alignment is bad and you should feel bad

[Florian]

If the scenario were placed into a game then yes... but if this is a "real world" thought experiment, then nobody "set up the scenario" it is something that you hypothetically stumble into.

We face all sorts of real world dilemmas on a regular basis... the trolley problem is just a thought experiment that takes those dilemmas to an extreme, to see what people's moral response is.

And it´s Kindergarten. The real question is whether you take responsibility for your action and be ready to face the blame.

[Max_Killjoy]

If the scenario were placed into a game then yes... but if this is a "real world" thought experiment, then nobody "set up the scenario" it is something that you hypothetically stumble into.

We face all sorts of real world dilemmas on a regular basis... the trolley problem is just a thought experiment that takes those dilemmas to an extreme, to see what people's moral response is.

How did all those people get tied to the tracks if no one set it up?

If they're not tied to the tracks, then they can move and there's no dilemma.

[Aliquid]

How did all those people get tied to the tracks if no one set it up?

If they're not tied to the tracks, then they can move and there's no dilemma.

the standard “trolly dilemma” doesn’t have anyone tied to tracks. People just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they in theory can’t move because they don’t have time, or aren’t aware in time or something.

[Max_Killjoy]

the standard “trolly dilemma” doesn’t have anyone tied to tracks. People just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they in theory can’t move because they don’t have time, or aren’t aware in time or something.

Which then calls into question whether there's time to realize what's happening, make a moral decision, and switch the tracks.

[King of Nowhere]

Not helping people in need is pretty much Neutral by most descriptions of alignment. It kind of defines Neutral on the Good/Evil axis - helping others, at no benefit to yourself, is exactly what a Good act is!

I'd generally agree with this, but not in a life-or-death situation with little to no risk from the person doing the helping. General rules fall apart in the face of extreme enough situations. If you don't jump into the river to rescue a drowning person, well, jumping into the river would have put you at risk too, I'd call it neutral; if you had a rope handy, and you refuse to throw it, then I'd say denying help to a dieing person because you can't be bothered to spend some minutes, with no risk for yourself, is a pretty evil act. But we're going on a tangent here.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

I'm saying that most people decide what alignment means in game based on their real life value system. Not the other way around.

But you aren't pretending that you are a "good guy" and "doing the morally right thing" while you do that. You aren't saying "In this game nuking people is totally virtuous behavior." You are playing a game and having fun, while being fully aware that this isn't in line with your real world values.

They are imposing their real world beliefs into the alignment system of the game. Bashing one is bashing the other.

There is a difference between this statement:
"In this game your character can torture 'evil' children for fun"

and this statement:
"In this game your character can torture 'evil' children for fun and still qualify as one of the 'good' guys"

Unless you make this statement:
"In this world, 'alignment' is so distorted by the powers of the insane gods that a character could torture 'evil' children for fun and still qualify as one of the 'good' guys. Your character doesn't have to agree with this morality, but that's what is enforced by the gods"

Ah, ok. Now I see your point better.
Still, I think you're not giving gamers enough credit. Yes, some people do apply their real life values to alignment. I'm one of them. But those people are the ones who do NOT say "orcs are evil, let's kill everyone". They are the people that will have blurred sides and adventures with difficult moral choices, where paladins may get their hands dirty from time to time and you need to judge case-by-case what to do with enemy noncombatants, or with those who surrender.
Those others gamers who are applying the "alignment makes for easy targeting" approach do not apply their values from real life. At least, I've never seen anyone propose (not seriously at least) to exterminate all relatives of terrorists because "they are evil". Which is what is done with orcs in those groups that you bash.
To be fair, I have never seen a group who uses that version of alignment and morality. But I think, if it was a common view, it would be heard more often.
P.S. If you think of comments in online newspapers, most of those people are venting out their emotions and do not really think what they write. I say it because I know several people like that.

A person could do actively Good works all their life, and yet they kill someone once for "no good reason", and continue doing seriously Good works, but never repent the killing ... and they're Evil? This is exactly what I mean by "Fall from Grace" thinking. If you prefer: the weight of single Evil actions always outweighs the cumulative of small Good actions. They never match up on the "balancing scale".

Well, for every rule you can find exceptions, if you look at sufficnetly extreme or strange cases. Still, it is difficult to accept the quoted argument.
I mean, there is this absolutely genuinely good person, who helps other people all his life, right? And then this guy sudddenly decides to murder someone. And then he goes on to do good, and he never repents murdering that someone. What kind of person is this? If he's a truly good person, and he killed somebody in a moment of rage, then he'll surely regret it. If he does not regret because he had a good reason for doing it, then the "for no good reason" condition falls. Looks like the only possibility is that the guy is totally nuts, and should seek professional help.

[Tanarii]

That the trolley problem is not yet thoroughly discredited bunk, just drives home the point that the creators of D&D Alignment had a better grasp on the realities of morality and ethics than people who "study" it in real life.

(By which I mean they can't even clear that low bar.)

Well, for every rule you can find exceptions, if you look at sufficnetly extreme or strange cases. Still, it is difficult to accept the quoted argument.
I mean, there is this absolutely genuinely good person, who helps other people all his life, right? And then this guy sudddenly decides to murder someone. And then he goes on to do good, and he never repents murdering that someone. What kind of person is this? If he's a truly good person, and he killed somebody in a moment of rage, then he'll surely regret it. If he does not regret because he had a good reason for doing it, then the "for no good reason" condition falls. Looks like the only possibility is that the guy is totally nuts, and should seek professional help.

I agree it's a rather extreme outlier case, and probably merits psychological examination.

Let's instead make it someone that murders due to reason, a Bond is involved (5e style), and thus has no regrets. One time only. And otherwise has a consistently has a good typical associated behavior. In 5e Alignments, that should be a Good character. But fall from Grace and single Evil Actions count most thinkers will rarely agree with that.

[Florian]

@King of Nowhere:

Plus, notice the lack of "Orc children" anywhere in those games. Should give a hint.

[2D8HP]

That the trolley problem.

My first exposure to the "Trolley problem" was in a 2009 "Justice" broadcast of a Harvard University lecture...



....which (Full disclosure: I have never taken any College/University classes, but I've read some textbooks that my wife had from her time as a Harvard law student), after my initial gratitude upon seeing it televised, quickly made me reflect on how I could see no extra merit in the banter of the college students than I could in the minds of most of my inferiourly educates co-workers... [extended rant]

...... the only place other than this Forum that I have encountered the "trolley problem" is:

Existential Comic #106

[ImNotTrevor]

That the trolley problem is not yet thoroughly discredited bunk, just drives home the point that the creators of D&D Alignment had a better grasp on the realities of morality and ethics than people who "study" it in real life.

(By which I mean they can't even clear that low bar.)

It's a thought experiment.
Like the ones that were used to demonstrate the principles of relativity.

If you think the point is to present a common and realistic problem, then you're sorely mistaken.

It could be simplified, though, if the circumstances bother you.

You are in a room with a button. If you push it, 1 person will die. If you don't, 5 will die. You have 3 seconds. Go.

It is interesting for its merit as a QUESTION, not its merit as a scenario and definitely not for answering questions. You can't debunk a question.

[Tanarii]

...... the only place other than this Forum that I have encountered the "trolley problem" is:

Existential Comic #106

Lol I like that.

It's entirely possible I'm not being fair to philosophers that study morality. And that the Trolley Problem is thoroughly discredited bunk, that gets dragged out and used anyway both by freshmen professors and forum posters. It's not like that doesn't happen all the time in many other cases.

But the impression I get is its more like Parallel Universes & quantum physics, a BS thought experiment gone bad based on a underlying premise extended too far, that too many people who study the subject don't understand is bunk.

[Aliquid]

Which then calls into question whether there's time to realize what's happening, make a moral decision, and switch the tracks.

Agreed. My understanding is that someone is beside the switch and can see the impending tragedy. They have basically a second to decide “pull the switch or not”. That isn’t enough time to make a moral decision. It is enough time to make a gut decision.

Me personally, I wouldn’t pull the switch, not because of any moral belief... but because I would freeze and respond too slowly.

Often the scenario is put forward as not “what would you do” but “John saw this scenario and pulled the switch. Did he do the right thing? Can the dead person’s family justifiably go after him for manslaughter? Etc

[Arbane]

Pffft. We can do better than that.

Did someone mention alignment in a D&D thread?

On Twin Faerun, a druid(me) in a town is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the druid can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows trolleys. The druid is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the druid can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single lawful neutral cleric, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the druid steers the trolley to the right. If the cleric on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty elves (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the elves' caravan will be crossing later that night). One of the elves that will be killed would have grown up to become a Lawful Evil tyrant who would make good utilitarian halflings do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become Drizzt, while a third would invent the Vancian Magic system.

If the druid chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a Chaotic Good bard on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local temple that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows hearts. If the bard on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the cleric on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten dwarves: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local temple for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the carvan of elves will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the wizard responsible for putting the druid at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis spells available, however the druid does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the druid's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other druids and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the druid chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue (Chaotic Good), while if the druid chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result (Lawful Evil). Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the druid in such a manner that the druid is never sure if it is being deceived.


QUESTION: What should I do to avoid losing my powers?

[Frozen_Feet]

The thing is though... if the game suddenly switches to "frail seniors who beg for mercy", and all the cheering stops, except for one guy who keeps going "yeah! Ha! Smash those seniors. ha, ha, ha... *sigh* look at them beg". Many people would feel uncomfortable around that person, and worry about his mental health.

And maybe they have a reason to, but only because you moved the goal posts from one end of the field to another.

Hint: sudden, realistic portrayal of human suffering (like the above example) is not psychologically the same as expected, unrealistic suffering of anti-humans (slaughter of xenomorphs, orcs, or demons).

You don't even have to change the "unrealistic" part, only the "sudden". For example, people have different reactions to horror movies on second and further viewings. The first view has much greater shock factor which distract from other traits of the movies, where as once the shock factor is gone, analysis and humour become possible. That is, the person who is morally shocked by the slaughter of seniors, and the person who laughs at their destruction, can be the same person, just at different points of time.

What I'm saying is that being ok with in game infanticide is a similar thing (although to a much lesser degree). i.e. most people seem to feel uncomfortable with it, and will look at you (or me) funny if we say "what's the big deal, it's a goblin"

The body of players who gleefully run over human civilians in GTA is probably larger than the entire player base of tabletop RPGs. That is, I vehemently disagree with your assessment of "most people". Feeling moral discomfort over infanticide of orcs is niche concern for people in a niche hobby. The only times when such discomfort has reached mainstream has been during moral panics over how new media is bad to children, such as the Satanic panic over D&D

There are always boundaries, and the boundaries are different for everyone. Some people think that the most vile person just needs a hug, and they will turn nice...

And I don't disagree with that, I disagree over which sort of boundaries are normal, or, which should be used as the basis for deciding whether something is a genuine problem.

I know there are people who get upset over any sort of fictional violence, but using those people as a standard for what is morally bad in games makes about as much sense as using blind people as standards for visual arts, deaf people as standards for music, or Max_Killjoy as standard for using fiction tropes in RPGs is.

I would suggest another category: people who can't comprehend someone different than them.

Normal people comprehend just fine why violence against fictional beings is morally a non-problem and why violence in games is fun.

.

Many people can get past that mental hurdle (some people are different than me), but they still can't imagine a sentient creature that isn't human.

True, but also irrelevant, because people have no problem understanding that game objects are unreal and hence arguments about them have different weight than arguments about real humans.

And this is why they can't imagine such a creature being "always evil"... because that would mean that a human could be "always evil", and they don't want to go there.

You may be right, you mayve wrong, but you're also chasing a red herring.

The only thing that's required for a normal person to happily genocide xenomorphs, devils, orcs or whatever is for them to grok the trivial fact that the game events are unreal, and hence no real killing is taking place. Worrying about philosophical implications of the concept of "always evil" is domain of smart people who are being stupid in a very particular way, and people who listen to their rhetoric.

That is, the problem you describe is an artificial one that's entirely avoided by not making the argument you're trying to make in the first place.

Not quite. My concern is more that (as above), there are people that can't separate fantasy creatures with humans... and as such when I say "monster babies can be evil", they subconsciously hear "human babies can be evil", and I don't want them to hear me saying that... even if that isn't what I mean. My concern is more the perception of others than my own perception.

And I don't disagree about the existence of such people. I disagree about using them as a standard for what's normal, or what' good gaming. Because while your argument is not exactly the same as moral alarmists (moral alarmists would claim I genuinely mean human babies are evil, or would come to believe that as result of playing games), it on effect asks me to bow to their whims.

I'll have none of that, thank you very much.

If someone thinks that when I say killing Xenomorph larvae (etc.) is morally acceptable in a game and thinks I am endorsing real-life infanticide, the problem isn't me nor the xenomorphs (etc.).

This is not a hypothetical question nor a hypothetical answer. All of my hobbies have been subject to bizarre preconceptions, stereotypes and moral panic from the part of outsiders. "Having concern" over incorrect "subconscious" perceptions of people would force me to hide under a rock.

[Tanarii]

Pffft. We can do better than that.

Any question that involves killing / not killing child-Drizzt has an obvious answer: always kill Drizzt. There is no greater evil than letting child-Drizzt live, no matter the resulting consequences.

[Frozen_Feet]

[The Trolley Problem is] Kindergarten.

Actually 7th or 8th grade*) (ages 13 to 14) of elementary school where I'm from. But yes, a concept that's meant to serve as introduction to the concept of moral dilemmas is basic. (Which is also why people like Max_Killjoy nitpicking it are being, bluntly, stupid. It's the equivalent of saying the fable of Frog and the Scorpion is bad because real animals don't talk.)

*) Though I recall we went over the Heinz dilemma in the lower grades, possibly 2nd or 3rd. (Ages 8 to 9)

---

The "objective morality" that both the detractors and defenders of Alignment alike describe... is sick, an absurdist horror show where supposed morality is defined simplistically by the actions one takes.

D&D is a game with Judeo-Christian devils, Lovecraftian cosmic horrors, vampires, werewolves and ghosts from gothic horror, Aesir and other polyteistic pantheons with decidedly non-modern morals, as well as a host of completely original creatures with such identifying traits as eating brains, killing you by looking, or masquerading as mundande objects in order to kill and deceive you.

In other words: why do you object to the game being an absurdist horror show on one level, when the potential to be so is built into the game at all levels?

Beyond a simple matter of taste, being a sick, absurdist horror show is no obstacle to being a good game. Which is both why your statement fails as a criticism of the Alignment system, and why Lamentations of the Flame Princess is one of the more successfull retroclones.

[2D8HP]

Pffft. We can do better than that.

QUESTION: What should I do to avoid losing my powers?

Thanks for that.

I'm totally going to steal make proper use of that in future threads if some doesn't beat my to it.

using those people as a standard for what is morally bad in games makes about as much sense as using blind people as standards for visual arts, deaf people as standards for music, or *********** as standard for using fiction tropes in RPGs is.
.

.


I'm completely appalled that you would single out *********** for ridicule like that, and I will post a lengthy screed on how offended I am as soon as I can stop laughing and get up off the floor.

Actually 7th or 8th grade*) (ages 13 to 14) of elementary school where I'm from.

.
Again someone cites something from school that I don't remember at all.

Which makes me wonder what exactly was taught?

I remember the pain of getting hit with in dodgeball, the pain of getting tackled in smear the queer, how much less painful cutting PE and hanging out with the girls who went out of the gym and smoked, instead of staying with the other boys hitting each other was, and that whatever was in the teachers thermos smelled very strong.

That's about it.

....and why Lamentations of the Flame Princess is one of the more successfull retroclones.

.
I really like the rules for LotFP, but I would think twice before showing any of the art outside of a GWAR concert.

[Max_Killjoy]

I really like the rules for LotFP, but I would think twice before showing any of the art outside of a GWAR concert.

That's about right... though I'm not so enthused about the rules either.

Again someone cites something from school that I don't remember at all.

Which makes me wonder what exactly was taught?

Elementary and middle school in my experience were not places concerned with teaching about moral dilemmas or philosophy.

In college, I dodged taking any additional PHIL classes because I got sick of debates about whether the chair I was sitting in was in fact real...

[Frozen_Feet]

Again someone cites something from school that I don't remember at all.

Which makes me wonder what exactly was taught?

IIRC your elementary school days took several decades before me and in a different country.

As an amusing coincidence, my professional education is as a heating, plumbing and airconditioning mechanic (AKA plumber), but I'm preeeetty sure that if we started citing to each other what we learned in trade school (or equivalent), we'd just end up staring dumbly at each other.

[Bohandas]

I think ultimately the purpose of including the good-evil axis is to distinguish (correctly) that order and chaos are not the same thing as good and evil

[Frozen_Feet]

That's about right... though I'm not so enthused about the rules either.

I bought the game because I liked the cover art and was disappointed that it turned out to be a basic D&D retroclone.

The system's primary virtue is that it is the cleanest, simplest, most playble version of B/X or OD&D available. The things which are unique to the game are in the modules and in the scenario design philosophy. It just turned out that being playable is good enough when the modules are actually interesting.

[2D8HP]

I bought the game because I liked the cover art and was disappointed that it turned out to be a basic D&D retroclone.

The system's primary virtue is that it is the cleanest, simplest, most playble version of B/X or OD&D available....

.
Yeah, that's what I like about it, because the rules that I can really remember best are pre Players Handbook D&D, and RuneQuest.

D&D because it was imprinted early, and BRP/Coc/RuneQuest/etc. because it was also imprinted early, and is pretty intuitive, unfortunately not as fun as D&D, but the BRP gonzo fantasy game Magic World looked like it could be fun since it has makes more sense/intuitive rules but with a D&D like setting, but few want to play it, so it's a moot point.

[RedMage125]

First off, hamishspence, Calthropstu, and King of Nowhere, bravo, I second EVERYTHING you both said, so much.

the standard “trolly dilemma” doesn’t have anyone tied to tracks. People just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they in theory can’t move because they don’t have time, or aren’t aware in time or something.

You are incorrect, sir or madame.

Multiple people in this thread who are advocates of Alignment as useful have described exactly what I just laid out:

• absolute objective morality
• "good" and "evil" as absolute cosmic forces
• "good" and "evil" judged purely by an individual's actions with no regard for intent, motive, circumstances, or limited choices

Someone even claimed that under D&D alignment, the only non-evil choice in the Trolley Problem was to walk away / do nothing, because as soon as the character touched the switch and chose to direct the trolley, they were the one who had killed either the one person or the X number of people, and not the person who set up the situation.

I'll go back and find quotes if I have to.

Everything I bolded is a lie.

BoVD and BoED are both very clear that Intent and Conxtext matter as much as Action, and you have been told this before, so now you're actually lying on purpose.

And I'm the one that you are misquoting about the Trolley Problem. I said the only clear option for a PALADIN to do would be to not pull the lever. Because whether or not the paladin would fall for pulling the lever is in question, it could be argued either way that he "killed" the single person. But it is-by the RAW-very clear that he would not fall for refusing to pull the lever. Failing to do Good or Evil is a morally Neutral act. And paladins do not fall for committing a morally Neutral act.

I also explicitly said -multiple times- that the person who tied all those people to the tracks in the first place committed the greatest evil act, and the weight of any of those deaths falls on that person.

I'd say that the blood from either outcome is on the hands of the person who set up the scenario.

Also, I'd have thought that the innocent bystander would also be tied to the tracks, such that it was "these multiple people tied to the tracks die" or "this one person tied to the tracks dies". If the bystander isn't tied to the tracks, then he can get the heck out of the way and the choice is easy and bloodless.

OF course the blood is primarily on the hands of the person who set it up, that's what we've been saying. To imply that we've been pushing for anything else is intellectually dishonest on your part. The person standing at the switch is given the binary choice of "pull a switch to make 1 person in the trap die" or "do nothing and 5 people in the trap die". Which is a catch 22, with no clear act of intent on the art of the person at the switch, as all 6 people are in mortal danger from the guy who put them in the trap in the first place. Which is why I have said from the get-go, that the Fat Man variant is a better example for discussing D&D alignment.

In the "Fat Man" variant of the Trolley problem, the fat man is an innocent bystander, near but not on the tracks. He gets pushed in front of the trolley at the last moment, gets hit, but is so fat that he stops the trolley and thus saves all 5 people. THAT option requires the PC to make a choice to intentionally kill someone who was NOT in mortal danger to save others.

Also of interest is the "Fat Villain" variant, wherein said Fat Man near the tracks IS the villain who tied the 5 people to the tracks to begin with. While that conundrum -by real world standard-is ethically equivalent, by D&D standards it is clearly a non-evil act to kill the villain in the process of saving the 5 people he was going to murder via trolley.

So, if that concept of Alignment isn't in any of the books, and it's just so not fair...

Where do so many people who've played D&D get that exact impression of Alignment from?

Why do so many people play it that way, or run into others who play it that way?

Why are there so many discussions of Alignment that come down to grossly oversimplified platitudes being lobbed back and forth?

Where do all these silly "moral trap" Paladin falls we hear about come from?

Why do so many players have horror stories about another player telling them "your character wouldn't do that, his alignment is _____!"

Remember when I said the problem with all of those thing was PEOPLE? People who MISUSE the way alignment is supposed to work. I said that, several times.

And you cannot, with any kind of logical cohesiveness, say that a tool is objectively "bad" because bad things happen only when it is misused.

It's a choice between "terrible X" and "terrible Y" because those are the choices, it has nothing to do with my say-so.

According to you, it does.

You bring ZERO support for your argument.

You back up NOTHING of your claims with quotes from the text.

Your claims are baseless, intentional LIES, with no foundation in the truth.

The ONLY thing you say is "alignment is either a bad x or a bad y, and nothing else is true" with no evidence to support anything you say. So yes, it is, just on your "say-so".

If you want to draw up Team A and Team B, use different terms and don't conflate it with morality by your choice of terms.

If you want to actually explore moral uncertainty, quandaries, and disputes... then you can't present caricature of morality based on laundry lists of "good acts" and "evil acts" supposedly adjudicated by cosmic forces, where taking the least-bad option, or having a choice between two bad options imposed on you, or being outright tricked into doing something, can all result in YOU being held accountable for an "evil act" regardless of your intent or motivation. That's not moral complexity, that's a sick joke. And if "the universe" really does have forces that impose that kind of judgement, then "the universe" is morally bankrupt and every character living in it should go outside a raise a one-finger salute to the sky and tell "the universe " to go F itself.

Except that the RAW books that actually delve into this show-in black and white text-that you are wrong.

The BoVD and the BoED both say that both Actions and Intent matter.

The DMG says that alignment change is gradual, not instantaneous. And furthermore that a person who commits both Good and Evil acts is Neutral. Clearly this includes people who commit Evil Acts as a means to committing Good Acts. The DMG also stipulates that Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality, so your earlier claim about "doing nothing" is also a falsehood.

Yes, there are some acts that are Evil no matter what the consequence. Damaging and Harming the Soul, Consorting With Fiends, Creation of the Undead...all of these things are objectively Evil, and no amount of excuses or moral postulating can change that. Let's take Creation of Undead. According to the default RAW of D&D, that is a crime against the universe to create "a corrupt mockery of life and purity". If you animate a bunch of undead, and use them to do Good, you HAVE committed both a Good act and an Evil act. God forbid you should be morally held accountable for the actions you commit. What kind of self-serving narcissistic ass thinks he shouldn't be "held accountable" for his actions?

You can call it "a lie" all you want. Doesn't make it any less true.

You can call it "true" all you want. Doesn't make it any less a lie.

See how that works?

Can you provide a single shred of objective evidence to support your claims? Keep in mind, for purposes of forum discussion (since the totality of all possible house rules are impossible to account for), the ONLY thing that can be considered FACT is what is in print in the Rules As Written. Those are objective sources. Ones that we, the other participants in this discussion, can verify for ourselves-check your sources, as it were.

I challenge you to provide FACTUAL sources about the RAW that say what you claim is true, or admit your claims were false. Maybe you were just mistaken. Like I said before (maybe it was to someone else), perhaps the people you initially played with TOLD you that alignment was that, and you believed it, and you never read the rulebooks with an open mind ever again.

So how about it? Put up or shut up. You made your claim, I call bullsh*t. Ante up some evidence or fold.

[Max_Killjoy]

This thread is not just you posting and everyone responding to what you post. Other people have said things, and other people are responding to them, not you. And my comments are based on what has actually been said, and how alignment is actually used by players and discussed by players across multiple decades and multiple editions.

Not that it matters, since you are obviously incapable of having a conversation without resorting to insults and calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar.

If you reply to any of my posts on this thread again, I will report you for personal attacks, and place you on ignore.

"Conversation" over.

[Max_Killjoy]

We must be reading different threads, because I see none of them (ok, maybe a bit of the first two, but taken in context). Granted, I skipped a couple pages, but still. We must be interpreting the same texts in different ways.
But anyway, if there are people advocating for those things, those people are wrong.

The third one -- what do you think "an act that is evil no matter what, no matter the circumstances" is, other than a judgement based purely on the action and with no consideration for intent, motive, or circumstances?

Or we could just go with this comment, focusing on the part bolded:

it means only that each individual is ultimately judged by an ENTIRELY objective and dispassionate judge that does not waiver (the cosmic forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos). In the default D&D world, even the gods are beholden to these forces, and since the forces are completely objective and dispassionate, they are not swayed by any kind of excuses or moral vacillating. A given character may have justification for the horrible things he does. He may, in fact, be doing it for the greater good of a community or a population. His people may love him and think him a hero. But his actions will always be judged by an objective measure.

Sure reads like "no matter why you did it, no matter what outcome you wanted, no matter what outcome arose from it, no matter what the circumstances were, you did an evil thing and you'll be judged for it".

I'd argue that choice is evil too, because you refuse to help those in need.

Which just makes the "moral trap" problem bigger.

Someone has set up a situation where whoever happens to walk by as the train is approaching is forced to "Do Evil" under this moral "standard".

Do nothing? Evil, because they refused to help.
Touch the lever and choose whether one or ten people die? Evil, because their decision lead to one or ten deaths.

And now the "cosmic forces" of "morality" judge that person to have "done evil" no matter what. It's utterly lacking in justice of any kind. A universe in which this is true is a sick universe. I find such a universe, fictional as it may be, morally repugnant, utterly loathsome, and completely objectionable.

[Aliquid]

You are incorrect, sir or madame.

Interesting, that's not how I learned it... If that is truly the official scenario, I am in agreement with Max_Killjoy, the dilemma is utterly pointless and contrived because the one who tied them up has all of the blood on their hands.

[Bohandas]

Regarding the orc babies thing, it should be noted that Orcs are not an "always evil" race or even "usually evil". Their alignment tendency is merely "often chaotic evil"

[Mordaedil]

The trolley problem in D&D:

Good: Change the track to hit the one person.

Neutral: Freeze, do not change tracks.

Evil:

[Florian]

Interesting, that's not how I learned it... If that is truly the official scenario, I am in agreement with Max_Killjoy, the dilemma is utterly pointless and contrived because the one who tied them up has all of the blood on their hands.

Last year, there was a great feature film on tv. Basic hostage situation, terrorists wanting to crash a plane into a fully filled stadium, a jet fighter pilot shooting them down and going for trial. After the speeches, the film stopped, two hotline numbers appeared and the audience had roughly 30 mins time to decide whether guilt or not and make the decision call.

So far, so good, so overly simplistic.

The real fun started when after that, Fischer, then high judge of the supreme court, came on and explained why the whole "Trolley / Terrorist" scenario is utter horse manure and should only be used to show freshmen law students that a "good / evil" question will never provide meaningful results, will often need "god or perfect knowledge". The he went on about outside force, direct force, intention, the usual stuff, but also went on that our german legal system includes some very heavy-handed elements based on objective morality on how they change the outcome(*).

(*) Yes, we do have those elements and also ways to deal with the paradoxes that come up by using them.

[RazorChain]

Interesting, that's not how I learned it... If that is truly the official scenario, I am in agreement with Max_Killjoy, the dilemma is utterly pointless and contrived because the one who tied them up has all of the blood on their hands.

Actually you are right, the original dilemma has you steering a tram where there is 1 man working on one track and 5 men working on the other and you have to make a choice. If you guys actually read the whole of the wikipage from the link that Redmage posted then you would have found out

[Morty]

Regarding the orc babies thing, it should be noted that Orcs are not an "always evil" race or even "usually evil". Their alignment tendency is merely "often chaotic evil"

That's what the rules say, technically, but you wouldn't know it from their descriptions, which don't account for non-evil examples. Later editions (4E, 5E, not sure about Pathfinder) drop the usually/often/always distinction and just call them evil. Then the descriptions double down on how vile and deserving of death they are.