they'd call them something in Undercommon. It would still mean exactly what the rules say constitutes good or evil though. I can assure you that it won't literally mean "strength of spirit", although it may carry that connotation it will still be literally translated as "evil" because that's what it means. Where we differ is that you seem to be married to the connotations our good-aligned society has placed on these words to the point that you can't conceive of a language that doesn't do the same.

It's really not about our "good-aligned society." Good isn't some concept separate of us. It's a word with meanings. It didn't change meanings over time, because it is a basic concept... "what is right, what is proper, what is excellent, what is virtuous." That's the meanings of the word. Where in the world is there any society in which "evil" is espoused? The meaning of the word is "bad, wrong, harmful."

You're basically saying the game rules replace meanings of words within the world. I'm saying they don't, and they're mostly used out-of-character. It's a difference of opinion, obviously. I think my approach creates more verisimilitude, which is important to me, and gives cooler flavor.

JusticeZero
2013-04-21, 12:43 PM
I wonder what would happen if I started viewing good and evil more in terms of selfishness versus selflessness, kind of a Buddhist thing instead of simply right and wrong. I mean, it's still mostly objective. It's not hard to pick out a selfish or narcissistic act from a selfless humble one. I think it might work.
That is actually the definition of Evil that a lot of official material uses, so you'd be fine; it's a great solution.

Water_Bear
2013-04-21, 01:17 PM
It's really not about our "good-aligned society." Good isn't some concept separate of us. It's a word with meanings. It didn't change meanings over time, because it is a basic concept... "what is right, what is proper, what is excellent, what is virtuous." That's the meanings of the word.

Actually, the term "good" has a vast and constantly changing number of meanings. A lot of them are mutually exclusive.

I cannot elaborate any further without violating board rules, but feel free to PM me for a less vague explanation.

JusticeZero
2013-04-21, 01:30 PM
It's really not about our "good-aligned society." Good isn't some concept separate of us. It's a word with meanings. It didn't change meanings over time, because it is a basic concept... "what is right, what is proper, what is excellent, what is virtuous." That's the meanings of the word. Where in the world is there any society in which "evil" is espoused? The meaning of the word is "bad, wrong, harmful."If you start debating some of the more controversial topics of the day with people, you will find a lot of swing between interpretations of "Good" or "Evil"; furthermore, the lists of what acts have been thought of as good have shifted.

The main thing with DnD is that there is a "Cultural Good" and an "Objective Good". Furthermore, "Objective Good" is arbitrary and not necessarily sensible.

Look deeply at some of the very old religious texts and you will find all kinds of declarations of what constitutes good behavior that we do not do. If killing your own children for being uppity and defiant is "Good" then I will wear the mantle of "Evil" proudly, even in a world where you can measure my Universal Goodness with a machine.

Furthermore, my understanding of the afterlife in canonical DnD is that there is, in essence, an appeal process in which souls go to have their actions audited by hand to get a more "Common Sense" judgement of destination than their default alignment tag. The very existence of such a process could be taken as evidence that the crunch of alignment might be a bit more blindly bureaucratic and granular than might be desired.

It is very probable that the mechanisms created with the world are using blunt RAW on the matter, and that "Objective Good" has been distancing itself from "Cultural Good" for quite some time, with "Cultural Good" still being what people would recognize as undeniably Good behavior even as Good bits of it deviate into Objective Evil territory. Even if RAW is occasionally updated, it's still RAW and prone to the occasional absurdity.

"OMG you made peace with the Goblin nation by feeding them and bringing them into your cities as peaceful craftsmen and merchants? EEeevil. I'm sorry, but we're going to have to flag your entire city as Smite_OK for paladins for that. The Paladins thought it was a good idea? The Archons down in Auditing agree with them? Hmph. We go by the book here, and the book was carved behind me in adamantite letters by the Gods when they made the world!"

Good and Evil are, at a relative level, full of points of argument and grey areas. The universe itself has been built with a way to sort these. However, it does not take the form of a continuum, as arguably it aught to to deal with these cases better; it has brackets, in the form of discrete planes. This discreteness means that there are going to be edge cases where two people who behaved the exact same are going to end up in very different planes because it came down to some very petty tiebreaker. I didn't design the universe. I don't know why the gods chose to use those bracketing things.

There was a book written at one point by a social scientist about a weird situation that had happened to their children, who happened to be identical twins, completely indistinguishable from each other and attending the same school. For some reason, society decided that one of the children was "white" and the other one was "black" and proceeded to hammer each into those cultural expectations and roles despite the fact that they were, y'know, completely indistinguishable from each other and at a genetic level the exact same person.

Cultures like to shove people into boxes, and they always seem to want to make insiders and outsiders, and the Gods are, well, pretty darned human in their ways. They're often defined as ascended humans, and even when they aren't, they're still of the old "guy with a beard sitting on a mountain doing zany things with/to his neighbors on the mountain" anthropomorphic variety.

You ask where "Evil" is espoused. by RAW of some religious texts, there are things we do every day, that we have fought very hard for, led by moral leaders we look up to, that are evil. To be Good by RAW we need to go back to slavery and throwing rocks at people because of them being teenagers or running afoul of the wrong guy and a lot of other things that we mock people for even suggesting. If picketing funerals is RAW Good, then yeah. Our culture is evil. Viva team Evil. By and large people seem to be OK with that, and continue to push deeper into trying to be little-g-good and treating it as RAI in spite of it flying in the face of RAW.

Rhynn
2013-04-21, 03:46 PM
If you start debating some of the more controversial topics of the day with people, you will find a lot of swing between interpretations of "Good" or "Evil"; furthermore, the lists of what acts have been thought of as good have shifted

Right, that's what I'm saying. Those words signify different acts, behaviors, and conduct, because their meaning is "right, righteous, virtuous" and "bad, wrong, harmful."


Actually, the term "good" has a vast and constantly changing number of meanings. A lot of them are mutually exclusive.

This, too. This is exactly what I'm getting at. In the real world, "good" means different things. I think game mechanics terminology is not part of the game-worlds, as a rule, and thus, within a fantasy setting, the meanings of "good" and "evil" (as opposed to Good and Evil, the rules constructs) will vary. To a drow elf, it is "good" to murder those in your way. Thus, they're not going to call a spell that pings ruthless murderers-for-profit "detect evil."


[lots of stuff]

None of this looks disagreeable to me, nor seems to be disagreeing with anything I wrote or you quoted.

Until...


You ask where "Evil" is espoused. by RAW of some religious texts, there are things we do every day, that we have fought very hard for, led by moral leaders we look up to, that are evil. To be Good by RAW we need to go back to slavery and throwing rocks at people because of them being teenagers or running afoul of the wrong guy and a lot of other things that we mock people for even suggesting. If picketing funerals is RAW Good, then yeah. Our culture is evil. Viva team Evil. By and large people seem to be OK with that, and continue to push deeper into trying to be little-g-good and treating it as RAI in spite of it flying in the face of RAW.

But I said That's the meanings of the word. Where in the world is there any society in which "evil" is espoused?

That's "evil" (the word), not Evil (the alignment). I know these are hard to keep straight when there's no one accepted way to indicate the difference, but what I wrote is all about that argument. My point is that orcs and drow don't consider what they do "evil" because it's not bad, wrong, harmful, or injurious, in their opinion - it's "good" for them because it advances them or it applies principles they believe in (might makes right; be ruthless in your ambition; etc.).

Also, are you really using "RAW" and "RAI" when talking about the real world? Please don't, that's confusing to me and doesn't make sense. :smallfrown:

Bogardan_Mage
2013-04-21, 07:39 PM
It's really not about our "good-aligned society." Good isn't some concept separate of us. It's a word with meanings. It didn't change meanings over time, because it is a basic concept... "what is right, what is proper, what is excellent, what is virtuous." That's the meanings of the word. Where in the world is there any society in which "evil" is espoused? The meaning of the word is "bad, wrong, harmful."

You're basically saying the game rules replace meanings of words within the world. I'm saying they don't, and they're mostly used out-of-character. It's a difference of opinion, obviously. I think my approach creates more verisimilitude, which is important to me, and gives cooler flavor.
The game rules codify what our society considers good and what it considers evil. Those concepts then become objectively measurable qualities in the D&D world. And once again I'd like to point out that this is an absurd distinction to draw when the characters in question aren't speaking English. It is ridiculous to claim that a language like Undercommon would have evolved to contain words that describe concepts utterly alien to the Drow. They would describe good and evil (as the game concepts, not as the English words that you mistake for universal truths) in terms of how they experience them, not as how we in a totally different universe experience them.

Joe the Rat
2013-04-21, 10:53 PM
This probably does seem paradoxical, yes, and I can understand why people would think differently, when I consider Law and Chaos to be more objective concepts or understood philosophies within the world, that people explicitly claim allegiance to. (This dovetails nicely with the aggressive Law-Chaos split in the Lower Planes.) A bit of Poul Anderson and Moorcock, I suppose, there.

:smallbiggrin:Which is why in the Anderson-Moorcock-Howard steeped olden days of the Hobby, you had an xp penalty for changing alignment. It was about having a philosophical view of the cosmos, and taking a stand on a specific value. They all but said that your alignment represents the secret society of like-minded people (and their cosmic backers) that you are aligned with. You even had your own secret language.

The Factions in Planescape made so much more sense in this regard.

mr1135
2013-04-22, 03:25 AM
Not sure if I missed someone saying this but I've always found, and especially around Lawful Good characters, that when someone dies, they try to loot every single thing the person owns. In many cases if you killed a bandit, okay I can understand if you take his arrows, swords, coin as victor's spoils...but when it's someone more...well a character like an NPC that helped you for awhile but ended up dying and he has no family to take his things, I've seen paladins, self proclaimed protectors of all that is good and just(fighters/rangers/whatever other class), ransacking their house and taking all their valuables. I mean...for all that's holy, just because you think it'll be a bit wasteful for it to remain here, isn't it a tad against your morals to loot the dead? Especially one whom you should at least show some respect for for having helped you? You can't just go around claiming everything from every single dead person you come across.

Jay R
2013-04-22, 10:39 AM
I wonder what would happen if I started viewing good and evil more in terms of selfishness versus selflessness, kind of a Buddhist thing instead of simply right and wrong. I mean, it's still mostly objective. It's not hard to pick out a selfish or narcissistic act from a selfless humble one. I think it might work.

It's a useful tool, but by itself, it's not enough.

Buying a D&D book, because I'd rather have it than any other product just then, it is a purely selfish act, but not evil.

Stealing a D&D book for my nephew, because he wants one for his birthday, is an unselfish act, but evil.

Rhynn
2013-04-22, 11:00 AM
Not sure if I missed someone saying this but I've always found, and especially around Lawful Good characters, that when someone dies, they try to loot every single thing the person owns. In many cases if you killed a bandit, okay I can understand if you take his arrows, swords, coin as victor's spoils...but when it's someone more...well a character like an NPC that helped you for awhile but ended up dying and he has no family to take his things, I've seen paladins, self proclaimed protectors of all that is good and just(fighters/rangers/whatever other class), ransacking their house and taking all their valuables. I mean...for all that's holy, just because you think it'll be a bit wasteful for it to remain here, isn't it a tad against your morals to loot the dead? Especially one whom you should at least show some respect for for having helped you? You can't just go around claiming everything from every single dead person you come across.

This is a symptom of treating the game world like a game.

In RuneQuest, my players rarely loot everything, because 1. people don't have arsenals of magic items and 2. they feel like part of a society with customs to do with death and laws to do with possession. (Actually, mostly, they don't get to keep anything they loot, as such - they have to bring their treasures back to the chieftain of the clan and gift it all to him, and he will make reciprocal gifts - sometimes equal in value, sometimes less, sometimes some of the items he was just given - to the PCs and their families.)

In D&D 3E, my players usually loot everything, because it feels more like a game than participating in an imaginary world. (Ultimately my fault for how I run the game, but 3E certainly doesn't help with this, with its core assumptions.) Also because they're effectively crippling themselves if they leave behind loot - the total gp value of your gear is a huge part of your efficiency and ability.

If you give the world enough depth and tie the PCs to it well enough, as members of a society with customs and laws, you may find them much less likely to treat any corpse as a container for magic loot.