PDA

View Full Version : How to Play a Good-Aligned Character



BlizzardSucks80
2017-12-07, 02:44 AM
I know alignment doesn't actually matter that much in D&D, but to some it does. Like my group, for instance. If my character sheet says "Alignment: Good" on it, I want to make sure I live up to it when I roleplay my character. I don't just want to do it to maintain my Holy Status or use the mechanics or whatever, I want to roleplay my character as a good guy. Especially since everyone else in my group seems to be playing Chaotic Neutral.

In case you're wondering, the setting the D&D takes place in is of my friend's design. I don't really know much about it yet, but he said that the premise of the game is that we're fighting dragons and taking their treasure. For starters, I don't think my char would hoard all the dragon wealth to himself, but rather donate it to charity or something. And since I'm the only "good" guy in the group, I'd prefer to lead by example rather than force a conversion out of people. Cuz I think when a character shifts alignment mid-campaign that is a really cool thing, it's interesting, but it's no good if the alignment shift is forced. I want this character to be memorable for his goodness.

So, any advice on how to play a good-aligned character? I'd appreciate it.

TheFamilarRaven
2017-12-07, 03:02 AM
So for starters good doesn't necessarily mean being a philanthropist 100% the time. If you're killing dragons and taking their treasure, then as a player you're probably going to need some of that wealth to buy better gear. Although if you did want to go down that route, if you're running 3.5 you could always take the Vow of Poverty feat. That being said, if you're good aligned character genuinely believes they can aid a noble cause by donating some of their wealth, they would most likely do so. Just remember to balance it against your needs as a dragon hunter.

Another thing to consider is that a good character might not necessarily be motivated to slay dragons for their hordes, so talk to your DM about possible motivations for entering into the dragon hunting profession.

As for more general advice? I mean, I've never found roleplaying good aligned characters to be terribly difficult, I just play them as people who genuinely care about the plight of others and do what they can to help. They may not always be nice, and most often they're not naive, but they all derive a sense of satisfaction from helping others. I use my characters' backstories to flesh out their why they act like they do, so perhaps you should think of something that occured in your characters life that motivated them to be such a good aligned person.

The main thing to note is that you shouldn't be dogmatic with your ideology. That gets old real quick and is not particularity fun for anyone else.

Yora
2017-12-07, 06:48 AM
Be friendly to others and step in if someone is getting attacked or threatened. There's not much more to it.

tensai_oni
2017-12-07, 07:19 AM
Be willing to assist others at the cost of your own personal well being. It's an incredibly broad description which means that characters can only encompass some parts of the good alignment and still be Good. For example, someone who doesn't donate their wealth to others but is still willing to put themselves in harm's way to help them, even without reward (but it doesn't mean they won't accept a reward if given). You can also be a total ascerbic jerk, as long as your (selfless) actions speak louder than your words.

It's a proactive alignment that makes it easy to follow adventure hooks and thus the default for a reason.

Airk
2017-12-07, 09:47 AM
Be willing to assist others at the cost of your own personal well being. It's an incredibly broad description which means that characters can only encompass some parts of the good alignment and still be Good. For example, someone who doesn't donate their wealth to others but is still willing to put themselves in harm's way to help them, even without reward (but it doesn't mean they won't accept a reward if given). You can also be a total ascerbic jerk, as long as your (selfless) actions speak louder than your words.

It's a proactive alignment that makes it easy to follow adventure hooks and thus the default for a reason.

Yeah. Basically this. Good characters put the welfare of others before their own. If someone asks you for help, and you don't have a serious legitimate reason to think they are like, double crossing you or leading you into a trap, you should, at the very least, FEEL BAD about not helping them. You might, for example, already be helping someone else with something more urgent/important, but it should require serious thinking to decide to ignore someone who needs assistance you could render. How far you are willing to take this is of course a matter of personal belief - most good aligned characters probably wouldn't sacrifice their lives for someone else, but some will.

But yeah, for most useful intents and purposes, you can think of D&D's Good/Evil axis as a "altruism/selfishness" axis.

It's also not a terrible idea to read through Order of the Stick and look closely at O-Chul.

Geddy2112
2017-12-07, 10:23 AM
As others have said, help others without selfish motivation. Helping others is the reward of a good person-you don't have to be grandiose or hand over every last gold to every orphan you see, but help when and where you can, as appropriate. Good also stands up to evil-you don't have to instantly smite every evil person you see or wander the streets to intervene in petty crime, but you should denounce or express disapproval for evil(and even some nongood acts). Even the reserve and quiet good people will feel uncomfortable around evil or evil acts.

Good is really easy to play, so long as your entire party is not a bunch of wantonly evil psychopaths. Also remember, good does not mean nice. Good people are compassionate and care about others deep down, but you don't have to be that on the surface. You can be the gritty hard ass with a heart of gold.

Here is a guide to the best alignment of good (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448507-Rules-are-for-Jerks-A-Chaotic-Good-Alignment-Handbook&p=19918973), although there are other ones for boring (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?449294-Selfless-Service-with-Blessings-to-All-A-Neutral-Good-Handbook-lt-3) and snooty (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448799-To-March-Into-Hell-for-a-Heavenly-Cause-A-Lawful-Good-Handbook) good

kyoryu
2017-12-07, 11:35 AM
Be friendly to others and step in if someone is getting attacked or threatened. There's not much more to it.

Being friendly is optional.

The key to "good" is a willingness to sacrifice for others - whether that's through protection or charity or whatever. A Good character is motivated by making the world a better place (not necessarily by 'changing the world') and will also avoid evil acts (aka harming others except in self defense). A character that is motivated by making the world better, but does so without concern for harming others, is generally Evil in D&D terms (those often make the best villains).


Yeah. Basically this. Good characters put the welfare of others before their own.

Note the bolded part. A character willing to harm one person for the benefit of another is not evil. If a Good person sees a starving person, they will feed that person out of their own purse - they won't just turn around and steal bread for them!

gkathellar
2017-12-07, 01:26 PM
In general, I would say that good characters try to behave in a way that has a net positive impact on other people, in a non-abstract sense.

Take two hypothetical magistrates, one LG, and one LN, both of whom are empathetic, dutiful, and very lawful in every sense of the word. Both are tasked with sentencing a petty criminal who is just trying to feed his family. The LN magistrate sympathizes, but is not unusually lenient because of a belief that the social order has an intrinsic value. The LG magistrate sympathizes, but is not unusually lenient because of a belief that the social order is important to the safety, happiness, and general wellbeing of people like the petty criminal and his family members.

It's worth noting that belief is not enough, here: self-delusion and rationalization need not apply. What's critical is a genuine interest in and consideration for the welfare of other people.

Mastikator
2017-12-07, 03:09 PM
Take the well being and dignity of others into consideration and prioritize it as high as you are good. Being pragmatic and smart about it is all well and good but don't make up too many excuses for why "this time it's ok to be selfish"

tensai_oni
2017-12-07, 04:18 PM
Take two hypothetical magistrates, one LG, and one LN, both of whom are empathetic, dutiful, and very lawful in every sense of the word. Both are tasked with sentencing a petty criminal who is just trying to feed his family. The LN magistrate sympathizes, but is not unusually lenient because of a belief that the social order has an intrinsic value. The LG magistrate sympathizes, but is not unusually lenient because of a belief that the social order is important to the safety, happiness, and general wellbeing of people like the petty criminal and his family members.

Also an option: The LG magistrate sympathizes and is unusually lenient because he realizes that a system where people are forced to steal just to feed themselves and their families is broken in some way and needs fixing. It's probably that fixing part is why he's a magistrate in the first place.

Although once again that is an option, because there are different ways to be good, and none of them is the "correct" one, at least not the only correct one.

rs2excelsior
2017-12-07, 04:45 PM
Also an option: The LG magistrate sympathizes and is unusually lenient because he realizes that a system where people are forced to steal just to feed themselves and their families is broken in some way and needs fixing. It's probably that fixing part is why he's a magistrate in the first place.

Although once again that is an option, because there are different ways to be good, and none of them is the "correct" one, at least not the only correct one.

Or, alternatively, the LG magistrate gives the lightest sentence he is allowed under the law, or assigns a punishment that might help the thief get on their feet rather than just tossing them in jail (i.e. sentencing them to service under a local tradesman, or as a servant to a minor noble known for helping to get people back on their feet--community service to fulfill their debt to society while simultaneously putting them in a place where they can earn enough to not have to steal). LG might push just to the edge of what the law allows in order to help someone, but I doubt they'd treat repeat offenders or those who took advantage of that type of kindness as lightly.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-07, 04:45 PM
All alignments, at their extreme, can be seethingly evil. Propably the good ones are actually worst.

If you want a G as part of your alignment, then thinking good isn't gonna cut it - your actions make you good. You need to actually get out there, help old ladies, rescue kittens, do charity work, fight evil.

A sufficiently extreme LG regime would require all citizens to follow this ideal, on pain of punishment if they fail to do so. They would call for crusades against the ungodly - anyone failing to live up to those same ideals. Since it's a Lawful regime, there might very well be strict expectations of precisely how good you need to be. It would also, most likely, be a police state.

Of course the point is that LG can be too extremist to actually be good. Not that it need be. Nor that it should be. But having the variety available is important, I think. Otherwise, everyone is just forced boring due to their alignment.

Airk
2017-12-07, 05:02 PM
All alignments, at their extreme, can be seethingly evil. Propably the good ones are actually worst.

If you want a G as part of your alignment, then thinking good isn't gonna cut it - your actions make you good. You need to actually get out there, help old ladies, rescue kittens, do charity work, fight evil.

A sufficiently extreme LG regime would require all citizens to follow this ideal, on pain of punishment if they fail to do so. They would call for crusades against the ungodly - anyone failing to live up to those same ideals. Since it's a Lawful regime, there might very well be strict expectations of precisely how good you need to be. It would also, most likely, be a police state.

Of course the point is that LG can be too extremist to actually be good. Not that it need be. Nor that it should be. But having the variety available is important, I think. Otherwise, everyone is just forced boring due to their alignment.

Nope, try again. Good recognizes that people are human. What you described is effectively Lawful Evil.

Also, I fail to see how this is "actually worse" than an ACTUAL Evil society.

Clistenes
2017-12-07, 05:20 PM
Any decent, honest normal person with XXI century morals would be good enough, really.

If you think theft, banditry and piracy are wrong, that rulers should work for the benefit of their charges and not oppress them or steal them blind, that it is wrong to kill, hurt, enslave or despise people for their race, culture or religion, that it is wrong to abuse or exploit children, that it is wrong to sexually harass people, if you treat others respectfully and take care of your family, if you help your friends when they are in need, if you don't mock and despise people who are less fortunate or poorer than you are, if you are willing to sometimes give a bit of the wealth you don't need to help others rather than spend it recklessly...

... well, that's good enough to me. You are better than 99 % of our ancestors...

Arbane
2017-12-07, 05:40 PM
"Don't let your morals get in the way of doing what's right."

Calthropstu
2017-12-07, 06:08 PM
There are many ways to be "good."
Chastising party members when they do harmful things and generally trying to steer other pc's and npcs towards good deeds is one way.
Forgoing more profitable ventures and getting the party to rescue children with little hope of major reward, freeing slaves that you come across, defending travelers and otherwise putting yourself in harm's way to save others is noble and good.
Other ways is philanthropy as you mentioned, spending time in cities helping out at orphanages, going to goodly temples and helping to tend the sick and injured etc.
Another way is to seek out evil and destroy it. This does not HAVE to be fatal, in fact offering evil a chance at redemption would be a nice quirk. Taking these evil dragon's ill gotten gains as compensation for the damage it has done and donating it to fix said damage, then redirecting said dragon's actions toward good would be quite the feat. Redeeming an evil dragon is extremely rare, success would make even the gods notice you more likely than not.

legomaster00156
2017-12-07, 06:11 PM
Just... play a person who cares about others? :smallconfused:

Calthropstu
2017-12-07, 06:17 PM
Just... play a person who cares about others? :smallconfused:

Caring about others can manifest itself in many possible ways. I know one person who volunteers at soup kitchens, while another always scrounges up donations to places.
Still, you need to limit the scope, and defining how THIS character 'cares about others' is part of the fun.

gkathellar
2017-12-07, 06:44 PM
Nope, try again. Good recognizes that people are human. What you described is effectively Lawful Evil.

Also, I fail to see how this is "actually worse" than an ACTUAL Evil society.

Clearly you need to read more Dragonlance.

Clistenes
2017-12-07, 07:10 PM
Clearly you need to read more Dragonlance.

1.-Dragonlance is weird in that "Good" and "Bad" are just sides in a war, rather than actual moral/ethical outlooks... its all about the colour of the hat you are wearing, really. There are plenty of somehow decent people fighting on the side of darkness, and crap****s fighting against them...

2.-In the Dragonlance setting the side of Balance is the REAL Good side. Even the Good deities support Balance. It is bizarre... the Gods of Good had to throw a meteorite against Krynn and to allow Evil to rise again, in order to restore Balance and save the world...

I see that a lot in the Anglosphere's woks fiction... stuff like Angels vs Demons, and either Angels are as bad as Demons or even worse, but they are still the "Good" side, because "Good" is just the name of their faction...

Batou1976
2017-12-07, 07:45 PM
Clearly you need to read more Dragonlance.
Regarding the Kingpriest and Istar, I would say a society so sure of and obsessed with its own "goodness" to the point Istar was, and did the things Istar did, is not good at all, no matter what alignment they considered themselves to be.

Same with the Silvanesti and to a lesser extent the Qualinesti- what with all their sneering down their noses at the "lesser" races, their self-righteousness, congratulating themselves on their own "goodness", believing themselves to be beyond reproach simply because the gods made them first, turning their back on other people in need because "they're not elves and need to solve their own problems since they made them to begin with", they came across to me as being "not good in any sense of the word" no matter what the books had to say about the elves being a "good" race.

In short, being good isn't simply an informed attribute (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute) - if you don't do good acts, but instead do evil ones, you're evil, no matter what you "identify" as.


As for how to play good, I think it's important to remember some things good is not required to be: dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotDumb), weak (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotSoft), or nice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice).

If you can get your hands on 3E's Book of Exalted Deeds, it has some useful information, even if it is overall far from perfect.

vasilidor
2017-12-07, 08:11 PM
I think that the dragonlance novels are a perfect example of "stupid good".
And the Idea that evil needs to rise again for the balance or whatever is one of the dumbest things I ever heard of and why I lost interest in the dragon lance series. I digress.

kyoryu
2017-12-07, 08:20 PM
Any decent, honest normal person with XXI century morals would be good enough, really.

If you think theft, banditry and piracy are wrong, that rulers should work for the benefit of their charges and not oppress them or steal them blind, that it is wrong to kill, hurt, enslave or despise people for their race, culture or religion, that it is wrong to abuse or exploit children, that it is wrong to sexually harass people, if you treat others respectfully and take care of your family, if you help your friends when they are in need, if you don't mock and despise people who are less fortunate or poorer than you are, if you are willing to sometimes give a bit of the wealth you don't need to help others rather than spend it recklessly...

... well, that's good enough to me. You are better than 99 % of our ancestors...

That's mostly neutral.

Not doing evil isn't sufficient enough to be good, and everybody is nice to their friends.

Well, almost everybody.

Clistenes
2017-12-07, 08:26 PM
That's mostly neutral.

Not doing evil isn't sufficient enough to be good, and everybody is nice to their friends.

Well, almost everybody.

As the characters gain power and the ability to change the world around them, they will have to make choices and to turn their beliefs into actions. But as a starting point, you aren't required to start a crusade against slavery in other countries at level one.

You don't need to be a saint from day one. You can start small...

Batou1976
2017-12-07, 09:58 PM
As the characters gain power and the ability to change the world around them, they will have to make choices and to turn their beliefs into actions. But as a starting point, you aren't required to start a crusade against slavery in other countries at level one.

You don't need to be a saint from day one. You can start small...

And one could say a smart good-aligned person knows to act within their sphere of influence, i.e. a level 1 doesn't start right out from the gate on a crusade to end slavery, attacking slave markets and caravans, trying to break the chains of slavery everywhere they find them, because they realize they are only one person and to do such is likely to get them killed... and how are you going to end slavery if you're dead?

No, an intelligent person who wishes to combat slavery would only take action that is within their power to actually accomplish, taking greater and more decisive actions as their power and influence grows.

Batou1976
2017-12-07, 10:07 PM
I think that the dragonlance novels are a perfect example of "stupid good".
And the Idea that evil needs to rise again for the balance or whatever is one of the dumbest things I ever heard of and why I lost interest in the dragon lance series. I digress.

The whole idea of "evil has to be allowed to exist and cannot be ultimately wiped out because 'balance'" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Going to Dragonlance again as an example- in that setting, one of the reasons given why there "must" be balance between good and evil, is that if good prevails and dominates, it becomes intolerant and oppressive, yadda yadda. Well, "Good" isn't good anymore if that happens, right? In fact, one of the tenets of DL's "balance" is "Good redeems its own"; intolerance generally disdains to attempt redeeming those who've "fallen away", but instead oppresses them by punishing harshly their every minor difference and disagreement.
Intolerance and oppression are features of evil alignments, not good ones.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-08, 12:21 AM
Nope, try again. Good recognizes that people are human. What you described is effectively Lawful Evil.

Also, I fail to see how this is "actually worse" than an ACTUAL Evil society.

Good and evil are entirely subjective - there isn't a regime on earth that doesn't consider itself good.

The worst regimes in the world are mostly kleptocracies, where a ruling elite grab the entire production and wealth of a given nation for themselves. Utter evil is rare, nazi Germany and the Soviet Union being honestly anomalies.

On the other hand, throughout history, there has never been a good country.

The case for good is really bad - it's mostly make believe =)

Calthropstu
2017-12-08, 05:59 AM
Good and evil are entirely subjective - there isn't a regime on earth that doesn't consider itself good.

The worst regimes in the world are mostly kleptocracies, where a ruling elite grab the entire production and wealth of a given nation for themselves. Utter evil is rare, nazi Germany and the Soviet Union being honestly anomalies.

On the other hand, throughout history, there has never been a good country.

The case for good is really bad - it's mostly make believe =)

Neither of those were "utter evil." Hitler and the Holocaust were truly despicable yes, but if you think the entire German government was evil because of one man's obsession of wiping out a race of people think again.

Yes, the Holocaust was terrible. But there was a lot of good done by the Nazi party. And the country truly had a genuine greivance. The treaty of Versaii so badly hurt the german people that they literally could no longer support themselves. Hitler, by pretty much tearing it up, almost single handedly brought prosperity back to Germany.
Yes, it was madness what he did. Yes, that madness infected the whole country. But if you look at it from a perspective of an entire country truly suffering as Germany did after WW1, it becomes... understandable. It is easy to villify 70 years after the fact. You never had to live through something like that.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-08, 06:20 AM
Actually changed my mind.

Airk
2017-12-08, 10:44 AM
Neither of those were "utter evil." Hitler and the Holocaust were truly despicable yes, but if you think the entire German government was evil because of one man's obsession of wiping out a race of people think again.

Yes, the Holocaust was terrible. But there was a lot of good done by the Nazi party. And the country truly had a genuine greivance. The treaty of Versaii so badly hurt the german people that they literally could no longer support themselves. Hitler, by pretty much tearing it up, almost single handedly brought prosperity back to Germany.
Yes, it was madness what he did. Yes, that madness infected the whole country. But if you look at it from a perspective of an entire country truly suffering as Germany did after WW1, it becomes... understandable. It is easy to villify 70 years after the fact. You never had to live through something like that.

Uh.

No, it's still f-ing evil. The fact that you are in a Very Bad Situation does not, in fact, justify doing terrible things. "Understandable" is not the same as "not evil."

And to Kaptin Keen: And I sincerely doubt that kleptocracies think of themselves as "good". They probably don't really think of things like that at all, but I doubt that any of them actually think they're doing good. They are serving themselves and they know it. They just don't see anything "wrong" with that. Which again, is not the same as being good or even THINKING of yourself as good.

kyoryu
2017-12-08, 11:29 AM
As the characters gain power and the ability to change the world around them, they will have to make choices and to turn their beliefs into actions. But as a starting point, you aren't required to start a crusade against slavery in other countries at level one.

You don't need to be a saint from day one. You can start small...

Yes. And you start small by giving to people by buying and freeing a single slave if you can, by working against injustice with the power you have available.

The fact that there are things you can't do doesn't remove the things you *can*.

Not doing the things you can't do (and thus not falling on your own sword) doesn't mean you're Neutral instead of Good. What makes you Neutral is not doing the things you *can* do. And there are *always* things you can do.

hamishspence
2017-12-08, 12:20 PM
Yes. And you start small by giving to people by buying and freeing a single slave if you can, by working against injustice with the power you have available.


Interestingly, I've seen it claimed (in a defence of failing to try to free Shmi) that Human Rights Watch and UNICEF insist that one shouldn't buy and free slaves - this injects money into the slave trade:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/did-qui-gon-have-a-plan-b.50045494/page-5

Or, as I've said, they accepted that it's not their place to play favorites and inject money into the slave trade on Tatooine in order to free one person who isn't any more or less deserving of emancipation than any other slave on the planet. Just as those horrible, heartless villains who work at UNICEF and Human Rights Watch would have it. (Damn, if only some of the posters in this thread could get in contact with these human rights groups and set those bozos straight about the moral economics of slave redemption! If only!)

Tinkerer
2017-12-08, 12:40 PM
The whole idea of "evil has to be allowed to exist and cannot be ultimately wiped out because 'balance'" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Going to Dragonlance again as an example- in that setting, one of the reasons given why there "must" be balance between good and evil, is that if good prevails and dominates, it becomes intolerant and oppressive, yadda yadda. Well, "Good" isn't good anymore if that happens, right? In fact, one of the tenets of DL's "balance" is "Good redeems its own"; intolerance generally disdains to attempt redeeming those who've "fallen away", but instead oppresses them by punishing harshly their every minor difference and disagreement.
Intolerance and oppression are features of evil alignments, not good ones.

I can kinda see it in those fantasy worlds simply because of the metaphysics of how the gods and world creation operate. Their planet wasn't formed by space dust coalescing over billions of years, it was literally poofed into being by creatures composed of ideals and divine energy. The elimination of evil as a force of nature (which it is in those settings) could indeed have dire consequences similar to say... removing gravity from our world.

Even if the world didn't tear itself apart it is entirely possible that the concept of good in that world would lose it's definition and cease to be since it is a force of nature at least partially defined by it's opposing half.

2D8HP
2017-12-08, 12:41 PM
...nazi Germany....


...Hitler...
....Nazi party.... .
Outstanding! 0 to Godwin's law in under 30 posts!

Now can someone mention Jedi and Tolkien?


Somehow, in most long threads, someone mentions Hitler, Star Wars, and/or Tolkein.

If ever someone posts a video of Gandalf battling Nazi's on the Death Star the internet will be complete.



How about a cat that looks like Hitler?
http://bcdn.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/kitler20.jpg

GW

Okay, on "Alignment" in game:

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the terms.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)






Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg

Asmotherion
2017-12-08, 01:59 PM
I know alignment doesn't actually matter that much in D&D, but to some it does. Like my group, for instance. If my character sheet says "Alignment: Good" on it, I want to make sure I live up to it when I roleplay my character. I don't just want to do it to maintain my Holy Status or use the mechanics or whatever, I want to roleplay my character as a good guy. Especially since everyone else in my group seems to be playing Chaotic Neutral.

In case you're wondering, the setting the D&D takes place in is of my friend's design. I don't really know much about it yet, but he said that the premise of the game is that we're fighting dragons and taking their treasure. For starters, I don't think my char would hoard all the dragon wealth to himself, but rather donate it to charity or something. And since I'm the only "good" guy in the group, I'd prefer to lead by example rather than force a conversion out of people. Cuz I think when a character shifts alignment mid-campaign that is a really cool thing, it's interesting, but it's no good if the alignment shift is forced. I want this character to be memorable for his goodness.

So, any advice on how to play a good-aligned character? I'd appreciate it.

Well, here's an idea: Don't kill dragons.

...at least not unless they are Chromatic and you know what you're doing.
-Refuse to kill any Dragon that is a Wyrmling, reguardless of Race. They are literally children of an intelligent race. A good person does not murder children, no matter if they are Dragon, Drow, Tiefling, a Tyrant's offsprings or Asmodeus' Avatar on Earth.
-Read some books about dragons. Learn dragonic. Try to reason with them before you kill them.
-Be ready to justyfy your actions. If you go out of your way to kill a chromatic dragon, you're either on a quest for specific redemption for something it has done (stolen something, abducted someone, killed someone), or championing Bahamut and want to take him away from his faith in Tiamat. Either way, you will first try to solve things peacefully and only get to fighting once things turn south.
-You never hurt Metalic Dragons; You know they are as good hearted as you are, possibly more, and going against one for it's treasures is an act of pure greed. If you're truelly a kind person, and someone wants to rob a Gold Dragon of it's trasures by killing it, you'll fight on the Dragon's side.

kyoryu
2017-12-08, 02:01 PM
Well, here's an idea: Don't kill dragons.

...at least not unless they are Chromatic and you know what you're doing.
-Refuse to kill any Dragon that is a Wyrmling, reguardless of Race. They are literally children of an intelligent race. A good person does not murder children, no matter if they are Dragon, Drow, Tiefling, a Tyrant's offsprings or Asmodeus' Avatar on Earth.

Unless in self defense, or the defense of others.

2D8HP
2017-12-08, 02:12 PM
The whole idea of "evil has to be allowed to exist and cannot be ultimately wiped out because 'balance'" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Going to Dragonlance again as an example- in that setting, one of the reasons given why there "must" be balance between good and evil, is that if good prevails and dominates, it becomes intolerant and oppressive, yadda yadda. Well, "Good" isn't good anymore if that happens, right? In fact, one of the tenets of DL's "balance" is "Good redeems its own"; intolerance generally disdains to attempt redeeming those who've "fallen away", but instead oppresses them by punishing harshly their every minor difference and disagreement.
Intolerance and oppression are features of evil alignments, not good ones..
I've never read Dragonlance (I've read more of the fiction that inspired D&D, rather than works inspired by D&D), but my guess is that the authors "borrowed" the idea of "The Balance" of Law and Chaos being the goal from Michael Moorcock, just as he borrowed the Law vs. Chaos conflict from Poultry Anderson, and they then changed "Law" into "Good" and "Chaos" into "Evil", here's a post from another thread on the history of "Alignment":


...Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To go back to the other D&D I've played, originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really).
The Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock
Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my preference.

In 1976's
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax in The Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf) article added the "good and evil axis", but he made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."


So in general "Law" is the side of humanity, and "Chaos" is on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" doesn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-08, 02:36 PM
And I sincerely doubt that kleptocracies think of themselves as "good".

You know, I can certainly see where you're coming from. And, trying to avoid the 'no politics' rule, here's why I think they do think of themselves as 'good guys':

I've seen in people of all sorts a tendency to see things from our own perspective. Logically enough. To justify everything we do. 'I may be unfaithful, but it's just because she's frigid'. We just come up with random, and bad, justifications for all the stuff we know is wrong but we want to do regardless.

So the average president of a kleptocracy will think to himself (let's be honest - it's a guy):

No one but me can keep this country together
I take no more than what is my due
Corruption is a part of our culture - you cannot simply ignore it, you need to see it as a tool to be used
Without a strong hand on the wheel, everything will descend into chaos

And so on - this tendency extends all the way into denying secession, annexing provinces in neighboring countries, executing political opponents in the street. It's all for 'the greater good'. Like that guy in Hague? 'I'm not a warcriminal!' And he kills himself to prove it. Propably because he's convinced it's true, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

That guy, in his own mind, is ... let's say CG, forced by circumstance to make 'hard choices'.

And now I veered into current affairs anyways. Sorry. Consider it all to be in my homebrew 'almost-Earth' noir setting.

Aliquid
2017-12-08, 02:59 PM
I've seen in people of all sorts a tendency to see things from our own perspective. Logically enough. To justify everything we do.Many justify what they do, but don't consider themselves "good", they see "good" people as suckers and fools. They proudly see themselves as "realistic", "pragmatic" and smarter than all the other people out there, especially all the naïve "bleeding hearts"

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-08, 05:41 PM
Many justify what they do, but don't consider themselves "good", they see "good" people as suckers and fools. They proudly see themselves as "realistic", "pragmatic" and smarter than all the other people out there, especially all the naïve "bleeding hearts"

Not in my experience. Ever.

Arbane
2017-12-08, 06:12 PM
Alignment system is still completely b0rked when compared to real-world human behavior, Film at 11.

(One of the best criticisms I've ever seen of D&D alignment was the simple observation that in D&D, both Vimes and Carrot would be 'Lawful Good'. They're both good guys, but that's ALL their moralities have in common.)

Batou1976
2017-12-08, 06:22 PM
I can kinda see it in those fantasy worlds simply because of the metaphysics of how the gods and world creation operate. Their planet wasn't formed by space dust coalescing over billions of years, it was literally poofed into being by creatures composed of ideals and divine energy. The elimination of evil as a force of nature (which it is in those settings) could indeed have dire consequences similar to say... removing gravity from our world.

Even if the world didn't tear itself apart it is entirely possible that the concept of good in that world would lose it's definition and cease to be since it is a force of nature at least partially defined by it's opposing half.

That does seem to be how the metaphysics work. They just grind my gears, is what I'm sayin'. Writers write their metaphysics that way as an explanation for why evil exists, and I find it unsatisfying.


Now can someone mention Jedi and Tolkien?

You know, if Tolkien's Jedi would have just stopped squabbling among themselves long enough to solidify their opposition to Hitler-cat's policies, Godwin's law might never have even gotten passed. :smallconfused:

:smalltongue:


Somehow, in most long threads, someone mentions Hitler, Star Wars, and/or Tolkein.

If ever someone posts a video of Gandalf battling Nazi's on the Death Star the internet will be complete.

If I had the talent and equipment, I'd totally take on that challenge. :smallcool:

rs2excelsior
2017-12-08, 06:34 PM
Alignment system is still completely b0rked when compared to real-world human behavior, Film at 11.

(One of the best criticisms I've ever seen of D&D alignment was the simple observation that in D&D, both Vimes and Carrot would be 'Lawful Good'. They're both good guys, but that's ALL their moralities have in common.)

I mean, I feel like that's the opposite of a criticism of D&D alignment. Too often alignment discussions boil down to "this is the ONE CORRECT WAY to roleplay this alignment." The fact that any given alignment "box" describes a character without shoehorning them into a narrow role is a plus in my opinion. It allows for nuance and difference within an alignment, vs. the sense that if you've seen one LG character you've seen them all.

(That said I have no clue who those two characters you referenced are so I may be missing something.)

2D8HP
2017-12-08, 06:59 PM
...in D&D, both Vimes and Carrot would be 'Lawful Good'. They're both good guys, but that's ALL their moralities have in common.)


...(That said I have no clue who those two characters you referenced are so I may be missing something.)


Two "Watch" (Police) characters introduced in the novel Guards! Guards! by Sir Terry Pratchett.


....Sam Vimes, from Terry Pratchett's Disc World series

Young Vimes - Urchin background.
Adult Vimes - City Watch SCAG background
Later Vimes - Noble background (though he chaff's at that label)

Arbane
2017-12-08, 09:01 PM
Two "Watch" (Police) characters introduced in the novel Guards! Guards! by Sir Terry Pratchett.

One is a cynical old bastard, and the other is Dudley-Do Right but competent.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-09, 03:51 AM
Somehow, in most long threads, someone mentions Hitler, Star Wars, and/or Tolkein.

I fail to see the problem - they are all perfect examples of something. In a discussion of good and evil, nazi Germany is an entirely valid example of a thoroughly evil regime. It would be possible to use the Zhentarim instead, of course, but that's hardly relevant.

There is a problem with the default-to-Hitler line of reasoning, but it's not this. It's when someone accuses someone else of being a nazi, or Hitler.

Anyhow. It seems I've contributed to derailing a discussion about how to play a good character, which wasn't my intention. I just wanted to offer perspective on what good can and cannot mean.

Pleh
2017-12-09, 06:23 AM
Note the bolded part. A character willing to harm one person for the benefit of another is not evil. If a Good person sees a starving person, they will feed that person out of their own purse - they won't just turn around and steal bread for them!

Small nitpick here. You could be in a Robin Hood/Aladdin scenario where a hapless innocent person's very livelihood has been made unreasonably difficult to acquire through a system of oppression.

In such instances, Good characters might find breaking laws to be the Good action in a system filled with corruption that provides no justice to those less fortunate. They likely would not steal to any greater degree than was necessary, nor to a length that placed the person from being stolen from in jeopardy, just stealing enough to make sure this other person doesn't starve at the expense of this one person's luxury.

EDIT: The principle can be generalized as, "a good person may perform an action that would appear evil out of context, particularly when the scenario is complex, but what is known for sure is that they will do only exactly as much questionably moral actions as their context requires."

Sort of like one of my favorite Dr Who lines: "Demons run when a Good man goes to war."

kyoryu
2017-12-09, 01:55 PM
Small nitpick here. You could be in a Robin Hood/Aladdin scenario where a hapless innocent person's very livelihood has been made unreasonably difficult to acquire through a system of oppression.

In such instances, Good characters might find breaking laws to be the Good action in a system filled with corruption that provides no justice to those less fortunate. They likely would not steal to any greater degree than was necessary, nor to a length that placed the person from being stolen from in jeopardy, just stealing enough to make sure this other person doesn't starve at the expense of this one person's luxury.

EDIT: The principle can be generalized as, "a good person may perform an action that would appear evil out of context, particularly when the scenario is complex, but what is known for sure is that they will do only exactly as much questionably moral actions as their context requires."

Sort of like one of my favorite Dr Who lines: "Demons run when a Good man goes to war."

In the case of truly unjust laws, perhaps, and as a last resort. And in most cases, will be conflicted about it, and try to make amends (outside of stolen/unjustly taken wealth) at a later point.

I kind of tend to be strict about this one because it's truly an edge case, but once you allow it, it quickly falls into the utilitarian "it's good if it ends up causing more good than harm" which quickly becomes "it's good so long as I can rationalize it". Which is, well, Evil.

And let's not forget that a Good person *can* perform Evil acts... but they'd have to be acts mitigated by circumstances similar to what you've described. Which doesn't make the acts less Evil, and once the person stops considering them as Evil acts and feeling guilt/remorse, that's likely when alignment shift would start to happen.

What's kind of interesting is that people seem to always forget that the original Robin Hood didn't "steal from the rich". He stole back unjust taxes.

hamishspence
2017-12-09, 04:05 PM
"Classic Robin" didn't always steal tax money specifically - but he did prefer to target the "unjustly rich" - those who'd enriched themselves via dubious means. Which tended to be corrupt abbots or bishops. And often the Sheriff.

Some stories even have him rob beggars. Corrupt beggars, who are faking their ailments.

If a very poor guy entered Sherwood, it was "threaten to rob him, hear the poor guy's story, loan money to him, forgive the loan a year later" (Sir Richard at Lea).

Pleh
2017-12-09, 09:13 PM
In the case of truly unjust laws, perhaps, and as a last resort. And in most cases, will be conflicted about it, and try to make amends (outside of stolen/unjustly taken wealth) at a later point.

I kind of tend to be strict about this one because it's truly an edge case, but once you allow it, it quickly falls into the utilitarian "it's good if it ends up causing more good than harm" which quickly becomes "it's good so long as I can rationalize it". Which is, well, Evil.

And let's not forget that a Good person *can* perform Evil acts... but they'd have to be acts mitigated by circumstances similar to what you've described. Which doesn't make the acts less Evil, and once the person stops considering them as Evil acts and feeling guilt/remorse, that's likely when alignment shift would start to happen.

What's kind of interesting is that people seem to always forget that the original Robin Hood didn't "steal from the rich". He stole back unjust taxes.

This is also part of why I tagged Aladdin in this story as well (at least the Disney Aladdin, I'm unfortunately unfamiliar with the older literature). Clearly a good character (if struggling with some selfish tendencies), he steals because he's too poor to pay for food and lives in a system that isn't quite deliberately stealing from him as the Sheriff of Nottingham scenario, but it also provides no particular avenue for changing one's own status in life. It is a less malicious, more prejudiced form of oppression that is no less evil, merely a few shades more banal.

He gets a little arrogant, largely due to the fact that very few people in society actually need more help than he does, being an impoverished street rat. However, when confronted with orphaned children, he gives up the bread he stole to help them, recognizing that they truly do need more help than himself.

You might peg him as neutral for not really seeing his stealing as evil, but to be honest, I'm not sure *I* would see his stealing as evil. If you are stealing because it is the only viable alternative to starvation, it's hardly evil. Could he just get a job and pay for the bread? In America, perhaps. In ancient Arabia, it's not so clear. There are some cultures where Caste systems literally prevent people from rising above their station. Again, it's not quite as oppressive as unjust taxation; no one was taking what little Aladdin had. But it's just as lethal to deny him access to legitimate means of taking care of himself.

wumpus
2017-12-10, 01:58 PM
What's kind of interesting is that people seem to always forget that the original Robin Hood didn't "steal from the rich". He stole back unjust taxes.

Except that in Robin Hood's day, "the rich's" income *was* taxes. And those taxes were the whole point of land ownerership, the source of all the wealth those rich had. So talking about "unjust taxes" is pretty much splitting hairs as fine as they come (probably included as lies to children to prevent them from acting like Robin Hood on their own). Even then, while it was unlikely that any of that land was grabbed in living memory (since Richard was crusading ~1190 that is as close to when "Robin Hood was supposed to have happened" as we can get) there was also plenty of grievances still fresh in the minds of Saxons over Norman displacement.

Justly dealing with stolen wealth once lawfully/rightfully transmitted remains an unsolved problem. Modern [US] law might expect someone return stolen property (at full loss) but not money legally paid by a criminal (even if all the criminal's money was illegally obtained).

Note that certain historical settings may be expected to contain "fairy tale morality" where the "good" answer to the trolley problem would be to sacrifice arbitrary numbers of peasant/serf children for a single gentle soul. Personally, I'd like a setting that included the "sewer paladins" who tended to live, defend, and fit in the lowest classes. They would be fairly rare, but at least known to those classes [certainly feared by those who directly prey on them, if not the lords who benefit from their oppression]. One of the advantages of this secrecy would be in springing it on paladins starting to think they are Pelar's biggest favorite and then introducing him to "Master of all Paladin Orders" in his hovel...

"... but they do fall occasionally, just like us [i.e. our showy order]"
"Sure. Gromlick fell about a decade ago."
"can't say I've heard of him. I know Sorsha the black of the knightly order of paladins massacred half of her training class and most of a village. Our own order had Valandar who killed the Master and half the order sent after him. Who is Gromlick?
"You call yourself a Paladin and you can't name the High Priest of Pelar?" [assumes they keep their names. Popes don't.]
"But doesn't that mean he is Neutral Good?"
"Of course. That's how he fell. Sewer paladins have a tendency to fall up. Very, very few lawful stupid sewer paladins. They see the effects of law from close up."

2D8HP
2017-12-10, 02:41 PM
Except that in Robin Hood's day, "the rich's" income *was* taxes. And those taxes were the whole point of land ownerership, the source of all the wealth those rich had.....
You could also call the "taxes" "rents" if I recall my history reading correctly, as "Lords" and "landlords" were one and the same.


...Personally, I'd like a setting that included the "sewer paladins" who tended to live, defend, and fit in the lowest classes.....
Nice idea.

The "Folk Hero" Background in 5e WD&D seems perfect for this, but a Noble who sympathizes with the downtrodden (ala Robin of Locksley in the 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood works as well).

denthor
2017-12-10, 02:41 PM
You do things without expecting payment. Your first thought is this helpful not can they pay me?

How about do I really need to kill in this fight? Bar fight or can I subdue?

How about turning in evil items to local good churches for being destroyed rather then finding ways to keep and use them.

No poison use. If chaotic maybe strength or dexterity charisma may work. No constitution poison ever, do not allow this to be used by others either.

JNAProductions
2017-12-10, 10:49 PM
You do things without expecting payment. Your first thought is this helpful not can they pay me?

How about do I really need to kill in this fight? Bar fight or can I subdue?

How about turning in evil items to local good churches for being destroyed rather then finding ways to keep and use them.

No poison use. If chaotic maybe strength or dexterity charisma may work. No constitution poison ever, do not allow this to be used by others either.

Why no poison use? I'd agree that that should probably not be your MO, maybe... But what's wrong with knock-out poisons? Or poisoning the evil vizier, so as to avoid a fight that might end with a lot of innocents dead?

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-11, 01:04 AM
Why no poison use? I'd agree that that should probably not be your MO, maybe... But what's wrong with knock-out poisons? Or poisoning the evil vizier, so as to avoid a fight that might end with a lot of innocents dead?

Just think how many people you can save, if your pre-emptive nuclear strike against [not a real world power] prevents a larger war. As soon as you need to justify your use of anything, you know you've veered away from what's 'good'.

Lord Raziere
2017-12-11, 02:30 AM
I'd say playing good aligned means kindness and standing in the way of those who are cruel. You keep your wits about you, you be kind to everyone who isn't a threat, watch everyone who is, and get in the way of anyone that tries to ruin whats good in the world. spare those who regret their actions and kill those who don't. theres a lot of little nuances that you can argue and nitpick about.....but whats important is kindness and standing in the way.

Pleh
2017-12-11, 05:59 AM
Just think how many people you can save, if your pre-emptive nuclear strike against [not a real world power] prevents a larger war. As soon as you need to justify your use of anything, you know you've veered away from what's 'good'.

This argument can be taken too far.

Rational thinking compels us to justify every action we take, not just for deciding between good and evil, but between good, better, and best as well.
"Why did you spend your treasure rewards buying magic items rather than donating to charity?"
"... why did you donate to the orphans, but not the widows?"
"Why did you try donating to all the poor? Splitting your profit so many ways makes it virtually ineffective in all of them."

It is also a test that produces false positives:
"Why are you murdering hobos?"
"They looked at me."
"How do you justify that?"
"They are nameless NPCs; I don't need to justify it."

Producing justifications for an act doesn't mean it was evil. It just means someone, somewhere, is questioning the choice of action.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-11, 06:54 AM
This argument can be taken too far.

Yea - that's the point. Reductio ad absurdum, in essence taking the logic of one's opponent, and following it to it's absurd but ultimate conclusion. If you can justify doing something wrong because of a cost/benefit mindset on a small scale - then you can also do it on a grand scale.


Rational thinking compels us to justify every action we take, not just for deciding between good and evil, but between good, better, and best as well.
"Why did you spend your treasure rewards buying magic items rather than donating to charity?"
"... why did you donate to the orphans, but not the widows?"
"Why did you try donating to all the poor? Splitting your profit so many ways makes it virtually ineffective in all of them."

It is also a test that produces false positives:
"Why are you murdering hobos?"
"They looked at me."
"How do you justify that?"
"They are nameless NPCs; I don't need to justify it."

Producing justifications for an act doesn't mean it was evil. It just means someone, somewhere, is questioning the choice of action.

Good is not rational. Or rather, rational is not good - rational is functional. Good is moral. Moral, again, is not functional.

Can a good guy use poison? No. Why not? Because you have to ask.

Another example of the same thing, that might be clearer: Can a good guy sneak into someone's bedroom, and stab them to death in their sleep? No. Why not? Again, because you have to ask.

As soon as you need some sort of justification (well, it's good because otherwise something else) then you already know you're wrong. You never need to justify being good.

Is it good to walk an old lady across the road. Yes. No justification needed, you don't even need to ask the question.

Also, you might have had a point on the false positives - except someone it's a circular argument. Mine, that is. You're using your example of false positives to justify your point, but ... you're back to justifying it, which means it's not good.

Pleh
2017-12-11, 10:11 AM
Good is not rational. Or rather, rational is not good - rational is functional. Good is moral. Moral, again, is not functional.

This is an unjustified statement. Why wouldn't morality be functional?


Can a good guy use poison? No. Why not? Because you have to ask.

Another example of the same thing, that might be clearer: Can a good guy sneak into someone's bedroom, and stab them to death in their sleep? No. Why not? Again, because you have to ask.

As soon as you need some sort of justification (well, it's good because otherwise something else) then you already know you're wrong. You never need to justify being good.

Then let's keep asking questions.

Can a good guy use a sword? Not now that I've had to ask.

Can a good guy cast a spell? Well, not now that I've asked the question.

Can a good guy walk an old lady across the street? Well, if I have to ask, then it must be evil.

Can a good guy really justify allowing himself to continue breathing? I mean, what if someone else needs that air?


Is it good to walk an old lady across the road. Yes. No justification needed, you don't even need to ask the question.

It is dangerous to make half baked moral absolutes.

This statement would include helping a hag get across a barricaded street where she could eat orphans.

Context matters, therefore justification by context is an integral function of morality.

kyoryu
2017-12-11, 12:01 PM
You might peg him as neutral for not really seeing his stealing as evil, but to be honest, I'm not sure *I* would see his stealing as evil. If you are stealing because it is the only viable alternative to starvation, it's hardly evil. Could he just get a job and pay for the bread? In America, perhaps. In ancient Arabia, it's not so clear. There are some cultures where Caste systems literally prevent people from rising above their station. Again, it's not quite as oppressive as unjust taxation; no one was taking what little Aladdin had. But it's just as lethal to deny him access to legitimate means of taking care of himself.

Aladdin exists in a simplistic context, and so it's really hard to use a Disney film as moral justification for anything attempting to be more complex.

Even in that case, I'd make the argument that it depends on how he sees his act. If it's "this is wrong, but I have to do it to survive, and will attempt to make amends later as best I can?" Then sure, he can be neutral or good (in a D&D sense). If it's "hey, I'm hungry, yay, food!" then I'd argue it's getting closer to evil.


Just think how many people you can save, if your pre-emptive nuclear strike against [not a real world power] prevents a larger war. As soon as you need to justify your use of anything, you know you've veered away from what's 'good'.

This is my primary issue with Utilitarianism (and this argument is certainly getting into Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism, and we sure as hell aren't going to resolve *that* in a forum thread). Anything can be justified in a Utilitarian system by someone that's sufficiently clever.


This is an unjustified statement. Why wouldn't morality be functional?

Then let's keep asking questions.

Can a good guy use a sword? Not now that I've had to ask.

Can a good guy cast a spell? Well, not now that I've asked the question.

Can a good guy walk an old lady across the street? Well, if I have to ask, then it must be evil.

Can a good guy really justify allowing himself to continue breathing? I mean, what if someone else needs that air?

"Am I infringing on someone's rights to their life (including health or time) or their property without their consent, and outside of the context of defending my rights or the rights of others" is a really, really good place to start. That's a pretty Deontological point of view, of course. But, at the minimum, it's pretty hard to get to a truly EVIL place by following that.

Cazero
2017-12-11, 12:43 PM
The irrational part of Good isn't at a "because you have to ask" level. It's at establishing altruism, empathy, happiness, respect for life and other things of the sort as positive values without rational justification.

icefractal
2017-12-11, 12:53 PM
Can a good guy use a sword? Not now that I've had to ask.And this one's not even an exaggeration. Poison is a lethal weapon (although less so in D&D), but so is a sword. Certainly someone who calls themselves Good shouldn't be killing people without a damn good reason, but that applies equally to doing it with a sword or spell as it does to poison.

Now when you get to non-combat poisoning, some uses are bad, but that's because of their effects (collateral damage from poisoning food that others may eat too, for example) rather than the fact that they're poison.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-11, 01:01 PM
This is an unjustified statement. Why wouldn't morality be functional?

It just isn't. It is essentially fluffy, and the minute you try to get around the fluffyness, you slip.

Philosophy is full of this. The best attempt (in my opinion), is the golden rule: Do onto others as you'd like them to do unto you. With a different wording but the same end result, you get the categoric imperative: Let your actions be such that they could be elevated to a general rule for everyone to follow.

Sounds good. Doesn't work. You can take either of those and accelerate from zero to my nuclear holocaust example from earlier, simply because 'well, the greatest sum of universal happiness will require this pre-emptive strike against the Jovians.'

Honestly it works better with stuff like: 'Would I tell my mother I did this' - or 'what would some good guy we all agree upon is really good do?'


Then let's keep asking questions.

Can a good guy use a sword? Not now that I've had to ask.

Can a good guy cast a spell? Well, not now that I've asked the question.

Can a good guy walk an old lady across the street? Well, if I have to ask, then it must be evil.

Can a good guy really justify allowing himself to continue breathing? I mean, what if someone else needs that air?

It is dangerous to make half baked moral absolutes.

This statement would include helping a hag get across a barricaded street where she could eat orphans.

Context matters, therefore justification by context is an integral function of morality.

You don't need to ask any of those questions. You already know the answer. That's my point: Moral is intuitive. If you need to ask, you're already trying to convince yourself despite your better judgement.

Pleh
2017-12-11, 01:22 PM
Even in that case, I'd make the argument that it depends on how he sees his act. If it's "this is wrong, but I have to do it to survive, and will attempt to make amends later as best I can?" Then sure, he can be neutral or good (in a D&D sense). If it's "hey, I'm hungry, yay, food!" then I'd argue it's getting closer to evil.

Don't forget the more likely thought: "if I don't take this, I will die a slow, painful death."

Animalistic morality.


This is my primary issue with Utilitarianism (and this argument is certainly getting into Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism, and we sure as hell aren't going to resolve *that* in a forum thread). Anything can be justified in a Utilitarian system by someone that's sufficiently clever.

Sure, but in terms of justification, it matters to whom the justification is rendered. You could be justified in your own eyes and remain condemned by the state. You might fool a king, but probably not a god (or even an angel).

You are as justified as you are clever AND persuasive. Not perfect, but then neither is a system with no flexibility with respect to context.


"Am I infringing on someone's rights to their life (including health or time) or their property without their consent, and outside of the context of defending my rights or the rights of others" is a really, really good place to start. That's a pretty Deontological point of view, of course. But, at the minimum, it's pretty hard to get to a truly EVIL place by following that.

And in RPGs, from whence do Character Rights come? From their creator? What if an evil deity gives their people the right to take the lives of others?


It just isn't. It is essentially fluffy, and the minute you try to get around the fluffyness, you slip.

I reject this. Anything proposed without evidence can be refuted without evidence.


You don't need to ask any of those questions. You already know the answer. That's my point: Moral is intuitive. If you need to ask, you're already trying to convince yourself despite your better judgement.

Morality is intuitive, but it is not universal.

Everyone (except sociopaths) feels some compulsion to ethics, but not everyone feels the same reaction to the same stimuli.

What if I don't use poison, but instead I use medicine? You know, just some sedative to ease the pain from the injuries my allies gave the creature. Side effects may include unconsciousness.

icefractal
2017-12-11, 03:48 PM
You don't need to ask any of those questions. You already know the answer. That's my point: Moral is intuitive. If you need to ask, you're already trying to convince yourself despite your better judgement.But what's "intuitive" isn't universal. For example, I don't think of poison as any more "questionable" than violence in the first place is. It's just not something I have a visceral reaction to.

For that matter, speaking of gut reactions, "fair fight" gives me a somewhat negative one, because I think of it as a thing people who are good at fighting say so they can beat other people up without fear of external interference. Should I then say that Kord is evil?

Calthropstu
2017-12-11, 04:18 PM
And this one's not even an exaggeration. Poison is a lethal weapon (although less so in D&D), but so is a sword. Certainly someone who calls themselves Good shouldn't be killing people without a damn good reason, but that applies equally to doing it with a sword or spell as it does to poison.

Now when you get to non-combat poisoning, some uses are bad, but that's because of their effects (collateral damage from poisoning food that others may eat too, for example) rather than the fact that they're poison.

The reason most consider poison evil is because it causes unnecessary suffering. Where a sword will kill you, poison will drag it out and slowly and agonizingly cause you to die long after the injury. It is the causing of suffering that is evil, not the killing.

JNAProductions
2017-12-11, 04:27 PM
The reason most consider poison evil is because it causes unnecessary suffering. Where a sword will kill you, poison will drag it out and slowly and agonizingly cause you to die long after the injury. It is the causing of suffering that is evil, not the killing.

So use poisons that kill quickly, painlessly, or both. Realistic? I don't know. But possible in the D&D world? Definitely.

Knaight
2017-12-11, 04:35 PM
The reason most consider poison evil is because it causes unnecessary suffering. Where a sword will kill you, poison will drag it out and slowly and agonizingly cause you to die long after the injury. It is the causing of suffering that is evil, not the killing.

Putting aside how that depends on the poison, sword wounds can also easily kill slowly and painfully, with people dying from wounds or sepsis hours or days after being wounded.

Then there's the small matter of fire, which was instrumental in real life warfare and only gets more important once you bring mages with fire into the mix. Burns are exceptionally painful injuries, and burns on large areas tend to lead to long and excruciating deaths.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-11, 04:58 PM
I reject this. Anything proposed without evidence can be refuted without evidence.

Morality is intuitive, but it is not universal.


But what's "intuitive" isn't universal.

Both true. But intuitive morals is actually closer to being right than the pragmatic functional morals that is the only alternative. We're very, very close, speaking globally, across all nations, religions, political systems, to something like a universally agreed upon, intuitive moral code.

It get's stretched super thin whenever politics or common greed is involved, but no where on earth is there a group or culture that thinks theft, murder or voilence is a grand idea, and essentially good.

denthor
2017-12-11, 05:56 PM
You do things without expecting payment. Your first thought is this helpful not can they pay me?

How about do I really need to kill in this fight? Bar fight or can I subdue?

How about turning in evil items to local good churches for being destroyed rather then finding ways to keep and use them.

No poison use. If chaotic maybe strength or dexterity charisma may work. No constitution poison ever, do not allow this to be used by others either.


Why no poison use? I'd agree that that should probably not be your MO, maybe... But what's wrong with knock-out poisons? Or poisoning the evil vizier, so as to avoid a fight that might end with a lot of innocents dead?

Like my post said strength Dexterity or charisma poisons these paralyze maybe acceptable. These do not kill. Even wisdom or intelligence could be justified. As chaotic and good.

Constitution poison is a final judgment. Or as someone once said a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Playing good means you do not use the tactics of the enemy. As for your other question about the vizier if you kill her with her own poison method. You sink to here level of Evil. She wins in death your alignmenttakes a hit. The greater good is served yes at your expense.

JNAProductions
2017-12-11, 06:26 PM
And a sword is... What?

Swords are pretty dang lethal.

icefractal
2017-12-11, 09:34 PM
And a sword is... What?

Swords are pretty dang lethal.This. I mean, there's a plausible argument to be made that going to lethal violence as quickly as most D&D characters do would disqualify you from being Good aligned. Something usually glossed over for the sake of gameplay.

But in the cases where you /are/ accepting bloody dismemberment as acceptable act, I really can't see how poison makes it any worse.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-12, 03:09 AM
I really can't see how poison makes it any worse.

Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal. Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

It doesn't have to make sense. It isn't quantifiable. It's morals, and poison is immoral.

For whatever reason. Going down the path of pragmatic rationalizations for your actions is what being evil is.

Knaight
2017-12-12, 03:18 AM
For whatever reason. Going down the path of pragmatic rationalizations for your actions is what being evil is.

Yeah, because refusing to think about your morals at all and thus condemning others based on knee jerk responses when they've never actually done any harm isn't something that happens. Plus, even if it were it obviously wouldn't be bad in any way. Similarly, "it's just moral, don't think about it" is totally useless for rationalizing your actions.

NovenFromTheSun
2017-12-12, 03:24 AM
Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal.

Because there's a very large chance of killing someone other than who you're trying to (if that target is one you're "allowed" to kill in the first place).


Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

Because, conceivably, the former scenario might involve the person trying to kill you. I've heard no reports of someone committing homicide in their sleep.


It doesn't have to make sense. It isn't quantifiable. It's morals, and poison is immoral.

And yet I just quantified it. Morality wasn't determined by flipping coins.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-12, 04:28 AM
Yeah, because refusing to think about your morals at all and thus condemning others based on knee jerk responses when they've never actually done any harm isn't something that happens. Plus, even if it were it obviously wouldn't be bad in any way. Similarly, "it's just moral, don't think about it" is totally useless for rationalizing your actions.

Like I just said: When ever you commit morals to a formula, it goes wrong. You can always and without exception run such a rule to it's logical conclusion, which will be something unrelentingly horrendous. Going with intuitive is literally a better solution.

It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.


And yet I just quantified it. Morality wasn't determined by flipping coins.

You did nothing of the sort.

Knaight
2017-12-12, 06:22 AM
Like I just said: When ever you commit morals to a formula, it goes wrong. You can always and without exception run such a rule to it's logical conclusion, which will be something unrelentingly horrendous. Going with intuitive is literally a better solution.

Relying on intuition has a similarly horrific failure rate.


It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.
Sure there is. Someone who commits a spontaneous crime made one quick decision, usually in an emotional state. Someone who commits a premeditated crime made a decision, held to it, and doubled down on it in every step on the planning. Thus the second person did something worse, and is also more dangerous.

It's almost like there's an entire moral philosophy behind criminal law, with people actually thinking about it.

Pleh
2017-12-12, 07:31 AM
Both true. But intuitive morals is actually closer to being right than the pragmatic functional morals that is the only alternative.

Citation, please.


We're very, very close, speaking globally, across all nations, religions, political systems, to something like a universally agreed upon, intuitive moral code.

Appeal to authority. Just because everyone else is jumping off the bridge doesn't actually make it a good idea. Explain how intuitive morality is actually better, or you have no case.

Furthermore, I challenge the statement to explain how this is supposed to work in a system known to be at least partially populated with sociopaths, who definitively do not feel morality by intuition.

And then, for those who aren't sociopaths, but feel similar dispassion for one (but not all) "laws" established by intuitive morality, how do you teach them to respect laws that are only based on the feelings of others that they do not share? That is to say, how do you help people create an empathetic link to a law's reason for being if you cannot rationalize its purpose?

How do you accurately communicate the Letter of the Law, if the Law's Spirit cannot be rationally explained?

If the Law's Spirit can be rationally explained, then exceptions (that is, distinctions between actions that violate the Law's Letter, but not its Spirit) can be rationally determined. This process is known as Justification: to make Just what is Illegal or Unjust.

And keep in mind that Justification by Exception should always be made on a case by case basis. There's room to document precedent over time, but Justifying a particular exception once doesn't automatically mean that particular action should always therefore be justified in the future (since the exact details are probably at least a little different in every case).


It get's stretched super thin whenever politics or common greed is involved, but no where on earth is there a group or culture that thinks theft, murder or voilence is a grand idea, and essentially good.

There are some particular radical groups around the world that would beg to differ with you. Many cultures and countries glorify the concept of eradicating millions of people in other countries. We don't need to let this devolve into details about global politics, but your statement is so blatantly false as to suggest you don't really know what's going on in the world around you.

I'd suggest researching recent events in North Korea and the Middle East. See what you think after reading about some of the philosophies espoused by these individuals pertaining to their beliefs about whether or not violence and murder is a good thing.


Playing good means you do not use the tactics of the enemy. As for your other question about the vizier if you kill her with her own poison method. You sink to here level of Evil. She wins in death your alignmenttakes a hit. The greater good is served yes at your expense.

Again, context matters. If you're playing a "dawn of civilization" era game, a TON of moral philosophy hasn't developed yet. Morality DOES evolve over time. We only recently came to a global opinion that we probably shouldn't be enslaving people (and we haven't fully shaken that idea out of our heads universally).

What I'm saying is there should be some accommodation for situations where the Setting says that no one in the world really knows any better.

Your statement isn't wrong, just it should come with the disclaimer that it's context-specific.

And I can hear you thinking, "But then no one is Good." Good/Evil has to be a Spectrum, not a Boolean. In a world where no one is Good, every action that is reasonably better than others is the new definition of Good until that level of Goodness gradually becomes commonplace. Then the standard rises and Culture moves forward into enlightenment.

It's nice to think that it's as easy as saying, "doing Evil is always Evil," but this puts us in the realm that Good characters cannot exist in a world where sometimes there are only Evil options available. A Good character should be able to at least choose the least offensive of the evil options and continue to advocate and press for societal change.


Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal. Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

It doesn't have to make sense. It isn't quantifiable. It's morals, and poison is immoral.

For whatever reason. Going down the path of pragmatic rationalizations for your actions is what being evil is.[/QUOTE]


Same reason mines and cluster bombs are illegal. Same reason poison gas is illegal. Same reason we consider it more acceptable to fight someone rather than stab them to death in their sleep.

Because there's a very large chance of killing someone other than who you're trying to (if that target is one you're "allowed" to kill in the first place).

Because, conceivably, the former scenario might involve the person trying to kill you. I've heard no reports of someone committing homicide in their sleep.

Well, it's more than just that you might hurt an unintended target; there's also the laws based on "inhumane" treatment of your enemies. You don't get a free pass to mutilate a person just because they attacked you and you therefore have all freedom to do as you please with them all under the flag of "self-defense." There can be excessive force.

Good creatures really should be causing the least possible amount of harm in whatever harm they are compelled to distribute.

But this is exactly why they need to be given the opportunity to rationalize and justify their actions. In the heat of the moment, they probably didn't have time to think through all the moral philosophy of their actions, so taken in hindsight, they ought to reflect and try to learn how to handle similar situations better in the future.


Like I just said: When ever you commit morals to a formula, it goes wrong. You can always and without exception run such a rule to it's logical conclusion, which will be something unrelentingly horrendous. Going with intuitive is literally a better solution.

It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.

Morality always goes wrong, no matter what you do. That's because we have imperfect people running an imperfect justice system with imperfect understanding of an imperfect sense of an imperfect morality.

It will always go horrendously wrong sometimes.

Using Intuitive Morality will certainly not change that fact, especially since that is more or less the state from which Civilization evolved. Before we had the capacity for rational thought, all we had was intuitive ethics.

Since that time, we've had never ending disagreements about ethics, laws, and morals (intuitive morality has NEVER stopped us from having disagreements and differing perspectives on morality). True enough that, for the most part, we have a few things that we have come to some solid consensus on (no one likes getting murdered or stolen from, so probably we shouldn't do that to others), but generalizing this over the whole spectrum of morality overlooks a TON of nuances and fringe cases.

To resolve our disputes, we used our developing sense of Rational Thought to express our Intuitive Morality through an impartial medium so that we could communicate our values to one another and establish answers to disagreements that would be more or less universally applied.

Rational Morality is naturally going to occasionally lead to certain justifications being made.

If you say this is evil, then I say it certainly seems intuitive to me that it is less evil than denying my own intuitive trust of rational thought in favor of some other person's "gut instinct" (when the other person in question is known to be just as flawed as I am and suspect to having an evil agenda to begin with).

Vhaidara
2017-12-12, 08:08 AM
It's also how our laws are made. There's no rational reason to punish a premeditated crime harder than a spontaneous one.

...I'm like, 99% sure that premeditated IS punished harder than spontaneous. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter (premeditation)

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-12, 10:51 AM
Citation, please.

Get real =D

D+1
2017-12-12, 10:52 AM
So, any advice on how to play a good-aligned character? I'd appreciate it.
SIMPLE: Have the PC do as much for others as they do for themselves. I would say, "do more," but even good guys need to have faults, and a bit of selfishness now and again shows a necessary fallibility. :)

Pleh
2017-12-12, 10:56 AM
Get real =D

Are you saying that everything you've said up to this point has been purely sarcastic?

That would make more sense than everything else you've been saying, but you could have indicated such a little more clearly.

Some people use blue font.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-12, 12:42 PM
Are you saying that everything you've said up to this point has been purely sarcastic?

That would make more sense than everything else you've been saying, but you could have indicated such a little more clearly.

Some people use blue font.

It was my way of saying I don't think you and I can engage in meaningful dialogue any further. I don't need quotes to form an opinion, I'm so clever I can make my own.

Pleh
2017-12-12, 12:53 PM
You are free to all the opinions you like, but you phrased it as if to counter my arguments.

That is to say, it sounded as if you were wanting to convince me to agree with you by forming a counter argument.

I found the argument unconvincing and asked for some evidence to back it up.

If you are happy just believing things that you feel, more power to you.

Just don't expect other people to have much reason to adopt your moral philosophy.

Unfortunately, the context in this situation is TTRPGs, where *some* agreement of moral philosophy is necessary for the function of the simulated world experience. In such cases, moral philosophies ought to be rational, communicable, and functional, so players from various sets of beliefs can cooperate in the game to good faith. "Just go with your gut" isn't a great way to establish morality for a fictional universe.

After all, if people are free to have wildly varying ideas about morality in our own set of physical existence, how much more so in an RPG, where the setting is fictitious, first separating us from exactly the same reality we experience while additionally fabricating new moral dilemmas for our minds to consider.

It is critical to game experience for morality in such scenarios to be in some manner predictable, which Intuitive Morality works for just fine if everyone at the table already has more or less the same sense of intuitive morals.

It's a local solution, not a universal one.

denthor
2017-12-12, 01:07 PM
Pleh

As to post # 78.

Context has already been established in any D&D game or any of its off shoots. Otherwise the question posed in this thread would not be asked.

Your very thought about a dawn of civilization game is not mentioned you are adding things not thought of. Your legal case you laid out is do as you please since no one thought about it is legal and OK to use exactly once. This is unfortunately true to form. However quickly brought under control.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-12, 01:17 PM
You are free to all the opinions you like, but you phrased it as if to counter my arguments.

That is to say, it sounded as if you were wanting to convince me to agree with you by forming a counter argument.

I found the argument unconvincing and asked for some evidence to back it up.

If you are happy just believing things that you feel, more power to you.

Just don't expect other people to have much reason to adopt your moral philosophy.

Unfortunately, the context in this situation is TTRPGs, where *some* agreement of moral philosophy is necessary for the function of the simulated world experience. In such cases, moral philosophies ought to be rational, communicable, and functional, so players from various sets of beliefs can cooperate in the game to good faith. "Just go with your gut" isn't a great way to establish morality for a fictional universe.

After all, if people are free to have wildly varying ideas about morality in our own set of physical existence, how much more so in an RPG, where the setting is fictitious, first separating us from exactly the same reality we experience while additionally fabricating new moral dilemmas for our minds to consider.

It is critical to game experience for morality in such scenarios to be in some manner predictable, which Intuitive Morality works for just fine if everyone at the table already has more or less the same sense of intuitive morals.

It's a local solution, not a universal one.

Like I said: You and I are no longer engaged in a discussion.

vasilidor
2017-12-12, 01:26 PM
I never understood why the use of poison was inherently evil. that said I can think of some non evil uses for poison. 1: a sleep poison used on someone in order to prevent them from doing something self destructive or destructive to others. knock out gas is sometimes used in real world hostage situations, as long as proper care is given quickly there is no lasting harm from this. 2: using poisoned arrows on someone you have already decided to kill. here the issue is not that you are using poisoned arrows, but the fact that you decided to kill someone, are you acting in self defense? will using the poison end things faster*? these are more important questions in my mind.

*in acts of self defense or defense of others, the faster you end the conflict the less chance you or others have to come to harm.

Pleh
2017-12-12, 10:34 PM
Pleh

As to post # 78.

Context has already been established in any D&D game or any of its off shoots. Otherwise the question posed in this thread would not be asked.

Your very thought about a dawn of civilization game is not mentioned you are adding things not thought of. Your legal case you laid out is do as you please since no one thought about it is legal and OK to use exactly once. This is unfortunately true to form. However quickly brought under control.

Not sure I fully get your meaning, perhaps you can clarify.

See, my understanding was that the OP was asking about how to be a Good aligned character in a general D&D styled RPG, which would include the possible setup for a dawn of civilization campaign, so I'm not adding things, I'm pointing out the rather extensive scope of possible gamestyles this thread is concerning itself with.

More general answers are better than more limited ones.

denthor
2017-12-12, 11:16 PM
I know alignment doesn't actually matter that much in D&D, but to some it does. Like my group, for instance. If my character sheet says "Alignment: Good" on it, I want to make sure I live up to it when I roleplay my character. I don't just want to do it to maintain my Holy Status or use the mechanics or whatever, I want to roleplay my character as a good guy. Especially since everyone else in my group seems to be playing Chaotic Neutral.

In case you're wondering, the setting the D&D takes place in is of my friend's design. I don't really know much about it yet, but he said that the premise of the game is that we're fighting dragons and taking their treasure. For starters, I don't think my char would hoard all the dragon wealth to himself, but rather donate it to charity or something. And since I'm the only "good" guy in the group, I'd prefer to lead by example rather than force a conversion out of people. Cuz I think when a character shifts alignment mid-campaign that is a really cool thing, it's interesting, but it's no good if the alignment shift is forced. I want this character to be memorable for his goodness.

So, any advice on how to play a good-aligned character? I'd appreciate it.


Pleh
Above is 1st post it is in the mind of the DM much like your dawn of civilization is in your mind not the post.

Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison.

JNAProductions
2017-12-12, 11:18 PM
Above is 1st post it is in the mind of the DM much like your dawn of civilization is in your mind not the post.

Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison.

Okay... And what makes poison worse than a sword, or a bow, or a ball of magical fire?

I do agree, poison CAN be worse than those, depending on the situation, and should require serious thought before a good person uses it, but that applies equally to any weapon.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-13, 12:56 AM
Okay... And what makes poison worse than a sword, or a bow, or a ball of magical fire?

I do agree, poison CAN be worse than those, depending on the situation, and should require serious thought before a good person uses it, but that applies equally to any weapon.

Substitute poison for any of the other ways you know you shouldn't kill someone: Remote triggered bomb, setting them on fire, stabbing them to death in their sleep, throwing them naked into a pack of hungry wolves, and so on.

It's essentially the same as twirling your mustache. Don't do, unless evil.

Lord Raziere
2017-12-13, 01:16 AM
Substitute poison for any of the other ways you know you shouldn't kill someone: Remote triggered bomb, setting them on fire, stabbing them to death in their sleep, throwing them naked into a pack of hungry wolves, and so on.

It's essentially the same as twirling your mustache. Don't do, unless evil.

.....I like how you protest against "wrong" ways to kill someone but don't actually protest against killing them at all.

by this logic, all wizards who use fireball, sleep and explosive runes, as well as rogues are evil. because rogues entire MO is playing dirty, while a wizard using sleep so that others coup-de-grace them is just being effective, and explosive runes is basically a remote bomb that triggers when someone sees the bomb, and fireball obviously burns people alive.

this also means you can't kill any regenerating monster that needs fire to die. like trolls. meaning killing trolls is inherently evil by this logic, no one good can kill trolls ever, so the world is overrun by regenerating trolls whose weakness is being burned alive or everyone becomes evil from fighting them.

also, by this logic, anyone who summons beasts whether they be druids or wizards is evil because they send animals to kill things for them all the time, so summoners are inherently evil even when they're summoning something like a celestial wolf to eat the face off of a demon.

so yeah. your calling a lot of effective tactics "evil" there.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-13, 01:41 AM
.....I like how you protest against "wrong" ways to kill someone but don't actually protest against killing them at all.

Is that the discussion we're having? No, it isn't. That's why I'm not going there.


by this logic, all wizards who use fireball, sleep and explosive runes, as well as rogues are evil. because rogues entire MO is playing dirty, while a wizard using sleep so that others coup-de-grace them is just being effective, and explosive runes is basically a remote bomb that triggers when someone sees the bomb, and fireball obviously burns people alive.

this also means you can't kill any regenerating monster that needs fire to die. like trolls. meaning killing trolls is inherently evil by this logic, no one good can kill trolls ever, so the world is overrun by regenerating trolls whose weakness is being burned alive or everyone becomes evil from fighting them.

also, by this logic, anyone who summons beasts whether they be druids or wizards is evil because they send animals to kill things for them all the time, so summoners are inherently evil even when they're summoning something like a celestial wolf to eat the face off of a demon.

so yeah. your calling a lot of effective tactics "evil" there.

I've been using real world examples. Have you seen anyone in the real world use fireballs? No. You haven't.

But except for that, using sleep+cdg is definitely evil. Hands down, no holds barred, straight up evil. Wanna know why? I have no idea. But I know that having someone at your mercy, then killing rather than capturing, is evil. Killing anyone who is defenceless is evil.

Effective is often evil. As soon as you let pragmatism rule your decision making, you're pretty much sure to venture into evil land. It just goes straight back to Auschwitz, and ... why is that evil, they were going to die anyways.

Edit: That's actually a as decent a rule as any to live by - am I being pragmatic right now? Then what I'm doing is propably going to lead to an alignment change.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-13, 02:21 AM
Poison is only considered morally wrong because morality (conveniently) has always favoured the methods of war preferred by the economically advantaged. :smallsmile:

In Ancient Greece the honourable method of combat was lines of shield men banging into each other until someone won. The side who could afford to field more shield men usually won.

In Medieval times knightly combat was honourable and crossbows were dishonourable, because knights could afford to spend their lives practising fighting and equip themselves in fancy armour, and then get killed by someone with a crossbow and minimal training.

Lord Raziere
2017-12-13, 04:17 AM
I've been using real world examples. Have you seen anyone in the real world use fireballs? No. You haven't.

But except for that, using sleep+cdg is definitely evil. Hands down, no holds barred, straight up evil. Wanna know why? I have no idea. But I know that having someone at your mercy, then killing rather than capturing, is evil. Killing anyone who is defenceless is evil.

Effective is often evil. As soon as you let pragmatism rule your decision making, you're pretty much sure to venture into evil land. It just goes straight back to Auschwitz, and ... why is that evil, they were going to die anyways.

Edit: That's actually a as decent a rule as any to live by - am I being pragmatic right now? Then what I'm doing is propably going to lead to an alignment change.

too bad, your talking about a game where you go into dungeons and kill people. real world matters jack squat.

teaming up is pragmatic,y'know whats also pragmatic? not dying while protecting your friends and allies. pragmatically putting up an actual shield to block an attack than take it yourself, thats so evil. killing an unfeeling murderous psychopath before they launch that attack is just SO EVIL. armor? evil, since it so pragmatically protects people from damage. I suppose we should add ambushing the enemy to the evilness as well, since its pragmatically taking them surprise? but wait weapons is more pragmatic than using our fists. weapons are evil.

obviously the only way to fight evil is by fighting them with only your fists with no armor, challenging them to honorable combat in an open field with no environmental advantages to exploit and just punch them repeatedly, using absolutely no tactics whatsoever. pure force without any finesse is the only goodness you can rely on. just punch them until they die, the only good way to kill evil: with your fists without using your brain at all. monk is the only class that can be good aligned! but only if they never use Stunning Fist. that renders the enemy defenseless, we can't have that. they need to be able to defend themselves so that they can potentially kill me then go forth to kill more people.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-13, 06:12 AM
real world matters jack squat.

They are examples.

You don't accept real world examples in your make-belive discussion? Ok.

Dragonexx
2017-12-13, 11:54 AM
"You shouldn't have to think about it." is one of the most stupid and offensive points you can possible take. Considering that doing the opposite of that is why we have a modern society with modern values at all, it's astonishingly ignorant and blatantly anti-intellectual.

Tinkerer
2017-12-13, 12:04 PM
It's essentially the same as twirling your mustache. Don't do, unless evil.

My god, apparently my roommates are evil people. They both compulsively twirl their moustaches when thinking about things.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-13, 12:54 PM
"You shouldn't have to think about it." is one of the most stupid and offensive points you can possible take. Considering that doing the opposite of that is why we have a modern society with modern values at all, it's astonishingly ignorant and blatantly anti-intellectual.

Hm.

Almost all the laws you approve of will align with gut feeling. Almost all the ones you disapprove of derive from pragmatism.

Clearly, that's opinion, but I really do urge you to check. Of course, you might be one of those who consider something like the 'three strikes' law a masterstroke of modern law. In which case I expect you twirl your mustache too.

But I see what you're trying to say (I think). Lynch mobs also responded to gut feeling. That, however, is taking it out of context. I also said 'anything you wouldn't tell your mother about', among other things. 'Anything you need to think of a way to justify'.

So please, if you want to be outraged, please at least know what I'm saying first.

I maintain: Morals are largely selfexplanatory and intuitive. But I will grant you hate makes people do things that - in the moment - might seem selfexplanatory and intuitive. However, they wont go home at the end of the day and brag to their mothers that 'yea, we lynched that guy and no mistake. Ain't no way he'll look at another man's woman that way ever again!'

Or if they do, they'll do so while twirling their mustaches. And propably their mothers will do the same.


My god, apparently my roommates are evil people. They both compulsively twirl their moustaches when thinking about things.

Almost certainly.

Not to be confused with beard stroking. Important distinction.

JNAProductions
2017-12-13, 12:55 PM
So let me ask you this-you clearly have to think before using poison. Do you have to think before stabbing someone to death? Because again-that's something D&D adventurers do ALL THE FLIPPING TIME.

denthor
2017-12-13, 01:19 PM
So let me ask you this-you clearly have to think before using poison. Do you have to think before stabbing someone to death? Because again-that's something D&D adventurers do ALL THE FLIPPING TIME.

Please understand I have a deep unbridled distain for the paladin class. I am irrational towards it.

One of the very little used rules is a paladin can not strike first. 2nd edition.

If you opponents use deadly force it is considered justified to return such force.

So to your question never start the fight always react.

JNAProductions
2017-12-13, 01:21 PM
Please understand I have a deep unbridled distain for the paladin class. I am irrational towards it.

One of the very little used rules is a paladin can not strike first. 2nd edition.

If you opponents use deadly force it is considered justified to return such force.

So to your question never start the fight always react.

You see a man with an axe, terrorizing a group of people. He's clearly intent on killing them, and they're helpless to stop him. He has not attacked you, though-do you attack him? Is that a good thing to do?

Tinkerer
2017-12-13, 01:30 PM
You see a man with an axe, terrorizing a group of people. He's clearly intent on killing them, and they're helpless to stop him. He has not attacked you, though-do you attack him? Is that a good thing to do?

You interpose yourself between the man with an axe and the group of people and demand that he explain himself. In mechanical terms you do that and ready an action for if he charges you. Don't forget this is a world where violent curses exist and the man could be ensorcelled/possessed. Also bear in mind that the key word there is deadly force. The man with an axe is attempting to use deadly force, just not on you.

Cazero
2017-12-13, 01:56 PM
Almost all the laws you approve of will align with gut feeling.
And that gut feeling aligning in enough people to end up being proclaimed as a law is no coincidence. There must be some reasons for it, and figuring those reasons would help understanding morality better, wich helps making Good choices.
So the question "why is poison Evil" is not only legitimate, but also crucial. Especialy in the context of the [when stabbing someone in the face isn't] addendum.

Yes, you will eventualy get stuck at a prime proposition that can't be justified (like "harm is bad"). But "murdering someone in their sleep is just bad" is nowhere near that point.

The Glyphstone
2017-12-13, 02:03 PM
Great Modthulhu: Please avoid references to real-world political, historical, or religious precedents when discussing alignment or morality, as always. And while we're at it, remember to debate politely, or this thread will meet the ultimate fates of most alignment discussions.

denthor
2017-12-13, 02:23 PM
You see a man with an axe, terrorizing a group of people. He's clearly intent on killing them, and they're helpless to stop him. He has not attacked you, though-do you attack him? Is that a good thing to do?

A paladin must put himself in the line of the ax . Protecting the helpless and accept that until damage to him is taken he can not hot back 2nd edition paladin.

Then he can react in any fashion the situation requires.

Since Lawful Good could mean you guard the dinner party of the elite that have plenty of food why you watch people starve outside the event.

Chaotic good would steal some of the food and give it away.

Neutral good could do either.

Pleh
2017-12-13, 02:38 PM
Pleh
Above is 1st post it is in the mind of the DM much like your dawn of civilization is in your mind not the post.

Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison.

If you read that first post more carefully, the setting is, "the D&D takes place in is of my friend's design. I don't really know much about it yet, but he said that the premise of the game is that we're fighting dragons and taking their treasure."

Nothing about this information precludes the possibility of a Dawn of Civilization scenario, which means the scope of our answers ought to account for this breadth of possible contexts.

Of course it's in my mind. The point is that it should be in all our minds as a possibility and particularly to illustrate how all the OTHER possibilities might also affect how the morality ends up playing out in the game.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-13, 03:07 PM
So let me ask you this-you clearly have to think before using poison. Do you have to think before stabbing someone to death? Because again-that's something D&D adventurers do ALL THE FLIPPING TIME.

Well. I'm talking about morals, not gameplay.

But in my experience, the question of whether combat is moral or not very, very rarely comes up in RPG's. In general, the situations are pretty black and white, you have to fight the evil people because they're going to take over the world to the detriment of all the good people (and most of the evil people too).

Outside of gameplay, I'd say that manifold reasons exist to make the application of force necessary. Let's say adventurers are something akin to freelance police. In the real world, police are regularly required to assert some form of force to ensure the security of most people, at the expense of a few. This is entirely in it's case: Moreso, it really doesn't require you to think about it, or to justify it.

Now, you will note that police do not use poison, and that when they use various forms of crowd control - be it an irritant like tear gas, water cannon, or a taser, it's generally quite fiercely debated.

If they use tranq darts, there'd be open rebellion.

Because poison is evil. Even if non-lethal.

Now please note that it's an imaginary example. But it serves to illustrate the line between what we're totally ok with - and what we're not. And that's based entirely on ... intuition. Gut feeling.

Clearly, you might disagree with my conclusions. But I'm quite convinced myself =)

@Glyphstone: The line is often slightly blurry. Is it ok to use police as a reference - or should I have used, say, Adeptus Arbites instead?


So the question "why is poison Evil" is not only legitimate, but also crucial.

Yes, I agree. Only I'd argue that poison is evil because we feel so, intuitively. That's sort of my core point here: There is no deeper logic to it. Homo mensura, the world is as we see and/or make it, and human opinion isn't tied to strict rational underpinnings.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-13, 03:30 PM
Four rules for playing, of not good, at least a decent character:

1) Do unto others as you'd want to be done to yourself. Your actions set an example for how it is acceptable for others to act and what you expect of them. If you do not wish for others to act in a certain way, don't do it yourself.

2) Eye for an eye. This is a corollary to the above: what others do to you, it is permissible to do to them in equal measure.

3) Never turn a blind eye to evil. A fancier name for this is altruistic punishment. That is, if someone breaks conditions of co-operation by acting in an evil manner, you will cease to co-operate yourself even if it costs you.

4) In face of repention, let mercy pass for justice. This is the exception to the above: if someone honestly expresses regret for what they have done and wishes to make amends, it is permissible to turn the other cheek and stop punishing them.

If you want to play an evil character, here are the forms of evil you will get by breaking or inverting the above four rules:

1) Hypocrisy and double standards: you will permit yourself actions that you would not permit for others. You will expect and demand behaviour from othera that you don't demand from yourself.

2) Injustice: your reactions to actions are disproportionate to one direction or the other. You will either punish crimes of others too harshly or let them off with too little.

3) Spinelessness and corruption: you will allow evil from other when it is beneficial to you and allow more aggressive people to walk all over you when resisting them would be inconvenient or frightening to you

4) Mercilessness and vengefullness: no grudge is ever forgotten and no conflict ever resolved as you keep punishing slights from here to eternity.

---

As a matter of fact, most groups of PCs are all of hypocritical, unjust, spineless and merciless, in regards to NPCs if not other PCs. This is a form of ingroup-outgroup distinction, where for mostly metagame reasons terms of co-operation are extended only to other PCs. Many problems between players happen when the above four rules are broken within the ingroup.

Paladins are hated because their code extends the above four rules to NPCs, hence breaking the ingroup-outgroup distinction and making other PCs valid targets of rules 2) and 3) for slights committed against NPCs.

Thieves and Chaotic Neutrals are hated because they break the four rules within the ingroup.

GMs are hated because the asymmetric positions between GMs and players make players liable to accuse the GM for breaking the four rules in a metagame sense whenever and NPC does so in the game.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-13, 03:52 PM
most groups of PCs are all of hypocritical, unjust, spineless and merciless

I've never seen that. In 30 years of playing role playing games. Of course, it's entirely possible that the one constant in all those games - me - is what's keeping it from ever happening.

I can't even play evil in (computer) games designed for it. Even when I decide that 'this time I'm going to play evil, to see what difference it makes.'

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-13, 04:21 PM
Let me guess, Grand Theft Auto wasn't your favorite game as a kid?

Knaight
2017-12-13, 04:32 PM
Effective is often evil. As soon as you let pragmatism rule your decision making, you're pretty much sure to venture into evil land. It just goes straight back to Auschwitz, and ... why is that evil, they were going to die anyways.
"We're just better than these people so we can do whatever we want to them" is textbook intuitive thinking. "They killed your cousin, so for revenge you get to kill their cousin" is textbook intuitive thinking.


But I see what you're trying to say (I think). Lynch mobs also responded to gut feeling. That, however, is taking it out of context. I also said 'anything you wouldn't tell your mother about', among other things. 'Anything you need to think of a way to justify'.
Lynch mobs also had plenty of people who's mothers approved of it in them, a statement also true of plenty of other social ills. Mob violence is also a pretty textbook case of something not likely to have been specifically justified, what with it involving a bunch of people quickly caught in the moment.

The context doesn't actually help here. Intuitive morality generally just defaults to a cultural standard, and cultural standards have included all sorts of atrocious behaviors, along with all sorts of atrocities being routinely considered as an intuitive response. Changes to these cultural systems that made them better required actual thinking.

With that said, the tempering effect of an overall culture on said thinking can very much be a good thing.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-13, 05:16 PM
Now please note that it's an imaginary example. But it serves to illustrate the line between what we're totally ok with - and what we're not. And that's based entirely on ... intuition. Gut feeling.

You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true. There's all sorts of behaviour modern first world people would consider intuitively morally reprehensible, which has been perfectly normal and accepted for vast majorities of human history.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-14, 03:49 AM
Let me guess, Grand Theft Auto wasn't your favorite game as a kid?

I loved the racing - but no, I couldn't get myself to drive over civilians.


Lynch mobs also had plenty of people who's mothers approved of it in them

But likely they weren't too proud of it after. They didn't go home and tell their old mom.


You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true.

That's why I keep pointing out that it's an opinion.

Knaight
2017-12-14, 05:34 AM
But likely they weren't too proud of it after. They didn't go home and tell their old mom.

They made and distributed postcards (http://www.cvltnation.com/nsfw-american-terrorism-lynching-postcards/) commemorating the event. Clearly intuitively feeling that this was wrong didn't work here.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-14, 07:39 AM
Relying on intuition for morals is about as usefull as relying on "You know when you see it" for distinquishing colours.

Works fine untill you run into a blind person, a color blind person, or a person who speaks a different language where some color terms are lacking or grouped differently.

Nearly all humans have some degree of moral intuition, but there's quite a bit of variance. Whether said variance is caused by nature or nurture is often a red herring - usually, it's both. It's similar to language: humans intuitively learn how to speak from infancy and we can trace our ability to use language to physiological and genetic level. All the same, particulars of specific languages are largely arbitrary and evolve and propagate through nurture, not nature.

Does the fact that someone might have a different gut feeling from you, invalidate yours? Of course not. But it does raise a question which might sound familiar to you: are things moral because they feel moral, or do they feel moral because they are moral?

For contast, I could intuitively identify red objects by sight long before I had any analytical knowledge of what redness is or how my eyes and neural system work to acquire this knowledge. Being able to approach this question analytically did not make my intuition better or worse at identifying red objects, but it did make it possible for me to explain why, say, a blind person's opinion on what is or is not red is not necessarily on the same level as mine.

Pleh
2017-12-14, 08:29 AM
Homo mensura, the world is as we see and/or make it, and human opinion isn't tied to strict rational underpinnings.

But human opinion can be tied to rational underpinnings. It is innaccurate to suggest that all opinions are devoid of rational basis.

Opinions are just ideas that a person elects to adhere themselves to. Nothing prevents a person adopting an irrational opinion (most people do to lesser or greater degrees), but that doesn't make all opnions equally or intrinsically irrational.


But likely they weren't too proud of it after. They didn't go home and tell their old mom.

You'd be surprised.



You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true.
That's why I keep pointing out that it's an opinion.

This makes your opinion baseless and lacking substance, devaluing its merit.

Positing baseless opinions usually has the best effect when you frame it in, "I think/feel [insert opinion]."

This starts your statement recognizing its lack of rational defense, so as not to provoke intense rational scrutiny or to give the impression that it is intended to be superior to other opinions that do actually have rational basis (and, should the rationale be found valid, earning greater merit than mere feelings, which are so susceptible to deception).

PopeLinus1
2017-12-14, 10:40 AM
When your playing a good character, make sure you don’t make the adventure worse by constantly forcing other players to be good. It gets old fast, and your players will be gone faster than a quickling with Haste cast on it.

2D8HP
2017-12-14, 11:22 AM
Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison..
Okay... And what makes poison worse than a sword, or a bow, or a ball of magical fire?

I do agree, poison CAN be worse than those, depending on the situation, and should require serious thought before a good person uses it, but that applies equally to any weapon..
My guess is that this is in reference to the 1978 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, which on page 19 gave explicit instructions that "Clerics who are not if evil alignment" were prohibited from using poison.

Clistenes
2017-12-14, 02:55 PM
I think non-lethal poisons like paralyzing or sleep poisons would be ideal for taking prisioners and arresting criminals. Policemen, peacekeepers, guards, judicial forces, paladin orders and churchs dedicated to deities of Justice should have no qualms at all to use them and should in fact highly recommend them...

The original Paladin class was heavily based on the Arcturian knights, so they would favor one on one challenges and consider poison to be dishonourable because it would be "cheating"; and a way of cheating accessible to everybody, not just to the guy who got a magical sword from the Lady of the Lake...

But the Paladin class has grown far beyond that. If a Paladin is working as a peacekeeper/judicial police/town guard/whatever, his job isn't to challenge thieves, conmen, rapists, murderers, bandits and the like to singular duel, it is to arrest them and take them alive to the judge, so a tool that allows to take them down faster without killing them and without causing permanent damage should be highly valued.

Heck, even Strength and Dexterity damage poisons should be allowed, since Lesser Restoration isn't difficult to access...

And what works for Paladins, works for everybody else...

As for war... it depends on what you are going to do with your prisioners... if you intend to keep them alive, using non-lethal poison means saving their lives, so it is kosher to me... if you will have to execute prisioners... well, then I guess a good aligned character would rather avoid that moral conundrum and eschew poison...

Pleh
2017-12-14, 03:38 PM
I think non-lethal poisons like paralyzing or sleep poisons would be ideal for taking prisioners and arresting criminals. Policemen, peacekeepers, guards, judicial forces, paladin orders and churchs dedicated to deities of Justice should have no qualms at all to use them and should in fact highly recommend them...

The original Paladin class was heavily based on the Arcturian knights, so they would favor one on one challenges and consider poison to be dishonourable because it would be "cheating"; and a way of cheating accessible to everybody, not just to the guy who got a magical sword from the Lady of the Lake...

But the Paladin class has grown far beyond that. If a Paladin is working as a peacekeeper/judicial police/town guard/whatever, his job isn't to challenge thieves, conmen, rapists, murderers, bandits and the like to singular duel, it is to arrest them and take them alive to the judge, so a tool that allows to take them down faster without killing them and without causing permanent damage should be highly valued.

Heck, even Strength and Dexterity damage poisons should be allowed, since Lesser Restoration isn't difficult to access...

And what works for Paladins, works for everybody else...

As for war... it depends on what you are going to do with your prisioners... if you intend to keep them alive, using non-lethal poison means saving their lives, so it is kosher to me... if you will have to execute prisioners... well, then I guess a good aligned character would rather avoid that moral conundrum and eschew poison...

I like this dynamic. It almost implies that paladins owe an honor duel only to foes who actually act honorably to begin with. When dealing with individuals who deliberately scorn the concept of honor and subvert the principles of duty and decency, paladins would be compelled to use whatever means necessary to establish justice (and held accountable to misdeeds that stray into excessive force).

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-14, 06:20 PM
Okay... And what makes poison worse than a sword, or a bow, or a ball of magical fire?

I dunno, what makes chemical, biological and nuclear weapons worse than shooting people with bullets? For that matter, why is it worse to shoot people with hollowpoints instead of metal-jacketed bullets? They all kill and wound people, right? Right?

Like the above questions, yours is best answered by looking at history of warfare. Poison is cheap, both figuratively and literally. Because of this, rampant use of poison would make it so that no-one is safe. It would create an environment of justified paranoia and make total warfare a proportionate response. People usually acknowledge this as a bad thing, this is why use of poison is more severely regulated and punished.

It's worth noting that other types of weapons, even if not considered as bad, usually don't get a free pass. So it's wrong to assume that swinging a sword, shooting a bow or incinerating foes with Hellfire actually would be looked at any more kindly. Especially the last one is often a type of HERESY or other crime against God and gets you and your friends burned at the stake.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-14, 06:31 PM
I dunno, what makes chemical, biological and nuclear weapons worse than shooting people with bullets? For that matter, why is it worse to shoot people with hollowpoints instead of metal-jacketed bullets? They all kill and wound people, right? Right?

Collateral damage and/or unnecessary suffering.

Neither of which is an inherent property of poison.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-14, 06:55 PM
Neither are they "inherent" features of ABC weapons, the "inherentness" is a red herring. The only thing that matters is that they can be used that way, as that's enough of a reason to stop them from used ever so that no-one gets the idea to do so.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-14, 07:38 PM
Neither are they "inherent" features of ABC weapons, the "inherentness" is a red herring. The only thing that matters is that they can be used that way, as that's enough of a reason to stop them from used ever so that no-one gets the idea to do so.

You're conflating two ideas. There may well be practical reasons to discourage people from ever using certain weapons. That doesn't make using them morally wrong in general.

There are ways to use nuclear weapons which aren't morally wrong. There may still be good reasons to prohibit all nuclear weapons from ever being used that aren't morality related.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-14, 07:47 PM
Go back to the four rules I outlined. The moral reasons and the practical reasons are not separate, they stem from one another. We argue for their immorality because we dislike the practical implications and we dislike the practical implications because we find them morally repulsive.

That you can find out a corner cases where using ABC weapons, or poison, or whatever, seems specially morally permissible, does not actually change this.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-14, 08:19 PM
Go back to the four rules I outlined. The moral reasons and the practical reasons are not separate, they stem from one another. We argue for their immorality because we dislike the practical implications and we dislike the practical implications because we find them morally repulsive.

That you can find out a corner cases where using ABC weapons, or poison, or whatever, seems specially morally permissible, does not actually change this.

This is like arguing that because it is often morally wrong to kill people, we should just make it a general rule that killing people is always morally wrong. It's not actually useful or correct. Removing important nuance doesn't make for a better system of morality.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-14, 08:32 PM
Let's leave alone for a moment the fact that many common systems of ethics work exactly like that, your reasoning is backwards. You're saying that since you can imagine a special case, there is no (or should not be) a general rule. Where as the actual point is that exceptions neither overturn nor disprove the general rule, AKA exception proves the rule.

In a working system of ethics, "killing is morally wrong" is the general statement and any exceptions are special cases with special justifications. And the general statement exist due to both practical and moral considerations, because those inform each other.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-14, 09:18 PM
Let's leave alone for a moment the fact that many common systems of ethics work exactly like that, your reasoning is backwards. You're saying that since you can imagine a special case, there is no (or should not be) a general rule. Where as the actual point is that exceptions neither overturn nor disprove the general rule, AKA exception proves the rule.

If exceptions exist then you can't make a general statement and you have to go to a greater level of nuance. If situations exist in which using poison is morally permissible then you can't make a general rule that using poison is always morally wrong. This is, like, how logic works.

I am happy to allow more specific rules, such as intentionally using poison which causes extraordinary amounts of suffering for no reason other than you want them to suffer, is wrong. But that's not what's being discussed.

Lord Raziere
2017-12-14, 09:26 PM
If exceptions exist then you can't make a general statement and you have to go to a greater level of nuance. If situations exist in which using poison is morally permissible then you can't make a general rule that using poison is always morally wrong. This is, like, how logic works.

I am happy to allow more specific rules, such as intentionally using poison which causes extraordinary amounts of suffering for no reason other than you want them to suffer, is wrong. But that's not what's being discussed.

Thats just being inflexible. no one has the time to build such a morality that is so highly specific that you have to say every single situation where its wrong and right and for what reason. codifying it that far is a waste of time. better to establish general rules that you are allowed have exceptions for when needed. edge cases are edge cases for a reason. its simply not efficient or worth anyone's time to make rules to cover them. instead we can encapsulate all this into a single virtue: prudence. the virtue that states knowing which virtue to follow in any given situation and to what extent. its simply prudent to recognize when mercy is needed and when its not, we don't need to make complicated rules about mercy that no one will follow anyways since most of the time its the right decision and the edges cases where its not are the highly specific anyways. knowing when to be flexible and when to be not without needing a complicated overthought system to tell you this sort of thing is apart of moral judgement as well.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-15, 01:59 AM
If exceptions exist then you can't make a general statement and you have to go to a greater level of nuance. If situations exist in which using poison is morally permissible then you can't make a general rule that using poison is always morally wrong. This is, like, how logic works.

Not in morals and law. Ethics are heuristic, and in heuristics the principle of explosion (and several other features of formal logic) do not apply. That is, if a contradiction is found, it does NOT follow that anything is permissible.

Ethics are by no means unique in this regard, the same applies to hard sciences. When Newtonian mechanics were found to "lack nuance" to explain workings of the universe, this did NOT invalidate correct predictions and general usefullness of Newtonian mechanics. It is possible to work in construction all your life, making functional mechanical things based on general rules of thumb based on Newtonian mechanics, completely ignorant of "more nuanced" theory of general relativity, because you never encounter the exceptional cases where it would be required.

Same is true for a typical good person sticking to "never use poison". Thinking of exceptions to the rule is a waste of their time because they don't encounter situations where poisoning others would be necessary, so they don't need to think of a reason why that would be permissible.

A homologous ruling from actual life: "always treat a firearm as if it is loaded". Yes, we know you removed the magazine, triple checked that the barrel was empty, and left the safety on. We don't care. Now put the rifle down.


I am happy to allow more specific rules, such as intentionally using poison which causes extraordinary amounts of suffering for no reason other than you want them to suffer, is wrong. But that's not what's being discussed.
This just shows how backwards your thinking is, since you're offering a specific solution based on other general principles, while claiming that general moral rules shouldn't be used.

To wit, if the specific case of "intentionally using poison" is immoral, the general rule that is proved by the exception is that unintentionally using poison is not immoral. If the specific case of " causing unnecessary suffering" is immorral, the general rule that is proved by the exception is that causing necessary suffering is not immoral. If the specific case of "wanting to only cause suffering" is immoral, then the general rule that is proved is that wanting things other than suffering is not immoral.

And of course, "doing anything that causes unnecessary suffering just because you want to make someone suffer, is always immoral", is the general moral imperative that you are here applying to the specific case of poison. Or at least I hope so, since if you're not, that would imply that you think that causing unnecessary suffering just because is generally permissible unless specifically stated otherwise!

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-15, 02:03 PM
Same is true for a typical good person sticking to "never use poison". Thinking of exceptions to the rule is a waste of their time because they don't encounter situations where poisoning others would be necessary, so they don't need to think of a reason why that would be permissible.

"Don't poison people" is a functional way of thinking for most ordinary people because they won't ever encounter a situation in which they need to poison someone. "Don't kill people" is a functional way of thinking for most people in general. That doesn't make it correct, it just means they're unlikely to encounter a situation in which being incorrect matters. Adventurers in an RPG are not normal people. Relying on incorrect platitudes is not sufficient or helpful for them.


If the specific case of " causing unnecessary suffering" is immorral, the general rule that is proved by the exception is that causing necessary suffering is not immoral. If the specific case of "wanting to only cause suffering" is immoral, then the general rule that is proved is that wanting things other than suffering is not immoral.

"The exception that proves the rule" isn't a real thing. It's a thing people say when they encounter an example that proves them wrong. It's a shorthand way of saying "I think I'm right even if I've been proven wrong and I don't want to think about it."

kyoryu
2017-12-15, 03:26 PM
"The exception that proves the rule" isn't a real thing. It's a thing people say when they encounter an example that proves them wrong. It's a shorthand way of saying "I think I'm right even if I've been proven wrong and I don't want to think about it."

It's not even what the saying *means*.

The saying *means* that if there is a rule providing an exception, you can presume that there is a rule in place that requires that exception. A "no u-turn" sign implies that, if it were not the case, that u-turns would be legal. If you are told "everyone may come in at noon tomorrow", that implies that, in normal cases, you are not allowed to come in at noon.

vasilidor
2017-12-16, 01:58 PM
I would like to give a specific scenario: mister Mc'evil badass is coming to destroy your home town with his army. confident in his victory (and very rightly so) he decides to camp out and wait for the next day having had to make a long march just to get to and surround your town. you stand no chance against him in a straight fight and if he wakes tomorrow you and everyone you know die. you do, however, have the skills and tools needed to sneak in and stab him to death in his sleep, or maybe poison his army, possibly both.
In this scenario would you still say it is evil to use poison and stab mister Mc'evil Badass in his sleep?

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-16, 02:15 PM
I would like to give a specific scenario: mister Mc'evil badass is coming to destroy your home town with his army. confident in his victory (and very rightly so) he decides to camp out and wait for the next day having had to make a long march just to get to and surround your town. you stand no chance against him in a straight fight and if he wakes tomorrow you and everyone you know die. you do, however, have the skills and tools needed to sneak in and stab him to death in his sleep, or maybe poison his army, possibly both.
In this scenario would you still say it is evil to use poison and stab mister Mc'evil Badass in his sleep?

Of course it is. There are no discounts on morals. The real question, eventually, is whether it's more evil to not do it. Which is pragmatism, which is essentially the same as evil.

Morals is this: You really should find a better solution to Mr. Mc'Evil.

But if you can't, well, fight fire with fire. It's what we do. We just really, absolutely, shouldn't be fooling ourselves to think it's a good thing.

kitanas
2017-12-16, 05:44 PM
@kaptin keen:

I'm curious how you would respond to these situations. This isn't gotcha, just trying to understand your position.

1) are all poisonous creatures evil, since by definition they use poison.

2) if someone is mind-controlled to poison someone else, are they evil? Not the person mind-controlling, the person administering the poison.

3) if someone is administering what they think is medicine, but is actually poison, are they evil?

4) if a race is labeled always chaotic evil, like orc's were in earlier dnd, are all orcs evil?

Edit: hello world, first post

vasilidor
2017-12-16, 07:55 PM
@kaptin keen:

I'm curious how you would respond to these situations. This isn't gotcha, just trying to understand your position.

1) are all poisonous creatures evil, since by definition they use poison.

2) if someone is mind-controlled to poison someone else, are they evil? Not the person mind-controlling, the person administering the poison.

3) if someone is administering what they think is medicine, but is actually poison, are they evil?

4) if a race is labeled always chaotic evil, like orc's were in earlier dnd, are all orcs evil?

Edit: hello world, first post
I know I am not kaptin keen, but here are my responses: 1:no, 2:the mind controller for multiple reasons 3:no 4:no, atleast not in the games I run.

Pleh
2017-12-16, 08:05 PM
I know I am not kaptin keen, but here are my responses: 1:no, 2:the mind controller for multiple reasons 3:no 4:no, atleast not in the games I run.

You misunderstood question 2. It wasn't "which of these is evil?" It was, "is the controlled person evil?"

kitanas
2017-12-16, 08:10 PM
You misunderstood question 2. It wasn't "which of these is evil?" It was, "is the controlled person evil?"

Indeed/ 10char

vasilidor
2017-12-16, 08:26 PM
on the basis of evidence presented, no. sorry about that.

2D8HP
2017-12-16, 09:22 PM
..if a race is labeled always chaotic evil, like orc's were in earlier dnd, are all orcs evil?

Edit: hello world, first post.
:smile:

Welcome aboard!

My very first post to this Forum was to an "Alignment" thread as well:


I'm probably not qualified to speak on this since I haven't got to play 5E yet, but I played a bunch of brown books D&D, blue book D&D (Thank you Mr. Holmes RIP), and after I got the DMG in '79 1E AD&D (mostly brown books plus monster manual). Since non of us could roll 3D6 in order well enough to play Paladins or Rangers we pretty much ignored alignment, but since I dug up the Dragon article ''THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO GOOD AND EVIL" where Gary Gygax first makes up ''lawful good'' I'm going to quote it, ''most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With probed leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good"."The lawful/good classification is typified by the Paladin" (and you needed to be a human with at least 17 CHA to be one, Gold Dragons were slightly more lawful and good on the chart then Paladins). "Good: Harmless/Friendly/Kind/Honest/Sincere/Helpful/Beneficial/Pure". So I interpret that to mean since most humans are already lawful and "Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil" then be like most humans are but less selfish then average and your "lawful/good". Simple! But how you can be a "holy warrior"and also be "harmless" puzzles me. I hope that was "Helpful" and "Beneficial".

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-17, 04:36 AM
I know I am not kaptin keen, but here are my responses: 1:no, 2:the mind controller for multiple reasons 3:no 4:no, atleast not in the games I run.

Exactly what I'd have said.

Creatures (like snakes) are neutral, and it's not really their fault they have poison. A better example would be Thri-Kreen, who get a poisonous bite - but honestly, Thri-Kreen use poison, hunt and eat sentients, and are pretty much just evil unless deliberately played otherwise.

Being controlled by others doesn't make you evil, but it surely makes the controller evil. Being ordered would have been a better example, but we have a responsibility for our actions, even when ordered. Maybe you're not evil for obeying the orders of an evil overlord - but you're too close for comfort.

We all make mistakes. Tobacco is a better example. At one point, we really thought it was good. Over time, we found out that, well, no, not so much. Yet tobacco is still produced, still killing people, while making others rich. Are tobacco companies evil. I'd say yes. (Another real world example - sorry)

Labels are simplifications. Especially in D&D, evil races are just there to give easy targets to kill. It's frankly sloppy work on the part of the game designers. So a better question would be: Are the game designers evil for painting every orc as evil? Yes. Yes I believe so.

icefractal
2017-12-17, 07:56 AM
Re: poisonous creatures ...

Bite +12 melee (1d3+6 plus poison)
...
Int 17
...
Always lawful good


Re:Poison and "fair fights" in general ...
1) "Fighting fair" is a Lawful thing, not a Good/Evil thing.
2) Even setting that aside, the definition of what is a fair fight tends to be constructed to favor those in power. Ex: Knights have superior nutrition, training, and equipment, but any schmuck can use poison or a crossbow, so those are bad. That's not a Good thing.
3) Even setting that aside, poison on a sword (as opposed to ingested/inhaled poison, for instance) isn't even any less "fair" than using a +1 Flaming sword when your opponent doesn't have one.


Re: Gut-feeling morality ...
Not all gut feelings are good. Xenophobia is a gut feeling, for example.
But more importantly, some people (Kaptin Keen at least) are presenting these as universal and obvious, like everyone instinctively agrees with them, unless we ignore that instinct in favor of other criteria. Well BS, I disagree with most of them, and that's as someone living in the same time period and society:
* Stabbing someone to death after announcing it isn't any less bad than doing it in their sleep or blowing them up with a remote-control bomb. In fact, if it were me being killed, I'd prefer the latter, it's over faster at least.
* I'd rather have the police shooting people with tranquilizer darts than with guns! And that's even including the fact that it's only less lethal; IRL there's no totally safe way to incapacitate someone. Of course if they use the darts way more than they used guns, that would be a problem, but tazing X people is definitely better than shooting X people.
* It's either ok to kill someone or not (almost always not). But if it is, then giving them a chance to fight back makes no sense. At best, it's the same outcome; at worst, someone innocent dies and the guilty party remains at large.

Those are my "gut feelings", and if anything I see fair play as more of a pragmatic / "greater good" argument. Ie - if you have visiting aid workers help overthrow a dictator (let's assume they're in a position to, and that the result would be an improvement), then other countries will be less likely to allow any aid workers in future, causing more suffering down the line. So by avoiding that, we're sacrificing the people currently suffering under said dictator for the greater good. Which doesn't feel great, but I can see the reasoning for it.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-17, 08:43 AM
"Don't poison people" is a functional way of thinking for most ordinary people because they won't ever encounter a situation in which they need to poison someone. "Don't kill people" is a functional way of thinking for most people in general. That doesn't make it correct, it just means they're unlikely to encounter a situation in which being incorrect matters. Adventurers in an RPG are not normal people. Relying on incorrect platitudes is not sufficient or helpful for them.

Phooeye. It is helpfull to both the characters and their players. "Do not use poison" and "do not kill people" are actionable moral clauses and obeying them is a functional partial answer to the question, "how to play a good-aligned character?"

It may not be sufficient, in the sense that there are still commonly-occurring situations that aren't covered. But if a player succesfully plays a character who, say, never kills, never lies, never steals, never covets and loves his associates as they love themselves, their situation needs go get really contrived before a case can be made that they're not good.

Your claim for specialty for "adventurers" is firmly rooted in a desire to have your cake and eat it too: you want a way for a character to engage in typical immoral behaviour of murdering people and taking their stuff, while still calling them good. There might be a way to achieve that, but what about it? It's entirely possible to skip that step of contrivance and stick to what you call "incorrect platitudes".

A character can be an "adventurer" and never kill, never use poison, never steal, never lie etc. Your line of argumentation doesn't prove them morally wrong, AKA evil. Usually it can only prove they could've justifiedly broken one rule, in a specific situation. No-one cares if you can't also prove breaking of the rule to be necessary.


"The exception that proves the rule" isn't a real thing. It's a thing people say when they encounter an example that proves them wrong. It's a shorthand way of saying "I think I'm right even if I've been proven wrong and I don't want to think about it."

You are wrong and either don't understand what the saying means, or are focusing on people who don't understand what it means as an example, which is not usefull.

Both me and kyoryu have outlined are using the correct meaning, so your argument is at best argument from ignorance and at worst an argument of bad faith.

icefractal
2017-12-17, 08:53 AM
Nitpick - The actual meaning of "exception that proves the rule" is something like "No parking here on Sunday".
By specifying it that way, it implies the rule that parking is allowed on other days of the week.

"Always treat a firearm as if it's loaded" isn't something that even has exceptions (rule-proving or otherwise), because the point is that you're supposed to do it whether or not it actually is loaded, and there are reasons beyond uncertainty to do so (reinforcing a strong reflex so you react appropriately under stress, for example).

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-17, 09:27 AM
@Icefractal: you are not wrong. The point I was making by using firearms handling as an example, was that even if or when you find an exceptional situation where treating a firearm as loaded makes no sense, this contradiction does not lead to principle of explosion. Instead, it becomes an exception that proves the rule.

That is: "breaking the principle of 'always treat a firearm as loaded' is permissible when none of the reasons why we say to 'always treat a firearm as loaded' are applicable. No, we neither want nor need to hear your nitpickery about the word 'always'." :smallwink:

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-17, 10:18 AM
* Stabbing someone to death after announcing it isn't any less bad than doing it in their sleep or blowing them up with a remote-control bomb. In fact, if it were me being killed, I'd prefer the latter, it's over faster at least.
* I'd rather have the police shooting people with tranquilizer darts than with guns! And that's even including the fact that it's only less lethal; IRL there's no totally safe way to incapacitate someone. Of course if they use the darts way more than they used guns, that would be a problem, but tazing X people is definitely better than shooting X people.
* It's either ok to kill someone or not (almost always not). But if it is, then giving them a chance to fight back makes no sense. At best, it's the same outcome; at worst, someone innocent dies and the guilty party remains at large.


All of those are completely correct - and completely wrong.

You're being pragmatic, and pragmatism isn't good. Sorry. It just isn't. See, I don't really think you're paying attention to what I'm saying. Or I'm not saying it clearly enough, which is also entirely possible.

Good and evil, and lawful/chaotic for that matter, at social constructs. Nothing is good or evil for any sane, rational or pragmatic reason. It's only good or evil because we say it is. That isn't exactly my argument, though. In part because it's the sort of thing you can only shrug your shoulders at. It's undeniably true - unless you attribute it to God, which is something else you can only shrug your shoulders at.

I'm claiming that if you yourself were standing over someone that you considered worth killing - say, the Emperor (from Star Wars), you'd still feel bad about killing him in his sleep. And you'd be right to. Because that's where good and evil comes from.

The counterargument seems to be that sometimes we feel good about doing things we know to be bad - like pouring poison into the water supply of an orc tribe that's been slaughtering innocent children and cute puppies across the countryside. But still, we know it to be the wrong solution to the problem. Instinctively.

And it should be obvious to everyone that this sort of reasoning isn't without flaws. However, this is where our laws come from. Clusterbombs are forbidden because of something as vague or distant as 'colateral damage'. They're forbidden because we don't like them. They feel bad.

Certain laws are different - law distances itself from our feelings the more complex it becomes. As such, certain laws ... let's say those dealing with economic crime ... are highly pragmatic. And predictably, when we sit down and try to understand them, they don't make any sense to us. Why, for instance, is shorting bit coins leagal, when a Ponzi scheme isn't? They're very nearly the same thing =)

icefractal
2017-12-17, 12:12 PM
See, I don't really think you're paying attention to what I'm saying. Or I'm not saying it clearly enough, which is also entirely possible.You're stating your personal feelings clearly enough ... but you appear to have confused them for universal beliefs that everyone has. And they aren't. I don't have them. Lots of people don't have them. It's not even about pragmatism vs idealism vs gut feeling, it's that not everyone has the same gut feelings.

If I say that plaid is evil, and we all know it, are you failing to pay attention if you disagree?


I'm claiming that if you yourself were standing over someone that you considered worth killing - say, the Emperor (from Star Wars), you'd still feel bad about killing him in his sleep. And you'd be right to. Because that's where good and evil comes from.I'd probably feel bad about killing him at all, because deciding logically that someone should be dead doesn't remove the ingrained feelings against killing people (and that's probably a good thing). But if I did have to kill someone, I think the least unpleasant way would be something indirect and fast, like blowing them up from a distance.

I definitely would not feel better about charging at him with an axe or something, that sounds horrific.


The counterargument seems to be that sometimes we feel good about doing things we know to be bad - like pouring poison into the water supply of an orc tribe that's been slaughtering innocent children and cute puppies across the countryside. But still, we know it to be the wrong solution to the problem. Instinctively.The problem there is that it's an orc tribe, which implies children, non-combatant orcs that weren't the ones doing the slaughtering, and such. Are you saying it would be A-OK to roll up with machine guns and mow them down? Because that sounds just as bad.


And it should be obvious to everyone that this sort of reasoning isn't without flaws. However, this is where our laws come from. Clusterbombs are forbidden because of something as vague or distant as 'colateral damage'. They're forbidden because we don't like them. They feel bad.WTF? This one is a non-sequitor ... they "feel" like any other explosive. Collateral damage is 100% of the problem. Seriously, this one is just like "plaid is evil" to me.

I have to ask, are you trolling? Because some of this really seems to be coming from out of left field.



The point I was making by using firearms handling as an example, was that even if or when you find an exceptional situation where treating a firearm as loaded makes no sense, this contradiction does not lead to principle of explosion. Instead, it becomes an exception that proves the rule.Yeah, except for the part where that's not what the phrase means and also that isn't a thing. Rules can still be useful when they're not absolute, but the presence of exceptions doesn't strengthen or validate a rule in any way.

Inference of a rule by the stated exception to it, on the other hand, is a thing. And is what the phrase refers to.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-17, 12:51 PM
The point isn't that a rule is strengthtened or validated. It's about the degree to which it is invalidated.

In formal logic, from contradiction, anything follows. AKA principle of explosion. This does not actually apply to heuristic systems such as science of nature or ethics. In a heuristic system, if we find a corner case where a functional rule does not apply, we are not compelled to abandon the rule for cases for which it does apply. That only becomes necessary when the exceptions are so numerous that the general rule can no longer be considered general.

Lord Raziere
2017-12-17, 12:56 PM
The point isn't that a rule is strengthtened or validated. It's about the degree to which it is invalidated.

In formal logic, from contradiction, anything follows. AKA principle of explosion. This does not actually apply to heuristic systems such as science of nature or ethics. In a heuristic system, if we find a corner case where a functional rule does not apply, we are not compelled to abandon the rule for cases for which it does apply. That only becomes necessary when the exceptions are so numerous that the general rule can no longer be considered general.

Yeah, its not as if we abandon walking entirely just because swimming exists.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-17, 03:19 PM
You're stating your personal feelings clearly enough ... but you appear to have confused them for universal beliefs that everyone has. And they aren't. I don't have them. Lots of people don't have them. It's not even about pragmatism vs idealism vs gut feeling, it's that not everyone has the same gut feelings.

This is why you should never really discuss anything - at all - on the internet. You want to be right, and it's keeping you from trying to see the point I'm making. I can keep trying for all eternity, but as long as you're not trying, nothing will ever work.

Everyone has very highly similar gut feeling about the very great majority of ethical and moral foundations, which is why the great majority of laws are the same everywhere, and why most everyone behaves the same. There isn't a society in the world that allows murder or thievery or .... any one of a huge number of things.

I'm not saying this applies for all things ever. Obvously not. I'm saying, for most things most of the time. And when it fails, generally we still know we're doing something bad, and ... we'd be ashamed to tell our mothers.

And I'm saying that the soft rule - gut feeling, if you like - is statistically right more often than a hard, set to paper rule is going to be. Note that they could both be right most of the time, but ultimately, a hard rule will fail more often than a soft one.

There are many arguments to be made about this. This one is mine. Essentially: We're better guided by personal morals than by laws. Although, clearly, society needs laws. But individuals need morals more.


WTF? This one is a non-sequitor ... they "feel" like any other explosive. Collateral damage is 100% of the problem.

It ... feels like I didn't make it clear what I meant. Propably my fault. Complicated topic, and english isn't my first language.

Cluster bombs were made illegal.

No government or military that has want's them illegal.

Hence, the pressure came from elsewhere.

Now, the argument may have been colateral damage. But that's not why they're illegal.

Popular support for banning cluster bombs comes not from 'colateral damage' - it comes from people not liking them. The fact that we don't like them is related to colateral damage, but it's far more swayed by how the victims look. That's how we work. We don't donate to charity because we're good people - we donate because pictures of starving children make us feel bad.

I tire of this discussion, so this is the last I'll say on it. But um .... good luck with playing that good-aligned character =)

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-17, 03:54 PM
"do not kill people" are actionable moral clauses and obeying them is a functional partial answer to the question, "how to play a good-aligned character?"

If you think "Do not kill people" is in any way a useful statement to make in response to someone trying to play a good aligned D&D character then I don't think we're ever going to come to any sort of agreement.

kyoryu
2017-12-17, 09:28 PM
We don't donate to charity because we're good people - we donate because pictures of starving children make us feel bad.

This is not a universally true statement.

Aliquid
2017-12-17, 10:03 PM
Everyone has very highly similar gut feeling about the very great majority of ethical and moral foundations, which is why the great majority of laws are the same everywhere, and why most everyone behaves the same. There isn't a society in the world that allows murder or thievery or .... any one of a huge number of things.The challenge is that these "gut feelings" come from different parts of the brain that serve different purposes and evolved at different points in time.

Sometimes those different parts of the brain disagree with each other, and then we have a moral dilemma. Which side to take on the moral dilemma, that's where people differ.

"murder is wrong".... sure we all agree on that. But "Murder is justifiable under the following circumstances:" People most certainly don't agree on that.

Here is a classic example (that I will write in D&D terms to avoid real world politics):


A village is invaded by a bloodthirsty band of Orcs. They are killing everyone in site without hesitation. A group of villagers are hiding in a cellar, and a baby with them starts to cry. The villagers assertively cover the baby's mouth as a group of Orcs enter the house and stand directly above them. The Orcs don't move... if they keep smothering the baby any longer it sill suffocate and die... if they let the baby breath, the cry will alert the Orcs of their location... what do they do?

The reason this is such a dilemma is that it strongly pits two different internal moral "gut feelings" against each other.

That was an extreme example, but there are many more dilemmas that we face day to day... The less extreme ones will have one person saying "obviously you have to go with option A", while another person says "obviously you need to go with option B"

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-18, 03:12 AM
I'm not saying this applies for all things ever.


This is not a universally true statement.


I tire of this discussion, so this is the last I'll say on it.

I have made no universally true statements. Nor have you. Or anyone. Ever.

Pleh
2017-12-18, 05:43 AM
I have made no universally true statements. Nor have you. Or anyone. Ever.

I begin to think this is largely a problem of translation, since you mention english isn't your first language. Perhaps you're missing some critical nuance.

The way you've been phrasing your opinions make them seem to be making universal claims (and, additionally, seeming to take an unmerited position of authority, as if you can be right while we can't be... for no particularly defensible or communicable reason).

Kantaki
2017-12-18, 06:31 AM
A village is invaded by a bloodthirsty band of Orcs. They are killing everyone in site without hesitation. A group of villagers are hiding in a cellar, and a baby with them starts to cry. The villagers assertively cover the baby's mouth as a group of Orcs enter the house and stand directly above them. The Orcs don't move... if they keep smothering the baby any longer it sill suffocate and die... if they let the baby breath, the cry will alert the Orcs of their location... what do they do?

Meh. If the only options you can think of are killing the brat or letting everyone die you don't deserve the label „Good“

Me? It depends. If I care enough about the kid I might risk taking down the orc.
If not maybe I wouldn't.
But then I don't identify as „Good“, so what do I know?

icefractal
2017-12-18, 07:17 AM
Meh. If the only options you can think of are killing the brat or letting everyone die you don't deserve the label „Good“

Me? It depends. If I care enough about the kid I might risk taking down the orc.
If not maybe I wouldn't.
But then I don't identify as „Good“, so what do I know?Orcs, plural. And presumably "you" in this situation are a 1st level Commoner or such, not someone in any position to defeat a large number of warriors. And they're probably not going to ignore the others after you die fighting them.

I mean yes, I like playing characters that are powerful enough to open up a "third way" too, because I don't generally enjoy dilemmas of the "lose-lose" variety in my gaming. But if you /are/ in such a dilemma, it's BS to say that anyone who can't spontaneously become super-saiyan "doesn't deserve the label Good"

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 09:47 AM
Meh. If the only options you can think of are killing the brat or letting everyone die you don't deserve the label „Good“

Me? It depends. If I care enough about the kid I might risk taking down the orc.
If not maybe I wouldn't.
But then I don't identify as „Good“, so what do I know?If you are presented with a hypothetical moral dilemma, and you respond by nit-picking or trying to find holes in it... then you don't grasp the concept of a moral dilemma.

The point is there must be two options and only two options. You can't take down the orc. That isn't an option in the scenario.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-18, 09:52 AM
The way you've been phrasing your opinions make them seem to be making universal claims (and, additionally, seeming to take an unmerited position of authority, as if you can be right while we can't be... for no particularly defensible or communicable reason).

Uh - frankly, that's just how I talk. I don't much express my self as full of doubt. If I were a politician, I'd be a terrible demagogue. Thankfully, I'm not.

I'm only an authority on my own opinion, for which I will argue with conviction. On another note, I don't really accept any authority on morals, I think everyone needs to make their own choices - but we can hope to raise our children to make the right ones, funny as that might seem =)

This entire discussion can only be opinion. There is no measurable moral truth. This, presumably, is once again a universal claim that I seem to take an unmerited position of authority on, so I point you to the above =)

If it seems I've been disrespecting the opinions of others while arguing my own, that's unintended, and I'm sorry about that.

Pleh
2017-12-18, 10:13 AM
I'm only an authority on my own opinion, for which I will argue with conviction.

Except there's not much value to arguing opinions at all. Arguments that lack rational or logical foundation are (at best) barely more informative than, "my favorite color is blue."

It's fine to state, but meaningless to argue about.

"Cool story, bro."


On another note, I don't really accept any authority on morals, I think everyone needs to make their own choices - but we can hope to raise our children to make the right ones, funny as that might seem =)

I agree, but that doesn't preclude any benefit to seeking some consensus in our opinions or at least rationalizing our choice to persist in disagreement.

We stand to gain the authority of logic if we utilize it correctly, whereas we stand to lose none of our personal authority in making the attempt.

If we could gain and can't lose, why not at least make the attempt?


There is no measurable moral truth.

Actually, that means intuitive gut ethics can't possibly be more valuable than pragmatic ethics.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-18, 10:15 AM
If you are presented with a hypothetical moral dilemma, and you respond by nit-picking or trying to find holes in it... then you don't grasp the concept of a moral dilemma.

The point is there must be two options and only two options. You can't take down the orc. That isn't an option in the scenario.

On one hand, many hypothetical "moral dilemmas" are outright false dichotomies.

On the other hand, nitpicking and hole-hunting are pretty much par for the course in any alignment debate.

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 10:48 AM
nitpicking and hole-hunting are pretty much par for the course in any alignment debate.so true... I should have known better.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-18, 10:58 AM
Popular support for banning cluster bombs comes not from 'colateral damage' - it comes from people not liking them. The fact that we don't like them is related to colateral damage, but it's far more swayed by how the victims look.


And I can't stomach these arguments. Make a rational argument for a law, or don't bother asking for my support.




That's how we work. We don't donate to charity because we're good people - we donate because pictures of starving children make us feel bad.


Those commercials make me change the channel, the attempt to manipulate is transparent. I donate to charities, including local foodbanks and organizations that concentrate on "teaching to fish" rather than "giving a fish", but I won't donate to charities that pander in that sort of garbage.

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 11:15 AM
Those commercials make me change the channel, the attempt to manipulate is transparent. I donate to charities, including local foodbanks and organizations that concentrate on "teaching to fish" rather than "giving a fish", but I won't donate to charities that pander in that sort of garbage.There is a group out there that rates charity advertisement, and gives out the "rusty radiator award" for the crappiest commercials. They totally agree with you, and give low scores to that type of commercial.

Things that piss them off:

Charity campaigns that obscure the actual causes of poverty
Poor people being portrayed as passive recipients of help, without the ability or desire to make their country a better place to live.
Stereotypes and oversimplifications that lead to poor debates and poor policies.



They give a more positive "golden radiator award" to advertisements where:

The target group is presented with ownership and has an active role in providing solutions, they speak for themselves and no “white hero” is speaking on behalf of them
Although the goal is to raise money, they avoid exploiting the suffering of people. People are portrayed with dignity – with potential, talents, strengths.
They respect their audience, by not exaggerating the story or suggesting that “with your donation, you have changed a life/saved the world”
They are clear and transparent about their role in the project

Kantaki
2017-12-18, 11:17 AM
Orcs, plural. And presumably "you" in this situation are a 1st level Commoner or such, not someone in any position to defeat a large number of warriors. And they're probably not going to ignore the others after you die fighting them.

I mean yes, I like playing characters that are powerful enough to open up a "third way" too, because I don't generally enjoy dilemmas of the "lose-lose" variety in my gaming. But if you /are/ in such a dilemma, it's BS to say that anyone who can't spontaneously become super-saiyan "doesn't deserve the label Good"

Yeah, maybe I misphrased that.
Point is if faced with the dilemma of either murdering an innocent or risking to let several innocents die a Good aligned person wouldn't choose either option.
They would rather sacrifice themself in a- potentially hopeless -fight against the orcs to give the others a chance to flee.


If you are presented with a hypothetical moral dilemma, and you respond by nit-picking or trying to find holes in it... then you don't grasp the concept of a moral dilemma.

The point is there must be two options and only two options. You can't take down the orc. That isn't an option in the scenario.

My point* is that when faced with two bad (if not Evil) choices Good won't take either.
They will seek no, they will take a third option, even if that means risking their own wellbeing.
Because that's what it means to be good.
That goes doubly for adventurers.
And even more so for Paladins and other hero types.


*That I admittedly could have phrased better.
Blame the to short break at work.:smallamused:

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 11:41 AM
My point* is that when faced with two bad (if not Evil) choices Good won't take either.
They will seek no, they will take a third option, even if that means risking their own wellbeing.
Because that's what it means to be good.
That goes doubly for adventurers.
And even more so for Paladins and other hero types.


*That I admittedly could have phrased better.
Blame the to short break at work.:smallamused:But taking that "third option" doesn't just risk your own wellbeing, it risks the wellbeing of everyone.

I totally agree that a heroically good person would put their life on the line to save the others.... but in this scenario, by heroically going to fight a battle you know you will loose, you are exposing the location of the other villagers, and sealing their doom.

Satinavian
2017-12-18, 11:44 AM
If you are presented with a hypothetical moral dilemma, and you respond by nit-picking or trying to find holes in it... then you don't grasp the concept of a moral dilemma.

The point is there must be two options and only two options. You can't take down the orc. That isn't an option in the scenario.

The more credible moral dilemmata arising naturally in game tend to not be sadists test of some PC. It is more often something like triage without some obvious enemy.

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 12:36 PM
The more credible moral dilemmata arising naturally in game tend to not be sadists test of some PC. It is more often something like triage without some obvious enemy.No, no... this isn't something that a DM should ever present to a PC... it was just an example to illustrate a point about how our "gut feelings" work when it comes to deciding what is "moral". And how sometimes two different "gut feelings" from different parts of our brain clash against each other when presented with a dilemma.

The whole "killing is wrong" just doesn't work as a "universal rule" because there are always exceptions, and people can't agree where the line should be drawn.

Killing in self defense, when there is no other option? Most but not all say that's ok

Killing an animal for human benefit? Depends on how much benefit, and depends on the animal (cute puppy? rabid rat?). People have huge variances on where they would draw the line for this one

Assisted suicide for the terminally ill?...

And so on


Hard and fast rules for "what is right and what is wrong" don't work. There are always exceptions, and people can't agree on which exceptions are acceptable vs which are not.

2D8HP
2017-12-18, 01:43 PM
A village is invaded by a bloodthirsty band of Orcs. They are killing everyone in site without hesitation. A group of villagers are hiding in a cellar, and a baby with them starts to cry. The villagers assertively cover the baby's mouth as a group of Orcs enter the house and stand directly above them. The Orcs don't move... if they keep smothering the baby any longer it sill suffocate and die... if they let the baby breath, the cry will alert the Orcs of their location... what do they do?

The reason this is such a dilemma is that it strongly pits two different internal moral "gut feelings" against each other..
Reminds me of an incident in the final episode of Mash that led to Hawkeye having a mental breakdown.

Anyway as a player, unless I has a lot of trust and history with the DM, if I was presented with such a scenerio I would leave the game, as that kind of dilemma isn't my idea of fun, I have too many quandries in real life already.

vasilidor
2017-12-18, 02:22 PM
on pragmatism: I honestly see value in being pragmatic, it saves lives and can prevent problems from happening in the first place. I also see engaging in activities that are guaranteed to end in our death or the death of others as stupid. giving away a hiding place to confront the orcs in this scenario only works if there exist a way out and you are acting as a speed bump so others can get away, which would only make sense to do so if you were discovered to begin with.

that said, I know that there are ways of quieting a child without smothering them, and would try those first if I had the mind to do so and was not outright panicking. panic screws everything. in such a emergency situation one can hold a child's mouth shut if you ensure that they can breathe threw their nose. sometimes they just need something to suck on, try a finger.

fact of the matter is in such scenarios (these have happened in real life) the only real choices are between the child dying or everyone (including the child) dying if you cannot get the child to be quiet otherwise. It is a sad thing, yes, but I would not condemn any person he or she chose to live through such a scenario, even if I am not sure I could not live with myself for making such a choice. these are the things of nightmares.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-18, 03:14 PM
Actually, that means intuitive gut ethics can't possibly be more valuable than pragmatic ethics.


And I can't stomach these arguments. Make a rational argument for a law, or don't bother asking for my support.

I'm no longer a part of this discussion, so you can save the effort of trying to counter me.

vasilidor
2017-12-18, 07:44 PM
on the issue of things like cluster bombs, collateral damage is the entire reason for outlawing them. It is a logical reason for the law. the reason for laws against bio or chemical weapons has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with how it makes people feel, but rather the fact you cannot control them.
for that matter laws based on "this does not feel right to me." quite often have horrific consequences. but continuing down this line will lead to real life examples.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-18, 09:13 PM
I'm no longer a part of this discussion, so you can save the effort of trying to counter me.

You replied to the other half of that post previously... also, my comment was about the "but what about the ______?" arguments that others make, not what you were saying.

kyoryu
2017-12-18, 10:17 PM
A village is invaded by a bloodthirsty band of Orcs. They are killing everyone in site without hesitation. A group of villagers are hiding in a cellar, and a baby with them starts to cry. The villagers assertively cover the baby's mouth as a group of Orcs enter the house and stand directly above them. The Orcs don't move... if they keep smothering the baby any longer it sill suffocate and die... if they let the baby breath, the cry will alert the Orcs of their location... what do they do?

Oh, hey, it's the trolley problem.

"Are you a Utilitarian or a Deontologist?"

vasilidor
2017-12-18, 10:23 PM
there is a third solution to the trolley problem, drop yourself in front of it. to be honest though, I never believed that any person large enough to stop the trolley would be capable of getting out of there own house, and the only thing that you would actually accomplish is an additional corpse.
In the variation were you pull a lever to determine if it kills one person on the track or let it go down the other side by doing nothing were it will kill ten. now take into consideration the high likely hood of derailment in either situation I present a third option: derail the trolley by holding the lever in the center position. It guarantees derailment of the trolley, and prevents any future possible damage past the ten or one that you can see. that said the possibility of derailment is not guaranteed if you let it go down path a or b, but with option c it is, and it is the only option that prevents damage past the one or ten becoming a possibility.

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 10:50 PM
Oh, hey, it's the trolley problem.

"Are you a Utilitarian or a Deontologist?"Not quite the trolley problem. This is a different classic dilemma that has been around just as long. Various implications are different, but yes the core dilemma is the same. "maximize the good & minimize the bad" vs "Some things are just wrong... period"


there is a third solution to the trolley problem, drop yourself in front of it. to be honest though, I never believed that any person large enough to stop the trolley would be capable of getting out of there own house, and the only thing that you would actually accomplish is an additional corpse.Funny you should say that. There was a study done about the trolley dilemma where people were polled on their opinion on the matter. (i.e. what percent said that pulling the lever was justifiable)

The study went further and added a twist. "what if someone saw the trolley going out of control towards a crowd of people, and you were standing on an overpass beside a very large man... and decided to push that man onto the tracks to stop the train". Way less people approved of this than the standard "pull the lever" option. In another poll they set up yet another scenario "what if you pulled a lever that opened a trap door, which made the large man fall on the tracks"... this was still less acceptable than the standard question, but more acceptable than pushing the man off the overpass.

At the end of the day, all three scenarios have the same premise. The observer takes an action, that action kills one innocent bystander while saving a group of others who were in imminent danger. Is that ok?

According to the three different surveys (note it wasn't the same people for each survey)
1) Pulling lever and redirecting train - mostly acceptable
2) pulling lever and person falling on track - slightly unacceptable
3) pushing man onto track - highly unacceptable

Interesting question is, "why?". Why the big difference in acceptability, when the same thing is happening. Only the mechanics of how it happens change.

Please note that I read this in a multi-paragraph article... my summary probably doesn't do it justice.


How about that... a quick google search found me an article that covers all of these points and more. (http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jul-aug/12-vexing-mental-conflict-called-morality)

vasilidor
2017-12-18, 11:07 PM
I see no difference in positions 2 and 3, in that I think both would be ineffective. I would be extremely hard pressed to believe it would have any change beyond +1 dead people on what would be an already too high death toll. I think this is a dead horse.

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 11:28 PM
I see no difference in positions 2 and 3, in that I think both would be ineffective. I would be extremely hard pressed to believe it would have any change beyond +1 dead people on what would be an already too high death toll. I think this is a dead horse.I'm not overly concerned with what I think is morally ok, or even what people on this board think is morally ok. Or even if people think the scenario is dumb.

What I find interesting is what this says about the moral compass of humans in general. What I found interesting is how people responded to the questions.

Now that I found the article, I can check the numbers and see that 90% of people found #1 to be ok. 60% found #2 to be ok, and 30% found #3 to be ok.

So for someone like you who sees no difference between 2 and 3... don't you find it odd that the general population disagrees with you? What is different for them? Why do they see a distinction between the two?

As for the dead horse comment... philosophers have been asking these types of questions for centuries... that horse will never die (or maybe it is undead)

Calthropstu
2017-12-19, 02:43 AM
I'm not overly concerned with what I think is morally ok, or even what people on this board think is morally ok. Or even if people think the scenario is dumb.

What I find interesting is what this says about the moral compass of humans in general. What I found interesting is how people responded to the questions.

Now that I found the article, I can check the numbers and see that 90% of people found #1 to be ok. 60% found #2 to be ok, and 30% found #3 to be ok.

So for someone like you who sees no difference between 2 and 3... don't you find it odd that the general population disagrees with you? What is different for them? Why do they see a distinction between the two?

As for the dead horse comment... philosophers have been asking these types of questions for centuries... that horse will never die (or maybe it is undead)

The horse has true ressurection cast on it twice every year by college philosophy instructors.

icefractal
2017-12-19, 06:14 AM
I never believed that any person large enough to stop the trolley would be capable of getting out of there own house, and the only thing that you would actually accomplish is an additional corpse.Surprise twist! This is happening in Eclipse Phase, and the "fat man" is in some kind of ridiculously heavy morph that really could stop a trolley.

Also, the 10 people definitely have back-ups, but they don't have morph insurance and so the cost will be added to their debts, resulting in at least a decade more of indenture. The fat man /probably/ is backed up, but you can't be sure. Also, the trolley is being piloted by a fork of yourself, so "you'll" be directly killing someone either way. What do you do? 😛


(That's one thing I don't think the EP books mention - just how screwed the legal system would be by the ability of people to create bizarre edge-case scenarios on demand. And I'm sure someone would have the incentive to do so.)

Pleh
2017-12-19, 06:23 AM
I'm no longer a part of this discussion, so you can save the effort of trying to counter me.

You are in and out and you'll likely be back later, not that you were ever really intending to be open minded in the discussion (nor that there is anything actuallu wrong with that).

But I will continue posting about it, if applicable, because you are not the only person involved in the discourse, even if my remarks directly reacted to yours.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-19, 06:36 AM
You are in and out and you'll likely be back later

I can guarantee you I wont. I keep reading because there are some interesting points raised.

2D8HP
2017-12-19, 08:43 AM
I'm no longer a part of this discussion..
:confused:

Why the post?

Pleh
2017-12-19, 10:45 AM
Because some people need other people to know when they are being snubbed and can't stand not having the last word.

Back to the topic, I think we pretty much all agree that the Trolley problem is far too nitty gritty to consider in the broader scope of "how to play a good aligned character." There should be valid Good characters that might choose either answer (and some that take alternative paths) and they should all still get to be Good.

Should Good be okay with poison is more appropriate to discuss, but almost deserves its own thread.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 10:47 AM
Because some people need other people to know when they are being snubbed and can't stand not having the last word.

Back to the topic, I think we pretty much all agree that the Trolley problem is far too nitty gritty to consider in the broader scope of "how to play a good aligned character." There should be valid Good characters that might choose either answer (and some that take alternative paths) and they should all still get to be Good.

Should Good be okay with poison is more appropriate to discuss, but almost deserves its own thread.

Poison is a tool. Stabbed with a blade, disintegrated by a spell, poisoned, doesn't matter, dead is dead.

"Good" lies in the intent and the outcome, not in the tools used.

Kaptin Keen
2017-12-19, 10:58 AM
.
:confused:

Why the post?

Why not?

It's politeness. Essentially, I'm trying to round off in a respectful manner - giving a final reply, but also stating clearly that I'm no longer engaged in the discussion. And giving others the last word, if they want it.

The topic still interests me, so I'm still reading, but making no further arguments. Something wrong with that?

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 12:18 PM
Back to the topic, I think we pretty much all agree that the Trolley problem is far too nitty gritty to consider in the broader scope of "how to play a good aligned character." There should be valid Good characters that might choose either answer (and some that take alternative paths) and they should all still get to be Good.For sure. I didn't bring the Trolley problem up as a test for a "good" player. It isn't intended as a test for anything. I brought it up to illustrate a point on how we (the people typing, and humans in general) think about what is and isn't moral.

It was brought up to show that we can't write a list of "rules" for someone to be "good". (e.g. don't kill, don't steal, don't kick puppies). We can't even make up a consistent high level approach (e.g. "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few")

Philosophers have been arguing this for centuries, without a clear answer. Neuroscientists are starting to dig into how our brain responds to moral dilemmas... hoping to get a new take on it, but they haven't found an answer either.

So simply put there is no consistent description of what is and isn't Good. I'm not saying that this discussion is entirely pointless, but anyone who says the have "the answer" is full of it. Anyone with the philosophy of "this is good, and that is bad. End of story", is categorically wrong in my opinion. (maybe I am creating a contradiction by suggesting "there are no absolutes")

At best we can say things like "In general, a character should do ____ to be considered good, but there likely are some exceptions"

Tinkerer
2017-12-19, 01:14 PM
So simply put there is no consistent description of what is and isn't Good. I'm not saying that this discussion is entirely pointless, but anyone who says the have "the answer" is full of it. Anyone with the philosophy of "this is good, and that is bad. End of story", is categorically wrong in my opinion. (maybe I am creating a contradiction by suggesting "there are no absolutes")

At best we can say things like "In general, a character should do ____ to be considered good, but there likely are some exceptions"

True however in a fantasy world the question which has plagued mankind since the dawn of time can be answered. "Good" in most D&D editions is established as what the gods *think* is good. When I run a D&D style setting I make it very clear to my players that "good" and "evil" in the game world don't necessarily sync up to the real world concepts. They are demonstrable physical laws imposed on the world by the gods.

And since alignment is based on actions rather than intent there are a lot more good aligned characters who are evil on the inside and just waiting for their chance. It also means that you can buy off your evil actions with good deeds. One villain was a public philanthropist who once every few years hunted down and murdered a random victim, something which causes an alignment hit. However considering the amount of good that he did and the number of lives he saved it still kept him firmly in the good side of the alignment chart. On the flip side executioners are almost always evil in my world due to their job involving killing helpless people, something which is defined as evil by the ruling gods.

Now admittedly that is an extreme example of the situation however considering alignment in D&D is an actual law of nature with demonstrable consequences the point is don't confuse it with traditional morality.

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 01:32 PM
True however in a fantasy world the question which has plagued mankind since the dawn of time can be answered. "Good" in most D&D editions is established as what the gods *think* is good. When I run a D&D style setting I make it very clear to my players that "good" and "evil" in the game world don't necessarily sync up to the real world concepts. They are demonstrable physical laws imposed on the world by the gods.An interesting take on it, and a perfectly plausible one to work with in a fantasy world. It could be challenging if the gods were fickle and inconsistent (look at the stories of Zeus etc.)... but I guess that also could make life easier for a GM (Player "but I thought the gods said that was evil", GM "They changed their minds")


And since alignment is based on actions rather than intent there are a lot more good aligned characters who are evil on the inside and just waiting for their chance.Is that actually in the rules, or how you interpret it for your games? I don't recall reading the whole actions vs intent thing anywhere.


It also means that you can buy off your evil actions with good deeds. One villain was a public philanthropist who once every few years hunted down and murdered a random victim, something which causes an alignment hit. However considering the amount of good that he did and the number of lives he saved it still kept him firmly in the good side of the alignment chart. On the flip side executioners are almost always evil in my world due to their job involving killing helpless people, something which is defined as evil by the ruling gods.It has all sorts of nasty implications. You could have an assassin who takes on challenging targets by spending a year acting like a hero to get public praise and trust... while his intentions were always just to get close to the prince during an awards ceremony.


Now admittedly that is an extreme example of the situation however considering alignment in D&D is an actual law of nature with demonstrable consequences the point is don't confuse it with traditional morality.But then the whole "it depends" gets even bigger... because it depends on which fantasy world you are in, and what the moral laws are of that fantasy world. Does intent matter, or is it just actions? Is it the view of the gods? What if there are multiple "good" aligned gods, and they don't even agree?

Tinkerer
2017-12-19, 02:22 PM
An interesting take on it, and a perfectly plausible one to work with in a fantasy world. It could be challenging if the gods were fickle and inconsistent (look at the stories of Zeus etc.)... but I guess that also could make life easier for a GM (Player "but I thought the gods said that was evil", GM "They changed their minds")

Hmm, I never tried using fickle gods. It's usually been a quite well established system based around the particulars of the deific power structure in my games.


Is that actually in the rules, or how you interpret it for your games? I don't recall reading the whole actions vs intent thing anywhere.

It is based off the paladin only having issues with actions which they perform and also general play from pretty much everyone I've spoken to. I must say I've never heard of a character's alignment changing as a result of something that they thought.


It has all sorts of nasty implications. You could have an assassin who takes on challenging targets by spending a year acting like a hero to get public praise and trust... while his intentions were always just to get close to the prince during an awards ceremony.

Oh yes. And from the gods point of view that is fine. I mean the assassin did make the world a better place in order to accomplish their task. How many people did the assassin have to save and improve their lives in order to kill that one target? Gods are looking at a much bigger picture.


But then the whole "it depends" gets even bigger... because it depends on which fantasy world you are in, and what the moral laws are of that fantasy world. Does intent matter, or is it just actions? Is it the view of the gods? What if there are multiple "good" aligned gods, and they don't even agree?

Yep, it sure does. And I would much rather be answering those questions (my world has an answer to all of them but I don't think that's the point here) than debating about absolute morality and trolley questions for the billionth time. As soon as TSR made it so that something as arbitrary as good and evil was actually being used as a mechanic and an observable physical law rather than a concept I knew that I wanted to solidify the concept.

I can see why many people advocate simple removing alignments from the system however I found that a little boring since it was so ingrained in so many different parts of the settings that removing it removes some good flavour. I think my solution provides more interesting effects than that.

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 02:48 PM
It is based off the paladin only having issues with actions which they perform and also general play from pretty much everyone I've spoken to. I must say I've never heard of a character's alignment changing as a result of something that they thought.Well, in all my years of gaming, I have never seen a player's alignment change. Everyone I have played with have been reasonably good at following the spirit of their alignment, and all the DMs I have played with have been reasonably easy going on the subject.

But, in theory, I was thinking more along the lines of the player's motivation, rather than their thoughts. So in a setting where motivation mattered, a player wouldn't get "good points" for an action unless he/she was doing that action with good intentions. If the character did the "good deed" only for the reward, then it is just a "neutral point". If the character did the "good deed" to advance an evil plot, then... I'm not sure.


Oh yes. And from the gods point of view that is fine. I mean the assassin did make the world a better place in order to accomplish their task. How many people did the assassin have to save and improve their lives in order to kill that one target? Gods are looking at a much bigger picture.I actually like that. The character might not like it, but as an outside observer it makes for an interesting world, and it follows a consistent logic.


Yep, it sure does. And I would much rather be answering those questions (my world has an answer to all of them but I don't think that's the point here) than debating about absolute morality and trolley questions for the billionth time.Well, I was arguing that the trolley example was a reason why this debate is pointless, and why we can't have absolute morality... and as such there can't be a consistent description of "good". But your approach solves that problem (in game)

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 02:54 PM
True however in a fantasy world the question which has plagued mankind since the dawn of time can be answered. "Good" in most D&D editions is established as what the gods *think* is good. When I run a D&D style setting I make it very clear to my players that "good" and "evil" in the game world don't necessarily sync up to the real world concepts. They are demonstrable physical laws imposed on the world by the gods.

And since alignment is based on actions rather than intent there are a lot more good aligned characters who are evil on the inside and just waiting for their chance. It also means that you can buy off your evil actions with good deeds. One villain was a public philanthropist who once every few years hunted down and murdered a random victim, something which causes an alignment hit. However considering the amount of good that he did and the number of lives he saved it still kept him firmly in the good side of the alignment chart. On the flip side executioners are almost always evil in my world due to their job involving killing helpless people, something which is defined as evil by the ruling gods.

Now admittedly that is an extreme example of the situation however considering alignment in D&D is an actual law of nature with demonstrable consequences the point is don't confuse it with traditional morality.

If it's not actually "good" and "evil", then different words should be used. It's like saying "red in my campaign setting is not like red in the real world, it's some other color". It just causes confusion and conflict.

If morality is determined by a being's actions, then the same standard would apply to the deities.

If morality is determined by deific fiat... then it's not really morality, it's deifically-declared law.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-12-19, 03:14 PM
I don't think morality is determined by the gods in D&D settings in general.

Morality is a built in feature of the universe that even gods are held to. Which still doesn't mean it has to look like real life morality, of course.

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 03:16 PM
If it's not actually "good" and "evil", then different words should be used. It's like saying "red in my campaign setting is not like red in the real world, it's some other color". It just causes confusion and conflict.

If morality is determined by a being's actions, then the same standard would apply to the deities.

If morality is determined by deific fiat... then it's not really morality, it's deifically-declared law.The words "good" and "evil" don't even have a consistent meaning in the real world. Actually some real world people would and have argued for that exact definition (deific fiat). Can't go into that any further without violating forum rules though.

It isn't changing the meaning at all, it is just clarifying something vague.

Same thing goes for the meaning of "red". I could show a bunch of people a specific shade of color and have them argue if it is red or orange... and they wouldn't agree, just like we don't agree with morality. (I wouldn't know, I'm color blind)

Tinkerer
2017-12-19, 03:29 PM
If it's not actually "good" and "evil", then different words should be used. It's like saying "red in my campaign setting is not like red in the real world, it's some other color". It just causes confusion and conflict.

If morality is determined by a being's actions, then the same standard would apply to the deities.

If morality is determined by deific fiat... then it's not really morality, it's deifically-declared law.

Oh man, you're right. How could I mess with a system which has never caused confusion and conflict like the alignment system in D&D.:smallwink:

I can't really say that it ever caused confusion or conflict in my campaigns and that is the foremost concern in my books. And the deities are held to the same standard, when the standard is established (it is possible for it to be changed by a massive effort by the gods).

As to if it is really morality... let's take a look at the definition: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Yep, those distinctions are divinely set in the fantasy world so it seems to match up.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 03:51 PM
The words "good" and "evil" don't even have a consistent meaning in the real world. Actually some real world people would and have argued for that exact definition (deific fiat). Can't go into that any further without violating forum rules though.

It isn't changing the meaning at all, it is just clarifying something vague.


Deific fiat is nothing more or less than "X gets to tell you what's good and evil because they're more powerful than you are"... it's a classic case of "might makes right", and it's repugnant. If "good" and "evil" have any meaning at all, it can't be "the whim of the thing with the most power".




Same thing goes for the meaning of "red". I could show a bunch of people a specific shade of color and have them argue if it is red or orange... and they wouldn't agree, just like we don't agree with morality. (I wouldn't know, I'm color blind)


Why is it that nitpicking over edge cases because more important than the core distinction or the central point in these discussions?

Calthropstu
2017-12-19, 06:17 PM
I like this idea of gods decreeing good and evil and it changing with their whims.
The goddess of fertility is on the rag this week so it is evil for women to wear short skirts...

Alternatively, I came up with my own just now. Just as society shifts on what might be acceptable (If one of us were sent back to Rome in the BC era, most of us would likely be horrified) so too does the universe's moral compass.
Deities, bound to this compass as manifestations of the key points (ie N, NW being good, lawfulgood etc) shift their mandates accordingly.

Pleh
2017-12-20, 10:28 AM
Deific fiat is nothing more or less than "X gets to tell you what's good and evil because they're more powerful than you are"... it's a classic case of "might makes right", and it's repugnant. If "good" and "evil" have any meaning at all, it can't be "the whim of the thing with the most power".

Not necessarily.

It does depend a little on if the Deific Fiat is established descriptively or prescriptively. Prescriptive Deific Fiat is exactly what you say it is: "Good is what I say it is because I have the ability to enforce that decision."

However, it is possible to conceive a scenario that deities may just have a superior understanding of morality, not that their words define morality, but that their words describe it better than ours.

Think of it like the new AI Google has been developing, AlphaGo and AlphaGo Zero. It is possible for a computer to beat a Go world champion by simply cheating and redefining the game such that they win, but it's also possible for the AI to win by simply being better at the task of developing strategies by calculating permutations.

In some campaigns, Deific Fiat may just be asking the characters to trust the Deity's wisdom, not to appease their ego.

Cazero
2017-12-20, 10:42 AM
However, it is possible to conceive a scenario that deities may just have a superior understanding of morality, not that their words define morality, but that their words describe it better than ours.
The assumption that gods are wiser and thus know morality better than mortals may be a reasonable one (for most gods), but Deific Fiat is the completely different situation of gods making morality rather than guiding people toward it.

icefractal
2017-12-20, 10:47 AM
I've got to say, once "Good" no longer means what we'd recognize as "good", then why even call it that any more? Call it Red vs Blue, or Holy vs Unholy, or whatever. But at the point when you're like "The Good people are the real villains here!" then the word-choice is serving no purpose.

Tangent: Speaking of Holy vs Unholy, D&D apparently can't make up its mind whether it's a true pantheon or a pseudo-monotheist thing where the evil gods aren't really gods. This causes a lot of weird conflations between anti-god and pro-evil-god stuff, like the Desecrate spell and demon lords.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-20, 11:16 AM
Not necessarily.

It does depend a little on if the Deific Fiat is established descriptively or prescriptively. Prescriptive Deific Fiat is exactly what you say it is: "Good is what I say it is because I have the ability to enforce that decision."

However, it is possible to conceive a scenario that deities may just have a superior understanding of morality, not that their words define morality, but that their words describe it better than ours.

Think of it like the new AI Google has been developing, AlphaGo and AlphaGo Zero. It is possible for a computer to beat a Go world champion by simply cheating and redefining the game such that they win, but it's also possible for the AI to win by simply being better at the task of developing strategies by calculating permutations.

In some campaigns, Deific Fiat may just be asking the characters to trust the Deity's wisdom, not to appease their ego.

"Fiat (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiat)" as I've been using it inherently falls under "prescriptive" -- that "good" and "evil" are supposedly defined by the whim and will of the powerful entity; the deity literally declares it and makes it so. "Because I said so" is a terrible basis for any moral system, regardless of who is doing the declaring.

Aliquid
2017-12-20, 11:32 AM
"Because I said so" is a terrible basis for any moral system, regardless of who is doing the declaring.Which is usually followed by the "more powerful" individual failing to follow the rules they enforce and then saying "do as I say, not as I do".

I still feel that it makes the most sense for a fantasy world where gods who interact with the world exist, and people have "alignments", which can be measured... The other alternative is to scrap alignments and alignment specific spells (which is a perfectly valid option too)

Tinkerer
2017-12-20, 11:59 AM
"Fiat (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiat)" as I've been using it inherently falls under "prescriptive" -- that "good" and "evil" are supposedly defined by the whim and will of the powerful entity; the deity literally declares it and makes it so. "Because I said so" is a terrible basis for any moral system, regardless of who is doing the declaring.

In D&D it is already defined by the whim and will of a powerful entity. A... Master of the Game world if you will. I mean as a gaming community we haven't even been able to decide if slaughtering infants is an evil act or not so such things (within the game world) ultimately fall under "because I said so" anyways.

Pleh
2017-12-20, 12:04 PM
"Fiat (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiat)" as I've been using it inherently falls under "prescriptive" -- that "good" and "evil" are supposedly defined by the whim and will of the powerful entity; the deity literally declares it and makes it so. "Because I said so" is a terrible basis for any moral system, regardless of who is doing the declaring.

The definition you provide only mentions "arbitrary" in the third of three alternative definitions. The core essence is that it involves sanctions and authorization, slightly less that it not require any semblance of sense or reason.

You can still make descriptive fiats, if for no other reason that arbitrary fiats can still be constructed descriptively, even if there is no requirement that they do so.

But I agree that generally a Good focused deity handing down Descriptive Laws for Mortal Ethics would likely not be very heavy-handed with their enforcement. Part of the reason Good gods give laws on morality is because mortals struggle with the subject, so being absolutely unrelenting in enforcing the laws without any room for mercy is actually rather in itself a cruel thing, which is not good.

I just wanted to remind people here that there can be a Deific Voice saying, "This is how it is. No, there isn't really room for negotiation on these terms. No, I'm not going to automatically smite you with lightning for breaking the rules, because I'd rather help you learn how to become a better person than eradicate your existence... you know, because I'm not evil?

... But I will totally eradicate you if you ultimately decide this whole 'being evil' thing is what you want and you feel a need to go spreading it around wherever you go. I will totally protect everyone else from people that keep making it impossible for everyone else to progress in seeking goodness."

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-20, 01:03 PM
In D&D it is already defined by the whim and will of a powerful entity. A... Master of the Game world if you will. I mean as a gaming community we haven't even been able to decide if slaughtering infants is an evil act or not so such things (within the game world) ultimately fall under "because I said so" anyways.


I've been talking in-world, not meta-level. The fact that D&D conflates the two through Alignment is a special case.

If "the gaming community" can't decide if slaughtering infants is an evil act, then it has bigger problems than the minutia of edge case moral questions.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-20, 01:12 PM
The definition you provide only mentions "arbitrary" in the third of three alternative definitions. The core essence is that it involves sanctions and authorization, slightly less that it not require any semblance of sense or reason.

You can still make descriptive fiats, if for no other reason that arbitrary fiats can still be constructed descriptively, even if there is no requirement that they do so.

But I agree that generally a Good focused deity handing down Descriptive Laws for Mortal Ethics would likely not be very heavy-handed with their enforcement. Part of the reason Good gods give laws on morality is because mortals struggle with the subject, so being absolutely unrelenting in enforcing the laws without any room for mercy is actually rather in itself a cruel thing, which is not good.

I just wanted to remind people here that there can be a Deific Voice saying, "This is how it is. No, there isn't really room for negotiation on these terms. No, I'm not going to automatically smite you with lightning for breaking the rules, because I'd rather help you learn how to become a better person than eradicate your existence... you know, because I'm not evil?

... But I will totally eradicate you if you ultimately decide this whole 'being evil' thing is what you want and you feel a need to go spreading it around wherever you go. I will totally protect everyone else from people that keep making it impossible for everyone else to progress in seeking goodness."

And if that "Deific Voice" is relating or acting on a moral standard independent of itself, it's not "morality by fiat". (And note that an independent moral standard isn't the same as "good" and evil" as actual forces or energies.)

When terms like "rule by fiat", or "law by fiat", or "morality by fiat" are used in discussions on those topics, it's specifically in reference to someone using their power to declare something "to be so". "So let it be written, so let it be done".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fiat
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/08/morality-is-not-by-fiat/

Your "descriptive" case is specifically not "morality by fiat".

And no system of law can ever be perfectly moral, regardless of where it comes from.

Calthropstu
2017-12-20, 01:21 PM
I've been talking in-world, not meta-level. The fact that D&D conflates the two through Alignment is a special case.

If "the gaming community" can't decide if slaughtering infants is an evil act, then it has bigger problems than the minutia of edge case moral questions.

From a human point of view, yes, slaughtering babies is evil. But fantasy rpg's have fantasy creatures who may have alien concepts of morality. Even within our world, lions kill the young of defeated pride leaders. Are they evil?

For humans, it would be the epitomy of evil. From alien perspectives maybe not. But we are humans and must judge accordingly... so slaughtering babies from any gm's point of view should be considered evil... unless your gm isn't human.

Cazero
2017-12-20, 01:56 PM
From a human point of view, yes, slaughtering babies is evil. But fantasy rpg's have fantasy creatures who may have alien concepts of morality. Even within our world, lions kill the young of defeated pride leaders. Are they evil?
In the context of the alignement rules of D&D, morality is objective. So those creatures with an "alien concept of morality" really only have a curious rationalization of an amoral and/or imoral behavior, and lions probably are on the verge of Evil precisely because of those sort of things.

Tinkerer
2017-12-20, 01:59 PM
I've been talking in-world, not meta-level. The fact that D&D conflates the two through Alignment is a special case.

If "the gaming community" can't decide if slaughtering infants is an evil act, then it has bigger problems than the minutia of edge case moral questions.

Indeed, good thing we are discussing D&D here. One thing to bear in mind is that it isn't "deifically-declared law" as you put it, it's deifically-declared reality. A much different proposition. I do find it funny that most of the people here assumed that the alignment system doesn't apply to the gods themselves when in the cosmology of my worlds it applies most strongly to gods. For mortals the alignments are descriptive rather than prescriptive. For the gods though they are often prescriptive rather than descriptive, particularly within that particular gods wheelhouse. For instance the God of Truth cannot lie... well it's a little more involved than that. They could lie however the amount of deific energy it would expend would be roughly equivalent to creating a new world and the strain could actually "kill" them. I didn't really go into details on the specifics of the system I use since I was just using it as example.

For the baby killing dragon wyrmlings and orc babies are the two most common examples. Indeed baby killing is the classic alignment debate starting back in the pre-AD&D times. A dragon wyrmling possesses the intelligence of a full grown adult however it is still an infant. When orcs were always CE you knew that baby was going to grow up to pillage the countryside and besides that you just killed the babies parents. Were you going to adopt the children of the clan? If you drop them off in town the town is just going to kill them so if you want them to live that's not an option. You could just leave them to starve to death I suppose. Oooh, maybe you could travel to the orcish lands and try and drop it off there? Of course that is many days out of your way and the wizard is trying to turn the entire land into an undead wasteland so time is sort of a factor... Honestly I'm shocked that you haven't heard of this debate considering it's the oldest debate I'm aware of in the game.

vasilidor
2017-12-21, 02:29 PM
I know in some settings a dragon would change color if there alignment changed. to be honest I like Ebberon. in that setting any dragon could be any alignment. the monster manual alignment was a listing of majority alignments in that setting, and that varied by location (in civilized parts of the world goblins and orcs would actually gravitate towards neutral)
I just realized this has nothing to really do about this topic and this thread has been seriously derailed.
OK scenario: how does your character respond to an orc and a human each calling the other a murderous bandit asking for aid to kill the other? you are trying to play the good guy here, remember that.

Kantaki
2017-12-22, 08:41 AM
OK scenario: how does your character respond to an orc and a human each calling the other a murderous bandit asking for aid to kill the other? you are trying to play the good guy here, remember that.

Tie them both up, then sort things out.
Well, maybe not the tying up part, unless they are completely unwilling to listen to the voice of reason.
Resolve things as peacefully as possible anyway.

Pleh
2017-12-22, 09:25 AM
OK scenario: how does your character respond to an orc and a human each calling the other a murderous bandit asking for aid to kill the other? you are trying to play the good guy here, remember that.

Let's get this one out of the way: Detect Evil. A true murderous bandit would no doubt ping as evil.

Now the counterarguments to save the scenario: it could be that neither are truly bandits or murderous and it's all a misunderstanding, or both could be evil for totally different reasons, etc. Moving on from the divination answer.

Diplomacy. If both characters are attempting to call upon my good alignment to assist them by claiming the other to be evil, I will tell them, "if you are not a murderous bandit, lower your weapon and back off ten paces. Any act of aggression will be taken as admission of guilt." I'm assuming it was a melee engagement, so if this was ranged combat with both combatants firing from cover, replace "back off ten paces" with "step out into the open."

Essentially, it boils down to: "you are both claiming to be good while the other evil, so demonstrate the goodness of your character and act as a good character would; submit to a non-violent solution to establish justice at the risk of your own welfare."

Now, assuming that one person is a bandit and the other is not, we have generally 4 outcomes to the strategy:

A: Both combatants lower their weapons and step back ten paces. The Bandit has elected to maintain the ruse and I have bought myself some time to begin some deeper investigation and/or diplomatic resolution.
B: Neither combatant lowers their weapon and possibly fighting breaks out. I would have to attack whichever combatant made the first move to attack, unless I had some other information to advise my decision, but I would also have to work to keep the damage non-lethal and prevent the other combatant from murdering the aggressor before I could arrest them.
C: The non-bandit lowers their weapon and the Bandit decides to use the opportunity to drop the ruse and attack. At this point, he'd better hope he stands a good chance at beating the two of us (optimally that his first attacks incapacitates the other combatant instantly).
D: The Bandit lowers their weapon while the non-bandit attacks. This is an unfortunate scenario where the Bandit exercises a great deal more patience and diplomacy than their intended victim and the possibility of this scenario is the exact reason I need to be careful to use non-lethal damage regardless how anything seems.

vasilidor
2017-12-24, 05:54 AM
cant sleep, and i gots the stupid trolley, fat man, bridge scenario in my head. the fat man has to way something along the lines of half a million pounds to bring the trolley to a dead stop. less than that and the trolley may still plow through. was anyone on the trolley, most likely yes, and now they are dead by my pushing the fat man in the way. was anyone to the sides on the side walk? if so they may have also been hit. if this is still the san francisco trolley there is a good chance of hitting and killing someone on the sidewalk. realistically, the only action you can take in this scenario that actually has any hope of reducing casualties is no action at all, and the further we get from reality on he question, the less merit it has in any sort of morality test what so ever. (looked it up, those trolleys weigh 15500 pounds completely empty. now add in the conductor, and anywhere between 0 and fifty passengers that you cannot see (who will most likely die on impact from runaway speeds). I am really incapable of giving this scenario any serious thought beyond how absurd it is and now I am ranting. oh, and the fattest person on record is just shy of 1000 pounds, and the trolley is hitting at anywhere between 30 mph and 90 mph. theses little details add up in my head very quickly to tell me that pushing the fat guy just increases the death toll by one, at minimum, and it gets potentialy worse than that if, some how, I actually succeeded in my goal. other than that not bad on the responses for two guys fighting.

Calthropstu
2017-12-24, 09:15 PM
Let's get this one out of the way: Detect Evil. A true murderous bandit would no doubt ping as evil.

Now the counterarguments to save the scenario: it could be that neither are truly bandits or murderous and it's all a misunderstanding, or both could be evil for totally different reasons, etc. Moving on from the divination answer.

Diplomacy. If both characters are attempting to call upon my good alignment to assist them by claiming the other to be evil, I will tell them, "if you are not a murderous bandit, lower your weapon and back off ten paces. Any act of aggression will be taken as admission of guilt." I'm assuming it was a melee engagement, so if this was ranged combat with both combatants firing from cover, replace "back off ten paces" with "step out into the open."

Essentially, it boils down to: "you are both claiming to be good while the other evil, so demonstrate the goodness of your character and act as a good character would; submit to a non-violent solution to establish justice at the risk of your own welfare."

Now, assuming that one person is a bandit and the other is not, we have generally 4 outcomes to the strategy:

A: Both combatants lower their weapons and step back ten paces. The Bandit has elected to maintain the ruse and I have bought myself some time to begin some deeper investigation and/or diplomatic resolution.
B: Neither combatant lowers their weapon and possibly fighting breaks out. I would have to attack whichever combatant made the first move to attack, unless I had some other information to advise my decision, but I would also have to work to keep the damage non-lethal and prevent the other combatant from murdering the aggressor before I could arrest them.
C: The non-bandit lowers their weapon and the Bandit decides to use the opportunity to drop the ruse and attack. At this point, he'd better hope he stands a good chance at beating the two of us (optimally that his first attacks incapacitates the other combatant instantly).
D: The Bandit lowers their weapon while the non-bandit attacks. This is an unfortunate scenario where the Bandit exercises a great deal more patience and diplomacy than their intended victim and the possibility of this scenario is the exact reason I need to be careful to use non-lethal damage regardless how anything seems.

Actually, let's be honest here. Most bandits are chaotic hungry. Yeah, there are those that do it for fun or malice, but most law breakers do so out of necessity (or what they see as necessity) so detect evil will rarely ping. If it's pf they don't even ping at all unless they are 5th level or higher.

Also, it is entirely possible for an evil bandit to attack an evil merchant on the road. What happens when both ping as evil?

vasilidor
2017-12-24, 11:38 PM
If I was running it, and they pinged as evil, they are probably murderers or worse. In those games I run in order to be evil, and detect as evil, one must have actually done evil.

Calthropstu
2017-12-25, 02:10 AM
If I was running it, and they pinged as evil, they are probably murderers or worse. In those games I run in order to be evil, and detect as evil, one must have actually done evil.

Or have an evil item. Or have donned a helm of oppisite alignment. Or have been born in the Abyss. Or have the evil subtype. All of those will ping as evil.

hamishspence
2017-12-25, 03:55 AM
Plus, as Eberron (and Fiendish Codex : Tyrants of the Nine Hells) demonstrate, there are plenty of acts of evil in between "not evil at all" and "murder"

"Having actually done evil" does not mean "murderer or worse".

Calthropstu
2017-12-25, 12:51 PM
Plus, as Eberron (and Fiendish Codex : Tyrants of the Nine Hells) demonstrate, there are plenty of acts of evil in between "not evil at all" and "murder"

"Having actually done evil" does not mean "murderer or worse".

True. A landlord who terrorizes his tenants who can't afford to move, a baron who rapes every woman on his land, a merchant who swindles everyone to the point of destroying lives, a 15 year blasting bieber music...

All are examples of evil that don't involve killing.

The Glyphstone
2017-12-25, 01:38 PM
True. A landlord who terrorizes his tenants who can't afford to move, a baron who rapes every woman on his land, a merchant who swindles everyone to the point of destroying lives, a 15 year blasting bieber music...

All are examples of evil that don't involve killing.

Only the first three are Evil. The fourth one has the [Vile] descriptor.

vasilidor
2017-12-25, 03:53 PM
It really depends on which crime you consider worse.

Pleh
2017-12-26, 07:13 AM
Yes, detect evil is quite insufficient (by itself) if the DM is employing any degree of moral complexity at all (which admittedly is more likely to be true if they present the given scenario).

That said, if I kill an evil baron being attacked by a chaotic hungry bandit, I won't probably feel very badly about that. I'd be more concerned about reprisals and possible political instability for the baron's presumably oppressed subjects.

vasilidor
2017-12-26, 02:55 PM
on the whole detect evil thing, I went through my old campaign notes to confirm that only those that had done evil had detected evil, and was able to confirm for myself that even those with evil ancestory had detected as evil only when they had committed evil (had one play a teifling, one a damphire) had detected as evil. alignment changing had never come up. something to keep in mind for future campaigns i guess.