# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games >  I Love Alignments

## Bartmanhomer

I post this on the GITP Discord Server:

I'm a huge fan of alignments. I just love how fictional characters fit their moral and ethical personality within their alignment. For example, Batman is a Chaotic Good alignment. It is also very useful when writing fictional fan fiction stories to develop a character's whole alignment persona. What does everyone else think of alignments? 🤔😃😈👍🏿💪🏿

----------


## Aedilred

If this were anyone else, Barthmanhomer, I would assume you were trolling  :Small Tongue: 

Alignments are a tool with some utility in certain types of roleplaying game but which tend to fall apart when applied to complex characters (including those within said roleplaying games) especially since without the universal forces to which the D&D alignments apply, the alignments tend to become quite inconsistent. They are not something which, to my view, should inform characterisation outside the RPG context. It's fine to conceive of a character as being generally "good" but if you start applying Alignment Capitals it brings with it a lot of baggage which is unhelpful for trying to create compelling, believable characters. While it can be fun as fans to debate alignment of non-RPG characters, it's also largely a waste of time. 

For instance, you mention Batman... From what I gather, Batman's "alignment" is one of the most controversial of any character in all media, and he's been pegged as being pretty much every position on the chart at some point or other.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> If this were anyone else, Barthmanhomer, I would assume you were trolling 
> 
> Alignments are a tool with some utility in certain types of roleplaying game but which tend to fall apart when applied to complex characters (including those within said roleplaying games) especially since without the universal forces to which the D&D alignments apply, the alignments tend to become quite inconsistent. They are not something which, to my view, should inform characterisation outside the RPG context. It's fine to conceive of a character as being generally "good" but if you start applying Alignment Capitals it brings with it a lot of baggage which is unhelpful for trying to create compelling, believable characters. While it can be fun as fans to debate alignment of non-RPG characters, it's also largely a waste of time. 
> 
> For instance, you mention Batman... From what I gather, Batman's "alignment" is one of the most controversial of any character in all media, and he's been pegged as being pretty much every position on the chart at some point or other.


I assured you that I'm not trolling. Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?  :Confused:

----------


## Mechalich

> Alignments are a tool with some utility in certain types of roleplaying game but which tend to fall apart when applied to complex characters (including those within said roleplaying games) especially since without the universal forces to which the D&D alignments apply, the alignments tend to become quite inconsistent. They are not something which, to my view, should inform characterisation outside the RPG context. It's fine to conceive of a character as being generally "good" but if you start applying Alignment Capitals it brings with it a lot of baggage which is unhelpful for trying to create compelling, believable characters. While it can be fun as fans to debate alignment of non-RPG characters, it's also largely a waste of time.


I'd go a bit further.

Morality systems, and even morally descriptive terminology, can have a great deal of utility, but only in certain settings. Specifically, settings with both a universal moral arbiter and one with explicit consequences attached to morality. For example, in the many, many fantasy settings with a single nominally benevolent Creator deity and a single malevolent oppositional entity, explicit labels for good and evil are quite helpful, especially when there's some kind of 'evil power' that draws from the malevolent entity that is actively corrupting. 

The thing about alignment is that while D&D mostly meets these criteria, alignment is a terrible moral system. It's too complicated - two axes and nine states instead of one axis and two states - and its outputs results that are both oddly counterintuitive and match basically no ideology held by any major human culture ever, making it extremely difficult to get one's head around what alignment actually means. This is a result of both extremely poor handling of the law/chaos axis, and the existence of the vast 'neutral zone' between good/evil and law/chaos that results in an extraordinary challenge to define any action or ideology clearly (ex. Formians are insectoid Borg, but apparently that's neutral, cue the arguments). 

Truthfully, this is generally how D&D relates to any large and interesting fantasy concept, the combination of numerous designers with competing viewpoints and limited coordination synergizes with the marketing demand to kitchen sink in every possible option to produce the messiest version of the idea imaginable.

----------


## Maelstrom

> I assured you that I'm not trolling. Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?


Reply no longer relevant as the thread has been moved.  But still, yet another alignment thread (YAAT) ;)

----------


## Eldan

> Maybe because the subject is *very* loosely related to and tangential to this forum category...and has been, honestly, discussed to the nth degree.


And you immediately took one of the most controversial subjects possible. Not just "alignment", but "Batman alignment". Batman, who famously is the one example where every time someone tries to give Batman an alignment, there's a 30 page discussion about whether he's lawful or chaotic. Batman is the meme example of a difficult alignment discussion.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> What does everyone else think of alignments?


 I think that the D&D community was collectively mistaken to make it into 9 boxes rather than the two axis field that the two axis system was originally designed to do.  The only box was a small on centered on the intersection of two axes that was the "true neutral" creatures ... while all other creatures were at various x,y coordinates in four quadrants, with the paladin being way off in the upper left hand corner of the Cartesian Grid, but a bunch of others there were LG spread over a zone in the upper left quadrant.  

Notice: Just because you are in the L+G* quadrant* doesn't mean you have to act like a Paladin!  Only Paladins have to do that.  

Final answer: the boxes are a crappy shorthand and have poisoned the alignment well.  

Coda: The Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic was a far better approach, and allowed for a lot more nuance and fluidity.  (You might say that Gygax scored a little bit of an own goal there).

----------


## Mechalich

> And you immediately took one of the most controversial subjects possible. Not just "alignment", but "Batman alignment". Batman, who famously is the one example where every time someone tries to give Batman an alignment, there's a 30 page discussion about whether he's lawful or chaotic. Batman is the meme example of a difficult alignment discussion.


Admittedly, this is partly because 'Batman' is not an actual character. Batman is a composite entity produced over different comic runs, different live action and animated films and series, different video games, and numerous other portrayals. There is no one, single, consistent rendition of Batman, or frankly any major shared universe character that's passed through so many hands over so much time. It's possible to talk about the alignment of a specific version of Batman - ex. regrettably passed Kevin Conroy's Batman of the animated series - but Batman, the modern icon, isn't sufficiently consistent to produce a single alignment in the same way that producing an alignment for a mythic figure like Zeus ends up all over the place because you're again asking 'which one' as even sticking strictly to original Greek sources will lead to widely varied portrayals.

And this is especially problematic on the law/chaos alignment axis, because that one is so poorly defined and is almost always secondary to the good/evil axis. For instance, sticking with Batman, he's almost always going to be good (there are a handful of portrayals that edge into neutral, but this is mostly explicitly alternate universe stuff or deliberate grimdark) but because precisely how he approaches his moral crusade varies so much he swings wildly back and forth even if you can get two people to agree on how the whole law/chaos setup is supposed to work. In fact, if one compared took one hundred different versions of Batman (and there probably are that many), I bet that 90% of the them would be consensus good, but they'd hit a roughly even lawful/neutral/chaotic split.

----------


## Aedilred

> I assured you that I'm not trolling. Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?


I don't think you're trolling. I've seen your posts (and the occasional video) over the last seven years and there are two alternatives: either you are the greatest and most committed troll in the history of the universe, or you are a generally sincere if often somewhat oblivious person, and the latter seems far more likely. 

This does mean, however, that you sometimes come out with comments or thread ideas which are indistinguishable from trollbait only because it's you who's posting them, and this is one of those for the reasons people have outlined above.

----------


## Batcathat

> I post this on the GITP Discord Server:
> 
> I'm a huge fan of alignments. I just love how fictional characters fit their moral and ethical personality within their alignment. For example, Batman is a Chaotic Good alignment. It is also very useful when writing fictional fan fiction stories to develop a character's whole alignment persona. What does everyone else think of alignments? 🤔😃😈👍🏿💪🏿


Depending on the specifics and the people involved, I find them somewhere between useless and actively harmful. Either they are specific enough to be a useful descriptor, which turns them into a straight-jacket for what sort of characters can be played, or they are vague enough to include all possible characters, which means they are basically useless as descriptors ("Okay, so your character is Lawful Good, but how does this particular LG character act and think?"). 

That's not even getting into alignments as a possible source of arguments (obviously role-playing choices can cause arguments even without alignments, but at least without them no one can accuse someone else of playing their character "wrong"). 

If people I play with wish for a two word description of their character's morals and motivation, I prefer it if they take like 30 seconds and come up with two words on their own. It's almost guaranteed to be more useful.

(Obviously a lot of the above is quite subjective.)

----------


## Lord Torath

> Why does everyone thinks that I'm trolling?


As others have said, Batman's alignment is a rather... disputed... subject, as is alignment itself.  But having read many of your other posts, I know you're not the trolling type.

*Spoiler: Wait, what's Batman's alignment again? (Spoilered for size)*
Show

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Yeah. Maybe Batman wasn't the best choice for an example. I always thought Batman was a hero to my knowledge anyway. But I need to research Batman's history a bit more.  :Frown:

----------


## Quertus

Primary tools include fear and brutalityGoes out every night looking to get into a fight and beat people upHunted by police; guilty of numerous crimes (including murder)Known to run a police state with invasion of privacy beyond anything known irlConstantly lies to friends and alliesWealthy nobleman who throws extravagant parties and buys himself expensive toys while the citizens suffer in an impoverished and decaying city, and many are pushed into a life of crime

Thank goodness we have Alignment, to oversimplify that complex personality to Chaotic Evil?

EDIT: I probably should have read more than the OP before responding. Yeah, Batman _may_ be a bad example, but what realistic complex being wouldnt be? I hold that the fault  lies not in Batman, but in alignment, that we are to be Caesars trolls in discussing him.

----------


## Lord Torath

> Yeah. Maybe Batman wasn't the best choice for an example. I always thought Batman was a hero to my knowledge anyway. But I need to research Batman's history a bit more.


There are multitudes of Batman, with different authors, settings, and story lines.  I remember reading a vampire Batman story a good long time ago.  So you can easily focus on the version of Batman you like best, which means 'your' Batman may indeed be Chaotic Good.

I always say that LEGO Batman is Best Batman!  Who cares about the rest?

----------


## NovenFromTheSun

I like alignment too, but it requires a certain sort of campaign to work. If the adventures main focus is, for instance, a rapidly growing field of poison flowers, forcing alignment wont do much good.

Also, people need to stop treating Neutral as the boring alignment that must be avoided at all cost if they want the system to make any sense.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> I think that the D&D community was collectively mistaken to make it into 9 boxes rather than the two axis field that the two axis system was originally designed to do.  The only box was a small on centered on the intersection of two axes that was the "true neutral" creatures ... while all other creatures were at various x,y coordinates in four quadrants, with the paladin being way off in the upper left hand corner of the Cartesian Grid, but a bunch of others there were LG spread over a zone in the upper left quadrant.


How would that even work? Even if you limit the values, can you really create fifty or a hundred meaningfully distinct degrees of goodness or evil? What's the difference between an alignment of (84, 63) and (83, 63)?

----------


## 137beth

What alignment is it to start a discussion about Batman's alignment?

I'm guessing chaotic good.

----------


## Sigreid

I think alignment was good back in the early days of the game when your alignment was you picking a side you were metaphysical bonded to in an active war.

----------


## gbaji

> Depending on the specifics and the people involved, I find them somewhere between useless and actively harmful. Either they are specific enough to be a useful descriptor, which turns them into a straight-jacket for what sort of characters can be played, or they are vague enough to include all possible characters, which means they are basically useless as descriptors ("Okay, so your character is Lawful Good, but how does this particular LG character act and think?").


Pretty much my position as well. And yeah. I didn't even think about Batman. Totally all over the chart (if one were to attempt to do so). And yes, really highlights the inherent inconsistencies on the law/chaos axis quite well.

I really do think that the biggest problem with alignment systems is that they attempt to model both internal decision making *and* external judgement of actions into a single package. If I were forced to create an alignment system and also forced to use the same bi-axis "good/evil; law/chaos" method D&D (and others) use, I'd stick with internal aspects entirely. And I'd make them completely independent of each other (no adjusting what "good" means based on where one lies on the "law/chaos" spectrum or vice versa).

A (potentially) workable alignment system.

Axis 1: Good/Neutral/Evil. Good people actively enjoy helping people, and will do so even if it does not benefit them directly. Evil people enjoy harming people, and will do it even if it does not benefit them directly. This does not mean that good people wont harm people if it's necessary to some objective they are seeking, but will avoid it as much as possible and minimize harm where ever possible. And yes, evil people will help others if it's necessary to some objective, but will attempt to achieve such objectives while doing the most harm possible. Neutral people simply don't consider the impact of harm when making decisions. They will do what's best for them and their goals, period. They will make no special effort to help or harm people, but will generally attempt to avoid either if it's possible while doing whatever else they want to do.

Axis 2: Law/Neutral/Chaos. Lawful people use methodologies that are consistent, well planned out, and thoughtful, and will use such methods even if it doesn't benefit them directly (obviously, they'll try to use such methods while doing something they're trying to do). Chaotic people love to just do random things, come up with plans at the last minute, "wing it" all the time, etc, and will use such methods even if other more planned out methods might work better. This does not mean that a Lawful person cannot ever be spontaneous if necessary, but will generally stop and think things through before acting. Also, chaotic people can plan things out if they need to, but will tend towards "winging it" as their natural method to solving problems. Neutral people tend towards the middle. They don't feel any specific need to plan things out, unless it's necessary, and no compulsion to do random things just to see what will happen either. They'll just act based on what works for them at the moment.

Basically. Good/Evil determines *what* sorts of things the character likes to do. Law/Chaos determines *how* they prefer to accomplish those things. They're basic personality traits, pushing them to behave certain ways. Nothing else. Everything else, which one might think fall into those categories, are external factors. Societies may tend to want to enforce their laws, and will do so, completely unrelated to what the personalities of the people are. Religious organizations may attempt to impose moral guidelines on people as well, but again has nothing at all to do with what any actual person's alignment is within this system.

This method allows us to portray an actual persons traits in these regards without being influenced or modified by external factors in the setting itself. External factors can certainly exist (and may have a strong impact on neutral characters actions on the good/evil axis based on what laws are in place), but they don't change the actual "alignment" of the character. Lawful doesn't mean "follow the rules". Chaos doesn't mean "break the rules". Rules don't matter. Those are external (but again, neutral characters may be more influenced by the environment, while those in the law/chaos sides just can't help their natures). Again, once you try to do both things with the alignments, you run into huge inconsistencies.


That's how I'd do it. If I were even inclined to do so. Honestly, I think it's still more trouble than it's worth. I'm also firmly in the camp of just asking players to describe their character's personality. Are they honest? Greedy? Have a temper? Like to control what's going on? Maybe just a follower instead? Hate causing damage to other people's things? Maybe they like making people sad/happy/whatever? Are they fastidious? Messy? Love/hate nature? Do they like gladiator movies? Dunno. There's an endless combination of personality traits one can come up with, and they are far far better than just wedging people into any firm alignment system IMO. And heaven forbid that players actually start creating real characters with some diverse depth to them in a game. Shocking!

----------


## Theodoxus

My problem with alignment is it creates a two dimensional character when it is 'lawyered'. "You're Chaotic Neutral, you can't help the police apprehend the criminal, you have to actively work against the Law." or "You're Lawful Evil, you can't let the party thief throw a party to distract the city guard away from the mcguffin" or "You're True Neutral, how dare you take the LG Paladin's side against the demons ravaging the village!"

As a tracking mechanism to determine how your players actions are actually playing an alignment, it's not horrible, though there are so few bennies for playing your alignment, it doesn't matter much. But if you're being straightjacketed into playing what the table thinks is your alignment, it's utter crap.

People very very rarely ever can be shoehorned into a specific alignment. Nearly everyone's ethics and morals skew to 'what's best for me' when the rubber hits the road. And that can be altruistic when its determined they'll get dividends back for helping others, to completely selfish when they won't.

Sure, in a fantasy game of make believe, it can be fun to be so two dimensional; to explore your own ethics and morals in a 'safe place' where the consequences don't matter. But it's still two dimensional, and unrealistic. I toss out alignment.

----------


## Rodin

> How would that even work? Even if you limit the values, can you really create fifty or a hundred meaningfully distinct degrees of goodness or evil? What's the difference between an alignment of (84, 63) and (83, 63)?


I'd say that's still missing the forest for the trees.  The goal is not to move from 9 boxes to N boxes, it's to give a broad idea of how much a character identifies with a given philosophy.  Your adventurer isn't 63 Lawful.  He's "more Lawful than the town bravo who bends but does not break the law, but not as Lawful as a Paladin on quest".

Alignment is a tool.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It gives a framework for players who are not used to roleplaying/acting, and it provides an extra hook to hang game mechanics on.  Once you are capable of moving beyond it, you are free to do so.  That's the beauty of pen and paper gaming.

----------


## Quertus

> A (potentially) workable alignment system.
> 
> Axis 1: Good/Neutral/Evil. Good people actively enjoy helping people, and will do so even if it does not benefit them directly. Evil people enjoy harming people, and will do it even if it does not benefit them directly. This does not mean that good people wont harm people if it's necessary to some objective they are seeking, but will avoid it as much as possible and minimize harm where ever possible. And yes, evil people will help others if it's necessary to some objective, but will attempt to achieve such objectives while doing the most harm possible. Neutral people simply don't consider the impact of harm when making decisions. They will do what's best for them and their goals, period. They will make no special effort to help or harm people, but will generally attempt to avoid either if it's possible while doing whatever else they want to do.
> 
> Axis 2: Law/Neutral/Chaos. Lawful people use methodologies that are consistent, well planned out, and thoughtful, and will use such methods even if it doesn't benefit them directly (obviously, they'll try to use such methods while doing something they're trying to do). Chaotic people love to just do random things, come up with plans at the last minute, "wing it" all the time, etc, and will use such methods even if other more planned out methods might work better. This does not mean that a Lawful person cannot ever be spontaneous if necessary, but will generally stop and think things through before acting. Also, chaotic people can plan things out if they need to, but will tend towards "winging it" as their natural method to solving problems. Neutral people tend towards the middle. They don't feel any specific need to plan things out, unless it's necessary, and no compulsion to do random things just to see what will happen either. They'll just act based on what works for them at the moment.
> 
> That's how I'd do it. If I were even inclined to do so. Honestly, I think it's still more trouble than it's worth. I'm also firmly in the camp of just asking players to describe their character's personality. Are they honest? Greedy? Have a temper? Like to control what's going on? Maybe just a follower instead? Hate causing damage to other people's things? Maybe they like making people sad/happy/whatever? Are they fastidious? Messy? Love/hate nature? Do they like gladiator movies? Dunno. There's an endless combination of personality traits one can come up with, and they are far far better than just wedging people into any firm alignment system IMO. And heaven forbid that players actually start creating real characters with some diverse depth to them in a game. Shocking!


Axis 1: I do not enjoy, so I am neither Good nor Evil. I consider the impact / harm of my actions, so I am not neutral.

Axis 2: my methodologies are not consistent, so I am not Lawful.  I hate to be random and wing it, so I am not Chaotic. I feel the need both to plan, and to test to see what will happen, so I am not neutral.

Conclusion: I am [ERROR: Value Undefined] / [ERROR: Value Undefined] under your system.

I agree with your conclusion, that having a personality is the way to go.

----------


## Forum Explorer

> Yeah. Maybe Batman wasn't the best choice for an example. I always thought Batman was a hero to my knowledge anyway. But I need to research Batman's history a bit more.


Batman is the perfect example of why alignment fails when you go beyond basic categorization. He's a complex character with many complex  reasons behind his complex actions. So you really can make an argument for him to fit into nearly any alignment simply because of how poorly defined each alignment is and what it means to actually be that alignment. 

And that's before you get into the complexities of morality, something that people have never been able to come to an agreement on. Like killing for the most obvious example. Some people will say killing is always wrong. Others will say it is okay in defense of yourself or others, and others will say it is okay if it is for the greater good. 

So yeah, I don't like alignments. Particularly when you get out of a D&D or game setting. Most characters don't easily fall into a category, and there really isn't much point to trying to pigeonhole them into an alignment in the first place.

----------


## Batcathat

> I think alignment was good back in the early days of the game when your alignment was you picking a side you were metaphysical bonded to in an active war.


That version of alignments is fine by me. It can still hint at someone's character (it probably says something about a person if they align themselves with literal demons) but it doesn't attempt to fit everyone into a box and as seen in many, many real life conflicts, people with very different ethics and motivations can still end up on the same side, which offers some interesting potential drama.

----------


## Tanarii

I love the 5e version of alignment.  They got rid of almost all mechanical effects, there's no real reason for the DM to be the judge of alignment any more.  It's the absolute best version of alignment: a player buy-in roleplaying tool.  

What makes it work is in 5e it's just one category of the personality system, social and moral attitudes, which comes with a broad typical but not consistently required behavior.  The players can integrate that with a Personality trait, Ideal, Bond and Flaw.  That gives them 5 one sentence motivations to consider when deciding how to act in character in the fictional environment, aka roleplaying.

A fantastic tool.  And far superior to AD&D onwards style alignment: a DM judged post-action morality scoring system.

Does roleplaying require a social and moral attitudes motivation category?  Of course not. But in a game often focused on heroes and villains, it's appropriate.

Does roleplaying require explicit motivations at all?  No. But it's great for getting newcomers accustomed to the ides of roleplaying.  And even veterans greatly benefit from it, especially those brought up on the idea of writing backstories, which are largely expanded character history with unclear motivations buried in the prose.

Edit: As an added benefit, 5e style alignment makes trying to judge the alignment of fictional characters in media pointless.  Because it's a forward looking tool that may influence current decisions. Not a backwards looking tool for trying to piece out just one motivation that may have influenced the decision to take a specific action that has already taken place.

----------


## Cluedrew

I like the alignment system as 6 or 9 (depending on how you count) terms to describe the broad strokes of a character. And if I want more than broad strokes I'm going to need more than a two word phrase to do it.

There are some issues when people aren't on the same page. For example I would argue that "my character doesn't hurt people for fun, just when it benefits them" is still less than neutral.

----------


## Quertus

> Does roleplaying require explicit motivations at all?  No. But it's great for getting newcomers accustomed to the ides of roleplaying.  And even veterans greatly benefit from it, especially those brought up on the idea of writing backstories, which are largely expanded character history with unclear motivations buried in the prose.
> 
> Edit: As an added benefit, 5e style alignment makes trying to judge the alignment of fictional characters in media pointless.  Because it's a forward looking tool that may influence current decisions. Not a backwards looking tool for trying to piece out just one motivation that may have influenced the decision to take a specific action that has already taken place.


Oh, youre accustomed to a bad implementation / utilization of backstory. Imagine being told theyre going to an island. Imagine how the history and personality of Gillian, Batman, and Frodo inform how they respond to that news. Motivation is good, but _history_ and _personality_ are required to roleplay and generate a proper reaction to events.

Done right, backstory is a forward-looking tool, that provides the details necessary to inform how the character reacts, and why.

----------


## Satinavian

> That version of alignments is fine by me. It can still hint at someone's character (it probably says something about a person if they align themselves with literal demons) but it doesn't attempt to fit everyone into a box and as seen in many, many real life conflicts, people with very different ethics and motivations can still end up on the same side, which offers some interesting potential drama.


I think even conflicts with clear sides don't really benefit from alignments. If you want team jerseys and clear affiliations why not just introduce them ?




> Axis 1: Good/Neutral/Evil. Good people actively enjoy helping people, and will do so even if it does not benefit them directly. Evil people enjoy harming people, and will do it even if it does not benefit them directly. This does not mean that good people wont harm people if it's necessary to some objective they are seeking, but will avoid it as much as possible and minimize harm where ever possible. And yes, evil people will help others if it's necessary to some objective, but will attempt to achieve such objectives while doing the most harm possible. Neutral people simply don't consider the impact of harm when making decisions. They will do what's best for them and their goals, period. They will make no special effort to help or harm people, but will generally attempt to avoid either if it's possible while doing whatever else they want to do.


That would make nearly all the traditional evil villains neutral because most of them don't enjoy or seek harm, they are only very much willing to inflict it on others they don't care about for their own benefit. I don't think that one works well.

----------


## Quertus

> That would make nearly all the traditional evil villains neutral because most of them don't enjoy or seek harm, they are only very much willing to inflict it on others they don't care about for their own benefit. I don't think that one works well.


Alternately, it means it works great, demonstrating that one can be a _villain_ without being _evil_.

One can even be an antagonist while being good.

----------


## Keltest

> Alternately, it means it works great, demonstrating that one can be a _villain_ without being _evil_.
> 
> One can even be an antagonist while being good.


I would argue pretty strongly that being a villain makes you evil by definition. If you arent evil, youre just an antagonist.

Having said that, if you have two ways to proceed with a plan, one that involved hurting people and one that doesnt, and you pick the one that involves hurting people, I think you have a very limited ability to argue you arent hurting people for its own sake there.

----------


## Satinavian

> Alternately, it means it works great, demonstrating that one can be a _villain_ without being _evil_.
> 
> One can even be an antagonist while being good.


That is why i wrote "evil villain". Most people generally seen as evil don't go out of their way to cause harm. They are just too willing to cause harm for seemingly minor or egoistic benefit.




> I would argue pretty strongly that being a villain makes you evil by definition. If you arent evil, youre just an antagonist.
> 
> Having said that, if you have two ways to proceed with a plan, one that involved hurting people and one that doesnt, and you pick the one that involves hurting people, I think you have a very limited ability to argue you arent hurting people for its own sake there.


But it stops being "hurting people for its own sake" when you pick the plan because it is faster or cheaper or less risky etc.

----------


## Keltest

> That is why i wrote "evil villain". Most people generally seen as evil don't go out of their way to cause harm. They are just too willing to cause harm for seemingly minor or egoistic benefit.
> 
> 
> But it stops being "hurting people for its own sake" when you pick the plan because it is faster or cheaper or less risky etc.


Eh, not sure I would agree with that. Irrespective of anything else, hurting people drums up a lot of opposition to whatever youre doing. People dont like being hurt, go figure. Opposition means needing more resources to go deal with that, which frequently means hurting more people, etc... and the next thing you know youve spent more time and energy trying to just do what you want in peace than you had saved by taking that shortcut.

----------


## Mordante

I think that good and evil are useless concepts where morality is concerned. This is true for DnD, a fantasy world where things that we might now consider evil are perfectly good in a fantasy world. But it's also true for modern life.

The nature demeanor system of World of Darkness is far superior IMHO. It says more about a character without adding some arbitrary values like good and evil to them.

----------


## Sigreid

> Batman is the perfect example of why alignment fails when you go beyond basic categorization. He's a complex character with many complex  reasons behind his complex actions. So you really can make an argument for him to fit into nearly any alignment simply because of how poorly defined each alignment is and what it means to actually be that alignment. 
> 
> And that's before you get into the complexities of morality, something that people have never been able to come to an agreement on. Like killing for the most obvious example. Some people will say killing is always wrong. Others will say it is okay in defense of yourself or others, and others will say it is okay if it is for the greater good. 
> 
> So yeah, I don't like alignments. Particularly when you get out of a D&D or game setting. Most characters don't easily fall into a category, and there really isn't much point to trying to pigeonhole them into an alignment in the first place.


Any time you hear the word "for the greater good" you know someone is about to do something reprehensible. 😝

----------


## Tanarii

> Oh, youre accustomed to a bad implementation / utilization of backstory.


Yes, it _usually_ is a bad version. Focused on story and/or history. Not always. I definitely paint it with a broad brush because of that.




> Motivation is good, but _history_ and _personality_ are required to roleplay and generate a proper reaction to events.


Motivation is all the parts of history and personality with the unnecessary prose boiled out, so that all your left with is the core bullet point list of things that may affect decision making (and under what circumstances) for the character in the fictional environment, aka roleplaying.

You can do it with a story about history and personality, but it's messier.  Because the important stuff is buried in the prose.

----------


## gbaji

> Axis 1: I do not enjoy, so I am neither Good nor Evil. I consider the impact / harm of my actions, so I am not neutral.


Ok. But do you consider the impact/harm of your actions as a moral choice? Or in the context of whatever other thing you are trying to accomplish? Is your reason to avoid causing harm based on "If I do this, I  might get caught and go to jail, so let's see if there's a different way to do things", or is it "I can't do that! I'll hurt people. And that's wrong". If the former, then you are neutral (in my system). If the later, you are good. And yeah, if your rationale is "People getting hurt is part of my plan. Muhahah!", then you are evil.

A neutral person will perform helpful actions usually for utilitarian purposes as well: "if I help out these villagers, they'll like me and be more likely to help me with my mission", is a neutral motivation. You're not helping people because it's just what you like to do. You're doing it because it's a part of something else that's of benefit to you. The point is all about internal choices. What motivates the character to do things?

From what you are describing you would be neutral.




> Axis 2: my methodologies are not consistent, so I am not Lawful.  I hate to be random and wing it, so I am not Chaotic. *I feel the need both to plan, and to test to see what will happen*, so I am not neutral.


The bolded part *is* your methodology. If that's how you approach doing things, and you "feel the need" to do things that way, then you are lawful. A neutral person would not feel a need to either plan things out, nor to be random and wing it. That's what I meant by "consistent methodology". If you meticulously plan out an assault on the orc stronghold, and systematically search that stronghold for treasure, making sure to follow the same procedures in each room searched so as not to miss anything? You are lawful. If you just run up to the walls to see what's there, see an opening and charge, then once inside randomly run down hallways and into rooms looking for stuff, then you are chaotic.

A neutral person isn't drawn to either position and will tend to defer to others in terms of planning (or not planning) things out. They will tend to think things through, but not as long and hard as a lawful person will, and are more likely to change their plans when an opportunity comes along (a lawful person would stop to consider the new opportunity more fully). They aren't random in how they do things, but they don't color code their battle plans either. Think OCD for lawful and ADHD for chaotic, and neutral being the folks more or less in between.





> I agree with your conclusion, that having a personality is the way to go.


Yeah. I was just tossing that out there as a (slightly?) better way to handle alignments if you really really really wanted to retain the bi-axis labels for some reason. It at least makes it possible to identify people somewhat. If not definitively then at least on a spectrum, and most importantly to restrict it solely to personality traits and not to the mixed up mess that D&D tends to go with.

My preference is to just toss the entire thing out though.




> That is why i wrote "evil villain". Most people generally seen as evil don't go out of their way to cause harm. They are just too willing to cause harm for seemingly minor or egoistic benefit.


It was a list of reasons one causes harm, not a check list that must all be checked to qualify as "evil". I would point out, however that in most cases the evil person is evil because they are trying to do something, and that "something" will cause harm to people. The very act of setting out to enact the "plan" can be seen as "going out of your way to cause harm". It's not just walking across the street to kick someone sorts of things that makes on evil. Redcloak's conquest of Azure city didn't just give his people gobotopia. He also enslaved and/or killed off the human population, right? He literally tortures people to get information, and threatens their lives (and kills a bunch of people) to achieve his goals.

He's not going "out of his way" to do that? I mean, he could have just tossed the cloak into a dumpster and chosen to live a peaceful life.





> But it stops being "hurting people for its own sake" when you pick the plan because it is faster or cheaper or less risky etc.


Sure. And if someone only ever caused harm to others out of absolute necessity for a goal that was itself not designed to hurt or harm others, then that person would not be "evil". The King leading his soldiers in battle, but who gives enemy soldiers every opportunity to surrender, treats the injured/captured well, and citizens in areas he captures are also treated fairly, would not be evil. Probably neutral, maybe even good depending on the politics of the situation and motivation/cause for the war.

I suppose we could also put degrees in there as well. So a rogue who knocks people out with a sap, or sleep potion, then steals stuff, may be neutral instead of evil. One who kills the folks in the home when they could have dealt with them non-lethally may be evil. Both are causing "harm" to others, but the degree relative to their objectives is different.

It's all about degrees IMO. Again though. I honestly think it's just much simpler to not even go there. Just let characters take actions, and have natural consequences for those actions occur within the game world. I do think that players should come up with personality traits that drive their characters to do things certain ways, since that makes them more "real". But the idea of rigidly applying a single alignment for all actions seems absurd. The closest you should ever get to that is maybe a tendency towards certain ways of doing things. It should never be absolute (unless you really do chose to play a character with that sort of personality I guess).

----------


## Forum Explorer

> Any time you hear the word "for the greater good" you know someone is about to do something reprehensible. 😝


By many people's standards yes.

----------


## Quertus

> Yes, it _usually_ is a bad version. Focused on story and/or history. Not always. I definitely paint it with a broad brush because of that.
> 
> Motivation is all the parts of history and personality with the unnecessary prose boiled out, so that all your left with is the core bullet point list of things that may affect decision making (and under what circumstances) for the character in the fictional environment, aka roleplaying.
> 
> You can do it with a story about history and personality, but it's messier.  Because the important stuff is buried in the prose.


I feel like, why Popeye cares that the spinach Plant shut down is not something that would be answered by what *I* would write under motivations (which would probably focus on olive and sailing (I say in ignorance of the character)), but would by  what I consider backstory. Id love to see an example or two of your motivations for a character. If they are what I guess Id dub, hyper efficient backstories, I may reevaluate the Utility of motivations to me.

That said watching HiSHE, I know that (for example) HiSHE Batman will say because Im Batman. Do you encapsulate the character quirks, the distillation of the history into predictable patterns, into your motivations? Does this get harder when dealing with an actual character rather than a caricature like HiSHE Batman?

Regardless, (your) motivations or (my) backstory are much more suited to character than something like Alignment.

----------


## Mechalich

Alignment is not a personality trait. Alignment is a judgement, one that is imposed on the character by a moral arbiter. It's a summation, based on actions, intentions, feelings, and whatever else is considered to represent moral information, that determines the moral position of the character with consequences attached to that position. In D&D the moral position utilizes two axes and places every character on a pie chart and depending on which piece of the pie they match up to that impacts how various magical effects impact them and also determines their afterlife destination upon death.

Critically, alignment, or really any system where an external entity acts as the moral arbiter to determine the moral position of others, does not care what the character believes their alignment to be or about how they justify their actions. The rules are the rules, they operate however they operate, and if a given character doesn't like it, tough. This is also why 'I rebel against the gods' stories are fairly common in this kind of system, because it is easy to devise a scenario where the moral arbiter is hopelessly corrupt or simply massively out of alignment (heh) with extant cultural norms.

The difficulty with moral systems of this kind, in a TTRPG context, is that it forces the GM into the role of moral arbiter, which has a very strong tendency to poison at-table dynamics if moral questions are interrogated with any degree of depth. After all, even in the video game case where all morally engaged actions are scripted, players get into huge arguments about whether or not something should be coded one way or another (dark side points for that? b***s***! is a common refrain), they are simply unable to actually do anything about it so that grumbling goes nowhere.

----------


## SimonMoon6

I Hate Alignments.

First of all, I grew up in 1st edition AD&D days, so that has something to do with it. Alignments were even worse back then. There was such a thing as "alignment languages". All Lawful Good species can communicate with each other, but possibly not with someone who is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. And, no, you can't learn the language of another alignment.

Second, the concept of alignments tends to be very reductive. Some things are purely good or purely evil. There can be no discussion. For example, using poison to kill a foe? That's the purest darkest most horrible EVIL in the entire universe. But stabbing a foe with a sword? That's fine. You're SUPPOSED to do that. Can we discuss this? No. Poison is evil. Go away. Stop talking now.

And nobody really knows what the alignments MEAN. It's bad enough with "chaotic" vs "lawful", but trying to put down a definitive system of morality about exactly what things are "good" and what things are "evil" (or even "neutral") can never be successful. Philosophers and religions have been arguing about such things for thousands of years. But, with D&D, you can just say, "This book here says stealing is neutral, so I guess I can't be mad if someone steals from me. After all, it's not like they did anything wrong. If it was wrong to steal, stealing would be evil."

Would a lawful person obey the laws of a kingdom? What if they disagree with the laws? Would they still obey them? What if they have their own personal code of conduct that they obey which conflicts with the laws? Would they still obey the laws? What if the king was an evil demon who needed to be killed, but it was against the law to kill the king. Would a lawful person be able to kill the demon king?

These question can't be answered because it's just ridiculous to think that people and actions can be labeled in this way. It's far too reductive to say that there are only 9 categories of morality, especially when nobody can agree on what goes into those categories.

And if you disagree with the official D&D take on morality (I think poison is as neutral as stabbing is and I think stealing is wrong enough to be evil, unless necessary to do a good deed that makes up for it), you have no recourse to the law. You just have to take it. Some people think that creating undead should not be evil (those people are wrong of course), but they can argue all they want without it having any effect. 

And being able to detect which people are good and which people are evil makes the world a lot more weird. If you know someone is evil, why wouldn't you kill them? That's another discussion that can get heated. (You can't just go around killing people just because they're evil. Goblins? Sure, kill them for being evil, but not PEOPLE.) It makes perfect sense to kill all the evil people. Just make it illegal to be evil. Then, execute them legally. This would improve the world 100%. But you can't do it... for reasons.

----------


## Mechalich

> And if you disagree with the official D&D take on morality (I think poison is as neutral as stabbing is and I think stealing is wrong enough to be evil, unless necessary to do a good deed that makes up for it), you have no recourse to the law. You just have to take it. Some people think that creating undead should not be evil (those people are wrong of course), but they can argue all they want without it having any effect.


That is how objective moral systems work generally - moral truths, whatever they may be, are true independently of any person who happens to be stating them. This is probably easiest to represent in worlds with a single, all-powerful deity. If the Creator set the rules and you don't like those rules _too bad_, mortals automatically lose all arguments with the Creator, even if they are, by some measure, correct. You can argue with the Creator that 1+1=2, and the Creator can say, 'no it doesn't' and the Creator still wins.

And there's no reason why this should not be the case in a fictional universe. After all, it's entirely possible to build a simulated universe with morality measures that are arbitrary and have plenty of the people operating in the universe hate those rules but still be forced to abide by them (SWTOR does this). The problem is, when producing media, the moral system is developed by some other person/persons and if the audience disagrees with said moral system it generally does heinous things to suspension of disbelief and causes rapid disengagement. This is why people rarely read fiction with strongly moral overtones by authors whose political ideology is vastly different from their own, and, relatedly, why older media tends to acquire this problem over time as cultural norms change. D&D's moral system was never well designed to begin with - Gygax and co. were no moral philosophers, theologians, or anyone familiar with this sort of thing - and has aged poorly due to changes in cultural norms since the 1970s. 

Still, it's important to separate two different factors: dislike for moral systems generally and dislike of the implementation of D&D alignment specifically. 




> And being able to detect which people are good and which people are evil makes the world a lot more weird. If you know someone is evil, why wouldn't you kill them? That's another discussion that can get heated. (You can't just go around killing people just because they're evil. Goblins? Sure, kill them for being evil, but not PEOPLE.) It makes perfect sense to kill all the evil people. Just make it illegal to be evil. Then, execute them legally. This would improve the world 100%. But you can't do it... for reasons.


Agreed, having moral position as a knowable quantity to essentially all sapient beings is just bizarre, especially in a salvationist world like D&D where reality is essentially a test and the ultimate goal is to get as many people to 'pass' by getting into the good afterlives as possible. it creates all kinds of perverse incentives to basically try and manufacture the maximum number of good people possible.

----------


## gbaji

> Alignment is not a personality trait. Alignment is a judgement, one that is imposed on the character by a moral arbiter. It's a summation, based on actions, intentions, feelings, and whatever else is considered to represent moral information, that determines the moral position of the character with consequences attached to that position. In D&D the moral position utilizes two axes and places every character on a pie chart and depending on which piece of the pie they match up to that impacts how various magical effects impact them and also determines their afterlife destination upon death.


The problem is that, in practical play, it ends up being *both*. From the players perspective, they first come up with a set of personality traits for the character (what kind of person do I want to play), and then the write down the alignment that they think fits that personality.

The GM (acting as arbiter), then judges the character's actions in play based on his own interpretation of what the alignment value written on the character sheet by the player is.

The problem is that it's incredibly common for what traits the player *thinks* is in one alignment to differ from the what the GM judges the actions of the character to be. Some of this can be the player "just not playing the alignment properly", but the player is playing "his character". The player should be the ultimate arbiter of what sort of personality his own character has, and therefore how that character would act in any given situation. So the problem could be "the player put the character in the wrong alignment in the first place". Which is probably true (again assume that the GM is the final arbiter of alignment after the fact based on actions in the game). But that raises the potential for extra pickles here. What if the alignment actually matters for the class chosen by the player? Most of the time, it may not matter, but sometimes it will.

And even if it doesn't, it's usually going to take some time of playing for the GM to basically tell the player (perhaps incrementally over time) that the character isn't being played correctly. So either the player has to play the character along the way differently than how he envisioned (each time the GM points out that doing X would be outside the character alignment, the player is pressured to do this) *or* the player and GM at some point down the line have to sit down and retcon the character in terms of alignment, which somewhat breaks the illusion of reality in the game itself.




> Critically, alignment, or really any system where an external entity acts as the moral arbiter to determine the moral position of others, does not care what the character believes their alignment to be or about how they justify their actions. The rules are the rules, they operate however they operate, and if a given character doesn't like it, tough. This is also why 'I rebel against the gods' stories are fairly common in this kind of system, because it is easy to devise a scenario where the moral arbiter is hopelessly corrupt or simply massively out of alignment (heh) with extant cultural norms.


But again, it matters a heck of a lot how the player of that character thought their character should be. If we go back to the assumption that the player is the final arbiter on what their character's actual personality is, and how that character should act in different situations, then the alignment should always be what results from those choices and actions, not something that's there at the start. But this means that in any situation where the player is "playing the alignment wrong", it's not really that the player is playing wrong, but that the player is playing correctly *a different alignment than that written on the character sheet*.

But if "the rules are the rules", then this creates tons of problems (as I mentioned above). I'm curious what you think should happen here. Should the player be forced to play the  alignment written down on the character sheet correctly? Or should the GM enforce an alignment change on the character to match their actual personality?  And what if "the rules" include punishments and/or consequences for that change in alignment? Do we dogmatically follow those, even though it's quite obvious that the character should never have been written in with that alignment in the first place?




> The difficulty with moral systems of this kind, in a TTRPG context, is that it forces the GM into the role of moral arbiter, which has a very strong tendency to poison at-table dynamics if moral questions are interrogated with any degree of depth. After all, even in the video game case where all morally engaged actions are scripted, players get into huge arguments about whether or not something should be coded one way or another (dark side points for that? b***s***! is a common refrain), they are simply unable to actually do anything about it so that grumbling goes nowhere.


Yup. It's incredibly common for there to be dramatic differences of opinion about how any given decision or action may fall on the alignment spectrum. It's well and good to say "these are the rules", but in this case the arbitration (by the GM) is going to be extremely subjective, but "the rules" are very firm. It's a recipe for disaster IMO.

To be perfectly honest, except maybe in games where there are specifically defined cosmic forces with "sides" that one may choose to align with, there's more or less no value to alignment systems in any game. Especially when those systems have anything at all to do with moral/ethical choices and actions. Just no reason to do it at all. And tying those things into spells and effects? Also silly.

I think alignment was originally included as a RP guide, knowing that many players were perhaps not very familiar with the concept of roleplaying in the first place. And as a guide, they can be somewhat useful (especially to new players maybe?). But as they have evolved over time, IMO they serve no real purpose anymore. I think that players can usually figure out how to assign personality traits to their characters (heck, if anything I sometimes see a bit too much of this), and then play those characters out based on those things. It's kinda like the training wheels for players in terms of sticking to a role for their characters, but alignments tend to be extremely simplistic and rigid, while real people are not. At some point, they become a restriction on playing more realistic characters, and no longer provide any useful benefits.

----------


## Quertus

Huh/heh. If you replace alignment with personality, and GM with player, you get my problem: some of the characters I create, when they see play, do not exhibit to my satisfaction the personalities I had intended them to have, and had written on their character sheets. So I either have to accept their new, corrected personality label, or reject it, and scrap the character.

----------


## Mechalich

> But again, it matters a heck of a lot how the player of that character thought their character should be. If we go back to the assumption that the player is the final arbiter on what their character's actual personality is, and how that character should act in different situations, then the alignment should always be what results from those choices and actions, not something that's there at the start. But this means that in any situation where the player is "playing the alignment wrong", it's not really that the player is playing wrong, but that the player is playing correctly *a different alignment than that written on the character sheet*.
> 
> But if "the rules are the rules", then this creates tons of problems (as I mentioned above). I'm curious what you think should happen here. Should the player be forced to play the  alignment written down on the character sheet correctly? Or should the GM enforce an alignment change on the character to match their actual personality?  And what if "the rules" include punishments and/or consequences for that change in alignment? Do we dogmatically follow those, even though it's quite obvious that the character should never have been written in with that alignment in the first place?


Generally, I believe that the GM should enforce an alignment change. In my experience, unless there are in-game punishments _nobody cares_ when this happens, because however the player is representing the character's actions clearly works in-party or there would have already been intraparty dynamics problems. Obviously in-game punishments can be problematic, but, I would note that punishments of this kind, which basically represent a player not having the character follow some set of rules the character agreed to follow in order to maintain access to a power set, can very easily be put in place for rules that are not considered to have moral values at all. For example, in a game where all the characters represented clandestine agents of Country X, and then one of the players betrayed Country X, they would, and should, lose access to all the cool stuff that being an agent of Country X offered (this happens in spy thrillers _a lot_). 

In most forms of fantasy fiction, the link between moral position and power is religious in nature and basically boils down to follow the rules of Entity X in return for supernatural abilities. Those rules should be clearly established during chargen and they player should be very aware of both what those rules are and their march on the path to violating them. For example, Star Wars games usually show a meter with light side/dark side affiliation, and Pathfinder: Kingmaker moves your character's alignment dot across the pie chart as choices are made in play. I've found that people usually have less issue holding to some sort of defined religious doctrine, with a moral component, compared to the vagueness of alignment (it also eases the burden on the GM to conduct enforcement because the GM is able to step into character as God X and use that voice rather than their own). I think experience broadly demonstrates this - in D&D the biggest 'alignment punishment' issue is the paladin's fall, because it's the one explicitly tied to the nebulous, bad, vague setup of alignment.




> To be perfectly honest, except maybe in games where there are specifically defined cosmic forces with "sides" that one may choose to align with, there's more or less no value to alignment systems in any game. Especially when those systems have anything at all to do with moral/ethical choices and actions. Just no reason to do it at all. And tying those things into spells and effects? Also silly.


Broadly I agree. I think moral systems should usually only be introduced in TTRPGs in the context of licensed settings that have such a system already embedded. Star Wars is the obvious example. You can't build a Star Wars game that ignores the light side/dark side issue, the system has to incorporate it for at least Force users. 




> I think alignment was originally included as a RP guide, knowing that many players were perhaps not very familiar with the concept of roleplaying in the first place. And as a guide, they can be somewhat useful (especially to new players maybe?). But as they have evolved over time, IMO they serve no real purpose anymore. I think that players can usually figure out how to assign personality traits to their characters (heck, if anything I sometimes see a bit too much of this), and then play those characters out based on those things. It's kinda like the training wheels for players in terms of sticking to a role for their characters, but alignments tend to be extremely simplistic and rigid, while real people are not. At some point, they become a restriction on playing more realistic characters, and no longer provide any useful benefits.


The original alignment system was drawn heavily from _Three Hearts and Three Lions_, along with the Paladin class and other elements. The idea of a holy champion who must maintain moral purity in order to preserve their supernatural abilities has strong roots in certain kinds of western fiction. However, at the same time D&D drew heavily on other works, mostly of Sword & Sorcery, as inspiration that had a much more cynical, broadly amoral take on the whole business of fantasy such as Conan and Nehwon. The result was a schizophrenic mess from the start. Paladin-types make no sense at all in the Hyborean Age or the Dying Earth even as they are essential to the Arthurian Mythos and Tolkien's Legendarium. It's the usual problem of D&D trying to be everything at once.

----------


## Sigreid

> By many people's standards yes.


I don't think it's ever been uttered except to justify making someone else suffer so others can thrive.

----------


## Tanarii

> Alignment is not a personality trait. Alignment is a judgement, one that is imposed on the character by a moral arbiter.


The worst kind of alignment.  I'm glad D&D has finally stopped using Alignment as a Morality Score judged by the DM.

----------


## Stonehead

> I don't think it's ever been uttered except to justify making someone else suffer so others can thrive.

----------


## Witty Username

"The dilemma is clear, how do we kill all six people?"

Alignment is not a be all end all, but it can be useful as a role-playing aid or quick description, and killing Rakshasa's.

I generally don't preplan alignment but will put one down if I or the DM have a strong opinion on the subject.

Unless I am angling a particular stint of moral philosophy, in which case I write down the Alignment I am studying an edge case for and check in with the DM periodically to see if their opinion matches the Alignment goal.
Last project can Lawful Good and the personality trait hedonistic co-exist. Reports came in yes, as doing things for the sake of one's own pleasure conforms if that pleasure is compatible with an ordered existence and and altruistic mindset. I ended up as a hexblade-bard specialized in stage combat, who had the primary goal to entertain others.

Some notes: personality is as unhelpful as alignments, endless meyers-briggs tests have taught us this.
Bond, ideal, flaw, alignment is going to be imperfect but the goals are starting points not full characters, and not everyone who plays rpgs is a novelist. And personality and history are things that change and evolve during play.

Descriptive alignment is generally superior to prescribed alignment, as it is a label we give to sets of thoughts, words, and deeds.

PCs are not indiscriminate murderers because they are evil, they are evil because they are indiscriminate murderers.

Now I do have some thoughts on how I conceptualize D&D alignments.
Generally I consider as 9 distinct alignments as opposed to 2 axis.
This is because the variance and philosophy of each alignment transforms the values associated,
Take Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, each is Lawful, promotion of order and structure. But they do so because because they tie order benefiting opposed veiw points. Evil believing order depowers others and benefits themselves, Good because they believe it leads to collectivism and empowers others in groups.
Also, there is a minor conflating with Good and Lawful and Evil and Chaotic. 4e had it bad with its 5 alignments (good, unaligned, evil, lawful good, chaotic evil). Which I find frustrating.

----------


## Quertus

> Some notes: personality is as unhelpful as alignments, endless meyers-briggs tests have taught us this.


Trying to put personality into a few discrete boxes is as unhelpful as doing so with moral stance seems like it might have been a better takeaway there.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The worst kind of alignment.  I'm glad D&D has finally stopped using Alignment as_ a Morality Score judged by the DM_.


 Under a good DM, it's a very good tool IME.  I guess good DM's are in short supply.  
 But it requires thought, and a little more effort by the DM, as well as not using the nine boxes silliness but instead the plot on the original Cartesian Grid.  Again, I've seen it both well done and badly done.  

It's the archer, not the arrow.

----------


## Satinavian

> Under a good DM, it's a very good tool IME.  I guess good DM's are in short supply.  
>  But it requires thought, and a little more effort by the DM, as well as not using the nine boxes silliness but instead the plot on the original Cartesian Grid.  Again, I've seen it both well done and badly done.  
> 
> It's the archer, not the arrow.


Certainly, you can avoid all he pitfalls and make alignment not a detriment if you have experienced players/DMs. Then it is only just some more work.

But even then : It is more work for ... what benefit exactly ?


Alignment can be harmful if handled badly and not harmful if handled carefully. But "not harmful" is not enough if it uses any additional work. It needs to be _useful_. And i just don't see it being that ever. There are some cases where you might use it for something you want but even in hose cases there are other options bringing the same or greater benefit with less work.

----------


## Mechalich

> Certainly, you can avoid all he pitfalls and make alignment not a detriment if you have experienced players/DMs. Then it is only just some more work.
> 
> But even then : It is more work for ... what benefit exactly ?
> 
> 
> Alignment can be harmful if handled badly and not harmful if handled carefully. But "not harmful" is not enough if it uses any additional work. It needs to be _useful_. And i just don't see it being that ever. There are some cases where you might use it for something you want but even in hose cases there are other options bringing the same or greater benefit with less work.


Alignment, or rather a system or morality measurement and arbitration, is useful in fictional settings where those things are explicitly taking place. In fact it is arguably _essential_ because otherwise those such universes no longer make sense, especially if there are abilities in-universe that are dependent upon moral criteria. Essentially, if you have 'holy warriors' you need to be able to define what 'holy' actually means. 

Now, in general, if you're designing a game setting from scratch, for a modern audience, its probably best to avoid having criterion-based powers overlap with morality, simply because that's contentious and generates arguments at table. It's much easier to have a 'Eagle Path Warrior' who has to continually follow the Eagle's Path (see table on page XX) or lose their powers because everyone understands that the 'Eagle's Path' is an arbitrary creation and any given player proclaiming 'the Eagle's Path is garbage BS!' isn't going to offend any core values. 

However, that isn't what people actually do, and there's at least two reasons why. First, most of the really noteworthy mythic and legendary elements that have stood the test of time are have strong religious and cultural connotations and are consequently inherently tied to moral questions. Any setting that has angels and demons has them representing _something_, and even if you go the 'two sides in a cosmic chess game' approach everyone whose affiliated with one side ends up playing by their rules anyway even if that's somehow 'not really a moral system.' Second, actual authors who write actual stories that get either explicitly (through licensing) or implicitly (through the reworking of public domain elements and thematic borrowing) often very much are interested in moral debate and moral themes and trying to pull in their work without reckoning with this means something key to those sources is inevitably lost. 

I'll go back to the Star Wars case, because it's relatively clean. It is absolutely possible to think the conventional wisdom on the light side and dark side of the Force is ridiculous and even possible to write straight up subversion of the consensus viewpoint (several authors, notably Matthew Stover, even got published by Lucasfilm while doing so), but you can't do Star Wars and pretend those things don't exist and any Star Wars game system that is made has to put some reference to them on character sheets somewhere.

To be clear, D&D alignment is a bad moral system, it's stance on who exactly the moral arbiters are is extremely messy (is it the gods or not?), and the actual implementation of the system is a horrid mess. Most importantly, the overall implied setting of D&D isn't sure it needs it at all. Planescape actually presented this in the clearest way possible: in the Outer Planes morality is literally everything, in the Inner Planes it is absolutely nothing, the Prime Material is regrettably stuck in the middle. The core gameplay focus of D&D, the dungeon crawl, really doesn't need alignment. So yeah, it's bad, and it is highly unfortunate that, because of D&D position as a market leader, alignment became a sort of shorthand for how moral systems should be handled, but none of that means there are settings and stories which, when made into TTRPGs, don't desperately need some kind of morality system.

----------


## Satinavian

Yes, that is basically why i said that the few useful things alignment can do, other things can do better. That does include representations of morality for settings with inherent absolute morality. Even those derived from religions.
I was not saying you should never put morality into rules. (Though you really shouldn't for setting agnostic systems).


As for Star Wars : What the light and dark side actually mean is even more diffuse than the D&D alignments. I would hate to be tasked with writing rules for that mess that are agreeable to most of the fandom (including all films, TV series, books and cRPGs).

----------


## Tanarii

> 





> "The dilemma is clear, how do we kill all six people?"


Lol yeah the Trolley Problem is a False Dilemma Problem, for philosophy professors to blow the minds of 1st year students. Not an actual analytical tool or in any way applicable to real world situations. 

That said, since the DM can set scenarios and railroad tracks, they could always set up an actual Trolley Problem scenario in their game.   But the correct response in that case is: stop playing in that game.




> Under a good DM, it's a very good tool IME.  I guess good DM's are in short supply.  
>  But it requires thought, and a little more effort by the DM, as well as not using the nine boxes silliness but instead the plot on the original Cartesian Grid.  Again, I've seen it both well done and badly done.  
> 
> It's the archer, not the arrow.


I had one experience with a DM in the old days which was really bad ... for the DM.  Told me my magical enchantment that kept my Drow Assassin LG was broken by the Evil High Priest and I was CE again, and the EHP wanted me to turn against the party.  Result was a TPK, which the DM clearly didn't expect.  Not sure why he thought I wouldn't enthusiastically buy-in to his enforced alignment change, and it totally blew his planned railroad story adventure after 2 sessions.  :Small Amused: 

But that was not a retroactive DM judged alignment use at all.  It was environmental change in PC alignment with enthusiastic player buy-in, used in a forward looking fashion.

However, before I instinctively disagree it's the archer, unless you can be clear what the added value of a retroactive DM-judged alignment system is?  Follow up question, what about its use _without player buy-in_?  

Because that'd be the least contentious.  If it required player buy in AND it's retroactively DM judged, that's just a recipe for table arguments.




> As for Star Wars : What the light and dark side actually mean is even more diffuse than the D&D alignments. I would hate to be tasked with writing rules for that mess that are agreeable to most of the fandom (including all films, TV series, books and cRPGs).


The CRPGs with -side scores are among the worst.  And I'm fairly sure they're inspired by D&D's Dragonlance alignment system, which was especially required for Wizards and (if they had reappeared) Clerics, but also to some degree for Solamnic Knights.  As nostalgic as I am about DL, it was the start of several really bad trends in D&D.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> However, before I instinctively disagree it's the archer, unless you can be clear what the added value of a retroactive DM-judged alignment system is?


 You are mischaracterizing the system by saying 
_retroactive-DM-judged alignment system_

The players are each somewhere on the cartesian grid to begin.  As they play they either stay where they are or begin to move in a direction.  As movement occurs the DM lets the player know that the trend is toward a change, and basically waits for their response.  Usually, that comes in the form of "why" and the DM explains how the world/cosmos is responding to their various decisions since in RPGs decisions have consequences.  

The player then is left with the choice to keep on that trend or reverse it.  

Granted, when an item forces an alignment change, that's a different case.  

In your case, it seems to have been the archers, plural.  And as I said, it is certainly something one can screw up, given that players and DMs are human and all to often had (or have) poor people skills.  

I find the blinders on attitudes, all too often expressed in this 3.x based community, to be a collective case of crowd myopia.  But in defense of the aversion to using alignment in that style, yes, it can be done badly.  
Yes, there can be Pexian-lament-DM's who are bad at the DM role.  
But we don't give up playing because of that. 

Let's see: in the last 8 years, I have let two DM's know that no, I am not interested in playing the game as they are running it, and I have the courtesy to explain clearly to them what it is that I dislike (feedback is useful, or can be).   
I stopped playing in those two groups.  I am still in four others.

Vahnavoi does a better job than I do at explaining how the AD&D era system works, in terms of the rationality of the assumptions underlying it.   
We didn't need any of that explained when we took up the game, we simply made it work, with a few outlying cases of "FFS, what?" happening along the way.  Because I have seen it work, I don't presume that edge cases are the norm. 

And I also like playing in games where alignment is barely integrated into it.  That also works, sometimes.

----------


## Tanarii

I dont see that im mischaracterizing at all. 
At its root, youre still describing the DM judging and determing alignment based on past actions.

The question remains: What's the benefit tho?

Access to items and class features?

If not, and it's still a tool for player roleplaying, what additional benefit does the system gain from final DM judgement?  And how does that benefit outweighs the largely well understood potential downside of player disagreement with the DM's moral and roleplaying judgement?

----------


## Quertus

> the DM explains how the world/cosmos is responding to their various decisions since in RPGs decisions have consequences.


Sorry, what? Alignment has value, because actions have consequences and those consequences take the form of cosmic forces responding to the morality of the PCs choices? Is that really your response to explain how Alignment has value?

----------


## Mechalich

> Sorry, what? Alignment has value, because actions have consequences and those consequences take the form of cosmic forces responding to the morality of the PCs choices? Is that really your response to explain how Alignment has value?


Yes, because in that scenario cosmic forces give the PCs stuff in return for promises to maintain a certain moral position. 

The fundamental principle is the same as basically any other contract. Party A gives Party B some thing and in return Party B promises that they will carry out some task. The case where Party A is a god who bestows supernatural power on Party B in return for promises to obey their theological doctrine and proselytize in their name is quite common, well established, and usually includes a _massive_ moral element. If your character pledges to follow Lord Good of Almighty goodness and then goes around conducting dark blood rituals of course the supernatural powers are going to get ganked. A blanket moral system that doesn't have gods and applies universally is a little bit more nebulous, but it's the same principle just extended out to the point that everyone has an implicit contract with the universe itself governing their behavior - again the Force in Star Wars, in which an emotionally resonant morally sensitive process is a fundamental component of reality itself (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong, Weak, and The Force) is a good example of how this can be setup. 

Now, no one is obligated to like this system, but it's an extremely common system and, for most of human history the overwhelming majority of people believed they lived in a universe with either beings or forces exercising moral arbitration over everyone at all times, so it's hardly surprising that fictional universes are built in this way.

D&D alignment, of course, is a really, really bad version of this. Bad and broken rules in TTRPGs often produce more damage than they add value and this is broadly true of alignment, especially it's complicated law/chaos axis (D&D video games usually track lots of actions as good/evil, but hardly anything as law/chaos). That doesn't invalidate the use of morality systems, in settings where they are appropriate though, it's just a case of a specific bad subsystem.

----------


## gbaji

> Generally, I believe that the GM should enforce an alignment change. In my experience, unless there are in-game punishments _nobody cares_ when this happens, because however the player is representing the character's actions clearly works in-party or there would have already been intraparty dynamics problems. Obviously in-game punishments can be problematic, but, I would note that punishments of this kind, which basically represent a player not having the character follow some set of rules the character agreed to follow in order to maintain access to a power set, can very easily be put in place for rules that are not considered to have moral values at all. For example, in a game where all the characters represented clandestine agents of Country X, and then one of the players betrayed Country X, they would, and should, lose access to all the cool stuff that being an agent of Country X offered (this happens in spy thrillers _a lot_).


Yup. Tend to agree that's the best way to handle this. And if at all possible, I'd try to actually retcon the character's alignment. And yeah, if there are no direct game effects, then you just write the "correct all along" alignment on the sheet, and let the player go on playing their character the way they envisioned it in the first place.

This does get sticky when there are in-game effects though. And can be worse because what often happens is that it's not on day one that this decision is made, but maybe after weeks or moths of playing this character in the game, and the GM is constantly noticing that the character's actions (as played by the player) don't really mesh with the alignment chosen, then there's some discussion between GM and player, perhaps a series of warnings, etc. It can be entirely possible to have to completely alter the character, effectively re-writing the past adventures (or just handwaving them away somehow) in order to make this "work". Or, you stick with "the rules" and apply punishments of some kind, which is somewhat unfair to the player. It would be wonderful if GMs were always 100% able to spot this coming ahead of time during character creation/description, and make alignment determinations/adjustments then, but quite often the GM doesn't realize this until the player has played the character for some time. And that's where problems can creep in.

Obviously, if the "alignment" is with a faction/side/whatever like "Country X", and the character directly betrays it, that's a different thing than "You were really chaotic instead of neutral, or neutral instead of good", or some such.




> In most forms of fantasy fiction, the link between moral position and power is religious in nature and basically boils down to follow the rules of Entity X in return for supernatural abilities. Those rules should be clearly established during chargen and they player should be very aware of both what those rules are and their march on the path to violating them.


Yeah. I happen to think that religious rules are the easiest and perhaps best "alternative" to "good/evil;law/chaos;whatever" style alignment systems. It's pretty easy when creating a character and deciding "I'm a rogue, and I worship Blackhand, the god of sneaking around and stealing stuff", and then following lists of "rules" like "you like to sneak around in the shadows", and "a good backstab is the best stab", and "don't forget to tip your local priest his 5% of the take", etc. Or maybe, "I worship Grond the god of smashing things", and following rules like "get into fist fights whenever possible", and "if you don't like someone, break their stuff", and just general "when in doubt, charge". And yeah, it's much easier to play out the deity judging the character's actions based solely on "what would <insert deity here> do" thinking instead of "what exactly is the nature of good/evil and how does it apply?".




> Broadly I agree. I think moral systems should usually only be introduced in TTRPGs in the context of licensed settings that have such a system already embedded. Star Wars is the obvious example. You can't build a Star Wars game that ignores the light side/dark side issue, the system has to incorporate it for at least Force users.


Interestingly enough, I've often thought that the whole dark/light side stuff could be done away with in Star Wars (at least conceptually). Obviously, not mechanically as most settings take place during conflicts between Jedi and  Sith, but one of the somewhat subtle themes I kinda got from the last trilogy of films (and some hints in the prequel trilogy as well) was the idea that the force doesn't actually care much about light or dark, but just "is", and it was perhaps the very existence and rise to power of the Jedi with very strict rules about force use (the "light side") actually created a balance reaction in the force that required the creation of the Sith (the "dark side"). Certainly the common theme among many who "fell" to the dark side and became Sith was "I just can't follow these ridiculous and stringent rules", and with an absolute "light/dark" dynamic in play had almost not choice but to become Sith. This certainly seemed to be the case with Dooku and with Anakin. Probably others. Ironically, one could argue that by doing what he did and destroying the Jedi, Anakin *did* bring balance to the force, it just took another 20 something years for his son to come along and complete the job. And in episodes 7-9 we actually start to see more force users who don't align themselves as either anymore, kinda just using whatever powers they want, popping up (but, of course, some like Kylo and Rey, still following the "old patterns", or at least trying to). Hard to be sure where they're going with that, but it's something I got a hint of and honestly thought was a much better way of looking at force powers than the old classic "light vs dark" assumption.

How much of the "fact" that use of certain powers innately lead to evil was because it really did, and how much was because for several thousand years, that's literally what the Jedi taught every single force user in the galaxy? If you've been taught your entire life that "if you don't meet this high bar standard we've set, you will fall and inevitably become evil" it's a good bet that most people who fail to meet those standards will kinda go "well, I've already failed, I guess I'm evil then". Doesn't help that there always seemed to be some Sith master lying in wait for such people and goading them into performing "evil" things just to prove the starting assumption (and become useful pawns for their "evil"). And the cycle continues.




> The original alignment system was drawn heavily from _Three Hearts and Three Lions_, along with the Paladin class and other elements. The idea of a holy champion who must maintain moral purity in order to preserve their supernatural abilities has strong roots in certain kinds of western fiction. However, at the same time D&D drew heavily on other works, mostly of Sword & Sorcery, as inspiration that had a much more cynical, broadly amoral take on the whole business of fantasy such as Conan and Nehwon. The result was a schizophrenic mess from the start. Paladin-types make no sense at all in the Hyborean Age or the Dying Earth even as they are essential to the Arthurian Mythos and Tolkien's Legendarium. It's the usual problem of D&D trying to be everything at once.


That sounds about right. Hadn't actually considered the issue of trying to draw on different (and quite contradictory) sources like that. Makes sense though. Also explains the mess even from day one.

It certainly highlights the issues with early play where figuring out how to run a thief character and a paladin character in the same party was darn near impossible. And yet, the game strongly encouraged having thieves because of the trap focus in the game, and the fact that this was literally the only class that could do anything about them. And also adds in the very "mercenary" nature of many of those sources heroes as well.




> "The dilemma is clear, how do we kill all six people?"


I think if you just wait to throw the switch until after the front wheels have passed, then you could get the trolley to kinda derail, tip over, and roll on all of them. Might only crush the legs of the one guy up top though, but maybe if you delay medical care and he bleeds out?

Oh wait! Was that rhetorical? Oopps. Er... Disregard that then.

----------


## Quertus

> 





> "The dilemma is clear, how do we kill all six people?"


Seriously, people, theyre _helpless_. How do you possibly _not_ kill them all? The question is, do you let the trolley kill the group of 5, or do you keep that pleasure for yourself?




> Yes, because in that scenario cosmic forces give the PCs stuff in return for promises to maintain a certain moral position.


Ah, I read the context to be, in the absence of such mechanics, what roleplaying value does Alignment have?. Has my reading comprehension failed me yet again?

----------


## Satinavian

> You are mischaracterizing the system by saying 
> _retroactive-DM-judged alignment system_
> 
> The players are each somewhere on the cartesian grid to begin.  As they play they either stay where they are or begin to move in a direction.  As movement occurs the DM lets the player know that the trend is toward a change, and basically waits for their response.  Usually, that comes in the form of "why" and the DM explains how the world/cosmos is responding to their various decisions since in RPGs decisions have consequences.  
> 
> The player then is left with the choice to keep on that trend or reverse it.


Yes, that is how it is supposed to work. But when it doesn't work, usually one of the following happens :

1: The player disagrees with the morality the DM uses and feels quite strongly about it. (That is if it didn't get outlined at the start)
2: The player thinks the DM does not use the moralitity as he nimself has established at the start of the campaign and makes decisions going against it
3: The player thinks the DM moves morality around completely arbitrary and inconsistently.

And who actually can say the player is wrong ? There is no mechanics that prevents any of this. There is also no mechanism to arbitrate the disagreement. Now usually one could just say "we agree to disagree" and move on. But even that is impossible if alignment has mechanical consequences.


So it is and remains a potential source of table drama, even if suppossedly used as intended. The only way to prevent it is having DM and players agree about morality in their campaign in he first place. But if that were the case, you wouldn't need the DM to make adjustments either as the players would play what's on their sheet or how they see character development correctly anyway.



The risk might be small and probably most tables never really get into alignment debates. Most tables probably never had any alignment shifts either, to be honest. But the risk is there and in extreme cases it can kill whole campaigns. And there is not enough benefit to counter it. Alignment is not useful enough to pay for its drawbacks.




> Yeah. I happen to think that religious rules are the easiest and perhaps best "alternative" to "good/evil;law/chaos;whatever" style alignment systems. It's pretty easy when creating a character and deciding "I'm a rogue, and I worship Blackhand, the god of sneaking around and stealing stuff", and then following lists of "rules" like "you like to sneak around in the shadows", and "a good backstab is the best stab", and "don't forget to tip your local priest his 5% of the take", etc. Or maybe, "I worship Grond the god of smashing things", and following rules like "get into fist fights whenever possible", and "if you don't like someone, break their stuff", and just general "when in doubt, charge". And yeah, it's much easier to play out the deity judging the character's actions based solely on "what would <insert deity here> do" thinking instead of "what exactly is the nature of good/evil and how does it apply?".


Oh yes, that is way superior. Not only do you get quite clear and easy to arbitrate guidelines, you can also adjust which character cares for which guidelines more or less.

The system i know going most in this direction is probably TDE. They started publishing single god moral codes in the 80s/90s and nowadays you can even buy (if you are really interested) those little prayer books for most of the important fictional gods including some prayers, description of church structures and typical life of priests and quite a lot of pages of fictional theology about how to apply the gods ideals in practice, how typical dilemmata are resolved, and where different sects disagree about it.

It has less stuff for the more obscure religions/gods though. There needs to be enough interest to make physical books. But even in those cases you tend to get more than in similar instances for D&D.

----------


## Keltest

> Yes, that is how it is supposed to work. But when it doesn't work, usually one of the following happens :
> 
> 1: The player disagrees with the morality the DM uses and feels quite strongly about it. (That is if it didn't get outlined at the start)
> 2: The player thinks the DM does not use the moralitity as he nimself has established at the start of the campaign and makes decisions going against it
> 3: The player thinks the DM moves morality around completely arbitrary and inconsistently.


So, lets take a step back here for a second, and consider the same question for a different aspect of DM authority: setting DCs for whatever task, or otherwise deciding if its possible and how hard it is. If a player wants to, say, push a boulder, and they feel quite strongly that they should be able to do it, and the DM thinks its immobile, the DM just wins. So why is alignment different? Especially because in later editions of D&D, alignment doesnt even have any mechanical impacts on your character, so its not like youre being told your character build wasn't able to do what you built it for or something.

----------


## Satinavian

> So, lets take a step back here for a second, and consider the same question for a different aspect of DM authority: setting DCs for whatever task, or otherwise deciding if its possible and how hard it is. If a player wants to, say, push a boulder, and they feel quite strongly that they should be able to do it, and the DM thinks its immobile, the DM just wins. So why is alignment different? Especially because in later editions of D&D, alignment doesnt even have any mechanical impacts on your character, so its not like youre being told your character build wasn't able to do what you built it for or something.


Because most rule systems have good guidelines about how to set DCs or even clear rules for it. Not everything uses "GM makes up DCs" as consequently as D&D5. That is why there is generally less arguing about it.But yes, there can be arguments in other areas as well and setting difficulties is indeed one such field where this happens if it is under purfew of the GM.

The difference is again, how useful it is. "Setting DCs" _is_ useful. Without it you either are bound to static DCs like in certain coin-toss systems or the system has to give all DCs for all circumstances, making it both quite bulky and unflexible (and there are usually also areas where the results are not particularly plausible).

And that is why we accpet "DM sets DCs". It seems worth the drawbacks. Which is not the case for alignment. Thank you for illustrating my point with this apt comparison.


Also yes : Alignment having less mechanical impact on characters in the latest editions of D&D directly translates into less arguments about it. It is basically quitely abandoning it for a better game.

----------


## Quertus

> So, lets take a step back here for a second, and consider the same question for a different aspect of DM authority: setting DCs for whatever task, or otherwise deciding if its possible and how hard it is. If a player wants to, say, push a boulder, and they feel quite strongly that they should be able to do it, and the DM thinks its immobile, the DM just wins. So why is alignment different?





> But yes, there can be arguments in other areas as well and setting difficulties is indeed one such field where this happens if it is under purfew of the GM.


Or, to put it my way, a good group will absolutely tell a GM, youre an idiot when they badly fail at setting a DC (and just ask, are you sure? when they fail to be reasonable by a more reasonable amount).

Why should Alignment be any different?

----------


## Keltest

> Because most rule systems have good guidelines about how to set DCs or even clear rules for it. Not everything uses "GM makes up DCs" as consequently as D&D5. That is why there is generally less arguing about it.But yes, there can be arguments in other areas as well and setting difficulties is indeed one such field where this happens if it is under purfew of the GM.
> 
> The difference is again, how useful it is. "Setting DCs" _is_ useful. Without it you either are bound to static DCs like in certain coin-toss systems or the system has to give all DCs for all circumstances, making it both quite bulky and unflexible (and there are usually also areas where the results are not particularly plausible).
> 
> And that is why we accpet "DM sets DCs". It seems worth the drawbacks. Which is not the case for alignment. Thank you for illustrating my point with this apt comparison.
> 
> 
> Also yes : Alignment having less mechanical impact on characters in the latest editions of D&D directly translates into less arguments about it. It is basically quitely abandoning it for a better game.


So you claim that alignment doesnt have value because it causes arguments, but it only causes arguments when it has value?

Are you sure you dont want to re-think that position?

----------


## Satinavian

> So you claim that alignment doesnt have value because it causes arguments, but it only causes arguments when it has value?
> 
> Are you sure you dont want to re-think that position?


No, i claim it doesn't have value because it does not provide anything useful other tools could not do better.

That it _also_ causes arguments despite being otherwiese useless is the reason to ditch it.



It seems that you are equating "mechanical impact" with "value". I really don't know why.

----------


## Cluedrew

> Lol yeah the Trolley Problem is a False Dilemma Problem, for philosophy professors to blow the minds of 1st year students. Not an actual analytical tool or in any way applicable to real world situations.


Having actually encountered the Trolley Problem in some philosophy studies: yes, but that's because it is more of an illustrative tool that is used with variations to show various concepts. Or at least that is how it was used when I found it.

The simplest variant is there is only one person on each track. Most people will not flip the switch. Even though the actions are theoretically morally equivalent, having something bad happen because of your inaction feels better than having something bad happen because of your action. (This is not universal, but a pretty consistent trend.)

I've said my piece on alignment already. Could say something about "for the greater good", but for now I just say if you say that with no further explanation you are probably a villain.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I dont see that im mischaracterizing at all. 
> At its root, youre still describing the DM judging and determing alignment based on past actions.


 you are still mischaracterizing it.  The decisions and choices the Player/PC makes inform whether a change in alignment is afoot or not.  In RPGs, choices have consequences.  How basic is that?  Even Ron Edwards would agree with that.   



> Yes, that is how it is supposed to work. But when it doesn't work


 Then you are doing it wrong, as a play group.  
It's that simple. 
I've seen it work far more often than not work.  
And if you can't handle it, then _dispense with alignment_ is a rational choice for your play group.  
The play's the thing. 

I have two D&D groups I play with _who have no clue when it comes to tactics_.  I think tactically. That's me, it's what I do.  So with these two groups, what do I do?  
I play, and I adjust my style to fit the table or, in a third case recently, I leave the group and I tell them why I left.  

Becoming rules dependent gets in the way of that kind of flexibility.

----------


## Tanarii

> you are still mischaracterizing it.  The decisions and choices the Player/PC makes inform whether a change in alignment is afoot or not.  In RPGs, choices have consequences.  How basic is that?  Even Ron Edwards would agree with that.


You're still failing to explain what purpose DM judging of past character actions on a roleplaying and moral basis and assigning consequences is, and why it's beneficial to have it.

Is it about access to certain class features and magic items?
Is it about a roleplaying tool for the players?

In both cases, why is a system where the DM warns the player they are roleplaying their designated morality incorrectly, and it'll change if they continue, superior?  What benefit comes from having the referee in effect telling them "you're doing it wrong" on two such sensitive areas, which will inevitably cause a table argument at some number of tables?

----------


## Satinavian

> Then you are doing it wrong, as a play group.  
> It's that simple. 
> I've seen it work far more often than not work.  
> And if you can't handle it, then _dispense with alignment_ is a rational choice for your play group.  
> The play's the thing.


I know i can ditch it if it doesn't work. And i know that the problems only occur sometimes, not in every group.

But why not just ditch it always, not only after it makes problems ? If it is potentially problematic, why not nip the problem in the bud and play without it from the start ? I just don't recognize anything useful lost. That is why i always circle back to the usefulness of alignment or better the utter lack of it. 

It seems the only reason some people still use it is tradition.

----------


## Mechalich

> I know i can ditch it if it doesn't work. And i know that the problems only occur sometimes, not in every group.
> 
> But why not just ditch it always, not only after it makes problems ? If it is potentially problematic, why not nip the problem in the bud and play without it from the start ? I just don't recognize anything useful lost. That is why i always circle back to the usefulness of alignment or better the utter lack of it. 
> 
> It seems the only reason some people still use it is tradition.


There are certain things that D&D allows that only make sense within the context of alignment. For example, Paladins who don't worship any specific deity or Clerics of Chaos. And there's all the various planar exemplar classes like Devils, Modrons, Eladrins, etc. that are embedded deeply with alignment. If alignment is removed, or even severely modified, a whole lot of the greater mythology of D&D collapses, and a lot of people _like_ that mythology, bespoke and bizarre as it is. After all, when 4e went and modified alignment in exactly that way the Planescape fandom absolutely revolted (was part of it, can confirm) and basically ignored all post-3.5e material forever. 

Alignment is one of the many things were D&D has built upon itself and a series of decisions made by a handful of people in the 1970s and 1980s have become so deeply embedded in the system that they are not easily excised. It's doable, for example Dark Sun drastically reduces the importance of alignment removing all that Outer Planes stuff from the equation, but it takes effort. 

For many campaigns that effort isn't worth it. Alignment generally only becomes a problem when a player is determined to skirt the edge of an alignment boundary because they really want power X, but don't actually want to play the character type that gets power X, which is already a poor approach to gameplay anyway.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> There are certain things that D&D allows that only make sense within the context of alignment. For example, Paladins who don't worship any specific deity or Clerics of Chaos. And there's all the various planar exemplar classes like Devils, Modrons, Eladrins, etc. that are embedded deeply with alignment. If alignment is removed, or even severely modified, a whole lot of the greater mythology of D&D collapses, and a lot of people _like_ that mythology, bespoke and bizarre as it is. After all, when 4e went and modified alignment in exactly that way the Planescape fandom absolutely revolted (was part of it, can confirm) and basically ignored all post-3.5e material forever.


Then go play 3.5

its not going anywhere. the edition has been made, every facet has been explored, catalogued and examined so thoroughly that you'd swear that some charoppers treat study of it like a science. there are no WotC ninjas coming in the night to assassinate you for not playing the latest edition. if your ideas match 3.5 DnD....uh....sorry to say this but its already there, it doesn't need to be made again. If you want features from newer editions, add them in, nothing is stopping you.

now will other people be interested in playing DnD 3.5? who knows. if they aren't? *Tough.* Welcome to the pain of every indie ttrpg fan, I hope its enlightening.

----------


## Mechalich

> Then go play 3.5
> 
> its not going anywhere. the edition has been made, every facet has been explored, catalogued and examined so thoroughly that you'd swear that some charoppers treat study of it like a science. there are no WotC ninjas coming in the night to assassinate you for not playing the latest edition. if your ideas match 3.5 DnD....uh....sorry to say this but its already there, it doesn't need to be made again. If you want features from newer editions, add them in, nothing is stopping you.
> 
> now will other people be interested in playing DnD 3.5? who knows. if they aren't? *Tough.* Welcome to the pain of every indie ttrpg fan, I hope its enlightening.


I wasn't making a pro-3.5 argument. The point was alignment is deeply embedded in the structural tissue of D&D, dating back to at least 1e AD&D, and that removing it has impacts on the system that make certain things that rely on that portion of the structure no longer function. The Great Wheel Outer Planes only works with regards to the two axis alignment system, and vice-versa, which is why Pathfinder functionally duplicated the Great Wheel in a 'just-different-enough-to-avoid-a-lawsuit' way. 

The broader point is that alignment is bad and while the game would probably be better off without it, there are other things in the game - including things like the Outer Planes which are actually interesting and useful for the game to have - that are dependent upon alignment and break if it is eliminated. There are lots of things like this in D&D, because of the way it's design was cobbled together. Alignment is only unusual in that it's tied directly to morality and therefore easily spills out into real world debate and not an entirely fictional thing like shapechanging. 

Morality systems in other games are rarely as contentious as alignment because they are either better designed (not hard) or are less inextricably tied to the overall game structure. For example, the Humanity system of VtM was jaw-droppingly terrible in basically every possible way, but it was also extremely easy to ignore because it had few mechanical ties to anything and most of those were easily ignored as well (the coterie members all rise at the same time each night, because obviously, nevermind any humanity variation).

----------


## Quertus

> The Great Wheel Outer Planes only works with regards to the two axis alignment system
> 
> the Outer Planes which are actually interesting and useful for the game to have - that are dependent upon alignment and break if it is eliminated.


Citation needed.

No, seriously - why cant we have the great wheel without alignment?

Alternately, suppose I create a new world, where every inhabitant has immune to Alignment. Does the Great Wheel suddenly fall apart?

Suppose (as D&D already canonically espouses) that this world is part of D&D. Do we fall under this horrific morality system, do the outer plane implode, or does the Great Wheel keep on spinning?

----------


## Batcathat

> There are certain things that D&D allows that only make sense within the context of alignment. For example, Paladins who don't worship any specific deity or Clerics of Chaos. And there's all the various planar exemplar classes like Devils, Modrons, Eladrins, etc. that are embedded deeply with alignment. If alignment is removed, or even severely modified, a whole lot of the greater mythology of D&D collapses, and a lot of people _like_ that mythology, bespoke and bizarre as it is.


What is it that causes it to collapse, exactly? Take away alignment and you can still have different planar beings that are united by their philosophies. Is there really a need for Lawful Evil to be an objective truth for two devils to have common ground? 

As for the paladins, why not just have them follow a specific moral code? If anything that seems easier to manage than tying it to the vagueness of an alignment.

----------


## OldTrees1

> I know i can ditch it if it doesn't work. And i know that the problems only occur sometimes, not in every group.
> 
> But why not just ditch it always, not only after it makes problems ? If it is potentially problematic, why not nip the problem in the bud and play without it from the start ? I just don't recognize anything useful lost. That is why i always circle back to the usefulness of alignment or better the utter lack of it. 
> 
> It seems the only reason some people still use it is tradition.


It sounds like you half answered your own question. The downside "the problems" don't occur in every group. For some groups there is no downside to using alignment. It is not "potentially problematic" for those groups.

You are also aware there are players/groups that do value using alignment. So you know it is useful to those groups. Even if you don't know why they value it and thus don't know how it is useful (beyond the high level "it adds that desired value").

You are also aware you don't value it and you a worried it could cause problems for your group, so you already know not to add it to your group.


It sounds like you know everything you need to know. The remainder of the question is just curiosity.


One use of alignment is having the description of your character's moral character exist in the world rather than only in your head. I generally don't describe my character's hair (when they have it) unless asked. It is not something I care to have as a fact in the world. The other players can have their own assumptions about the hair color, but I see no use in the game knowing & establishing the color unless there is some reason that makes it important. For some players they view their character's moral character in the same way I view my character's hair color*. However some players do care to have the game know & establish their hair color. They value the hair color being an established detail in the game. Similarly when I play a Paladin that is trying to be moral, I value their moral character being an established detail in the game. The GM updating that description as necessary is part of the point of me playing a Paladin that is trying to be moral. Likewise when I play a Mind Flayer that is evil or other evil character, I like the game establishing the character is evil as one of the multiple ways I signal I don't condone their actions (which helps me feel comfortable and feel the group is comfortable with me roleplaying that evil character). I also like to leave the possibility of organic redemption/fall from grace for my characters that care about their moral character.

* When I played Dun the dungeon tour guide, I did not care about alignment, and Dun did not care about alignment, and thus I did not use it. Those that value alignment and find it occasionally useful won't necessarily find it useful for every character and thus might not use it some of the time.




> What is it that causes it to collapse, exactly? Take away alignment and you can still have different planar beings that are united by their philosophies. Is there really a need for Lawful Evil to be an objective truth for two devils to have common ground?


True. Nothing changes when the great wheel is defined by similarities in philosophies rather than correlation to an objective truth. Imagine being on Sigil and running into a debate between those philosophies. In the end you have a 2 axis system but it is one about which philosophy the character agrees with rather than how they measure up to the objective truth.

You can even have both. It is very tempting to have celestial not mean the same thing as good. I like the idea of even the outsiders not knowing the objective truth.

----------


## Tanarii

> It so
> You are also aware there are players/groups that do value using alignment. So you know it is useful to those groups.


Still waiting for an explanation of how it's useful, what is so beneficial it outweighs the known downsides of a retroactive DM-judgement on roleplaying of the player an morality of the characters actions.

I get the value of Teams alignment.
I get the value of player RP tool alignment, provided it's not a straight jacket or excuse.
I don't get the use case / value of a DM judged roleplaying and morality score alignment. 

And if the answer is "to restrict access to certain class powers and magic items" ... why?  Why is that valuable, and why does that value outweigh the downsides?

----------


## Cluedrew

My theory is that it was to an early attempt to get people to care about the character of their characters. Now I wasn't there, but I can totally see people picking up a paladin and playing them like some ruthless, cut-throat brigand. All the rational for enforced alignment I can think of kind of disappear if you assume players are trying to play a consistent character with consistent alignment, so my best guess it was to prevent people from doing that. The execution on that is another matter.

----------


## Keltest

> Still waiting for an explanation of how it's useful, what is so beneficial it outweighs the known downsides of a retroactive DM-judgement on roleplaying of the player an morality of the characters actions.
> 
> I get the value of Teams alignment.
> I get the value of player RP tool alignment, provided it's not a straight jacket or excuse.
> I don't get the use case / value of a DM judged roleplaying and morality score alignment. 
> 
> And if the answer is "to restrict access to certain class powers and magic items" ... why?  Why is that valuable, and why does that value outweigh the downsides?


Alignment is a tool. If you dont know what kind of decision your character would make off hand, you can consult your alignment for ideas. Its also an easy shorthand for a declaration of intent. "I'm going to play a chaotic neutral character" is a lot easier for people to quickly process than a lengthy description of the character's opinions on various topics like the value of the city guard or how oppressive the nobility is. When somebody else says "Im going to play a lawful good character" then you can have a conversation about how much conflict the group is willing to entertain and if these two characters can coexist in the same party.

Its also a lot easier to go "ok, I want to create a good guy who respects tradition and believes the group as an idea is worth supporting" than it is to create an entire nuanced personality in the half hour or so it takes to roll a character from scratch.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Still waiting for an explanation of how it's useful, what is so beneficial it outweighs the known downsides of a retroactive DM-judgement on roleplaying of the player an morality of the characters actions.
> 
> I get the value of Teams alignment.
> I get the value of player RP tool alignment, provided it's not a straight jacket or excuse.
> I don't get the use case / value of a DM judged roleplaying and morality score alignment. 
> 
> And if the answer is "to restrict access to certain class powers and magic items" ... why?  Why is that valuable, and why does that value outweigh the downsides?


If you are waiting on an explanation for how it is useful, then you can return to my post you quoted. I say it right there. (First I explain why this should not be an argument. Second I conclude the only unaddressed part is curiosity rather than argumentation. Third I satisfy that curiosity.)

If you are concerned about the known downsides, then it would help if you learned those downsides don't exist for every group. (Seriously, I don't have the problems with alignment that you do, so there is no downside.)

I am not going to try to convince you that something you don't value is useful to you and you should already know that something I do value is useful to me.

Your "known downsides" don't exist for everyone, you already knew alignment was valued by some and thus useful to those that valued it, and you quoted a post giving an example of one of the ways I find it useful.

Please, just scroll up again.

----------


## Tanarii

> If you are waiting on an explanation for how it is useful, then you can return to my post you quoted. I say it right there. (First I explain why this should not be an argument. Second I conclude the only unaddressed part is curiosity rather than argumentation. Third I satisfy that curiosity.)


The only "explanation" you give is some groups use it without issue.  That doesn't answer my questions on what the use case is, and why in that use case the benefits outweighs the down sides.

Note that "DM gives me feedback and I decide if I need to adjust my alignment, adjust my roleplaying, or disagree with the DM and keep doing what I'm doing with the same alignment" is not the same thing as "DM gives me feedback and I decide if I need to adjust my roleplaying, accept the DM changing my alignment, or disagree with the DM and they change my alignment anyway." The latter is the problem that doesn't have an explained use case.




> My theory is that it was to an early attempt to get people to care about the character of their characters. Now I wasn't there, but I can totally see people picking up a paladin and playing them like some ruthless, cut-throat brigand. All the rational for enforced alignment I can think of kind of disappear if you assume players are trying to play a consistent character with consistent alignment, so my best guess it was to prevent people from doing that. The execution on that is another matter.


Yes, that's effectively where the Good/Evil part came from.  Some players were backstabbing other members of the party for loot, so Gygax added it.

----------


## OldTrees1

> The only "explanation" you give is some groups use it without issue.  That doesn't answer my questions on what the use case is, and why in that use case the benefits outweighs the down sides.


False.
1) My post included a length example of one way I personally find it useful. Please review it at your leisure.

2) When there are 0 downsides, then any amount of use outweighs the downsides. This is why it will never outweigh the existing downsides in your group and frequently outweighs the non existing downsides in my group. You don't need to know the use case (despite an example being there see above) you only need the minimum empathy to understand that some that value it don't suffer any downsides.


Edit: You edited in a section. I am replying to your changed post.

----------


## Tanarii

> False.
> 1) My post included a length example of one way I personally find it useful. Please review it at your leisure.


Reviewed as requested as still don't see an explanation for why DM enforced alignment change is beneficial.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Reviewed as requested as still don't see an explanation for why DM enforced alignment change is beneficial.


You edited in more, I am replying to that edit here.




> Note that "DM gives me feedback and I decide if I need to adjust my alignment, adjust my roleplaying, or disagree with the DM and keep doing what I'm doing with the same alignment" is not the same thing as "DM gives me feedback and I decide if I need to adjust my roleplaying, accept the DM changing my alignment, or disagree with the DM and they change my alignment anyway." The latter is the problem that doesn't have an explained use case.


Neither of those is applicable. Can you set your problems aside so they stop preventing you from satisfying your curiosity?

"I play my character. For some details I care more about the world having a description than I do about controlling the description. The DM observes my character and describes them based on their understanding of them from what they have been told & shown. This means the world contains the description (although it is derived from my roleplaying) rather than the description only existing in my head. I continue to play my character. The DM continues to observe my character and describe them from what they have been told & shown."

You are getting hung up on "but what if the player and the GM disagree" when that is not really important to me in this context for this aspect about this character of mine. I don't have these downsides.

----------


## Tanarii

> You edited in more, I am replying to that edit here.


Yup catching up.




> Neither of those is applicable. Can you set your problems aside so they stop preventing you from satisfying your curiosity?
> 
> "I play my character. For some details I care more about the world having a description than I do about controlling the description. The DM observes my character and describes them based on their understanding of them from what they have been told & shown. This means the world contains the description (although it is derived from my roleplaying) rather than the description only existing in my head. I continue to play my character. The DM continues to observe my character and describe them from what they have been told & shown."
> 
> You are getting hung up on "but what if the player and the GM disagree" when that is not really important to me in this context for this aspect about this character of mine. I don't have these downsides.


Im getting hung up on it because it's the critical part of any Alignment discussion.  If answer is that at some table the players never disagree with the DMs assessment, so therefore DM enforced alignment change is beneficial, the argument falls apart.

That's not an argument in favor of it being superior to a system where the player gets the ultimate call, with DM feedback helpful thing.  That's just a case of the downside not coming up at that table.  Its at best as good a system for the game to contain player controlled alignment, but otherwise significantly worse.

----------


## Keltest

> Yup catching up.
> 
> Im getting hung up on it because it's the critical part of any Alignment discussion.  If answer is that at some table the players never disagree with the DMs assessment, so therefore DM enforced alignment change is beneficial, the argument falls apart.
> 
> That's not an argument in favor of it being superior to a system where the player gets the ultimate call, with DM feedback helpful thing.  That's just a case of the downside not coming up at that table.  Its at best as good a system for the game to contain player controlled alignment, but otherwise significantly worse.


I am again unclear on why its a problem in this particular instance when a player may disagree with a judgement call from the DM, but not in any other instance.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Yup catching up.
> 
> Im getting hung up on it because it's the critical part of any Alignment discussion. If answer is that at some table the players never disagree with the DMs assessment, so therefore DM enforced alignment change is beneficial, the argument falls apart.
> 
> That's not an argument in favor of it being superior to a system where the player gets the ultimate call, with DM feedback helpful thing.  That's just a case of the downside not coming up at that table.  Its at best as good a system for the game to contain player controlled alignment, but otherwise significantly worse.


The argument was already settled (you know that there exist some players that value alignment and get use out of it that exceeds the downsides, possibly because they don't face downsides). I am merely satisfying your curiosity now (What are a couple of those use cases?) by elaborating and describing. 


It is not critical to every Alignment discussion. I don't need to agree with the GM about how I would have described the alignment of a character for me to find utility in the GM describing the alignment of my character (for the characters that I find utility in that).

In the use case I described, the utility is not from the Player and GM agreeing in how they would have described it. The utility is from the player desiring the description of that aspect of their character being part of the world and the GM making the world include describing that aspect of that character. It does not matter if disagreement is possible/impossible or happens/does not happen. The utility is independent of that.

I have a Mind Flayer character that started with a philosophic & moral character I would have described as somewhere in the LE sector*. I would still describe them that way despite recent events. If the GM started describing them as LN (ooh "spooky", a disagreement), then I would be fine with that. Knowing their character is described in world (LE --> Le --> Ln --> LN) is the source of the utility. The "disagreement" is as inconsequential as two GMs having different rulings. In that campaign my Mind Flayer would have shifted to LN and that is the utility to me. Does this utility apply to all of my characters? No. However I don't use DM described alignment for characters that wouldn't have this utility.


*axiomatic Orderly & Evil on the 11x11. So a very heavy Orderly leaning but still a substantial Evil leaning (for the expected reasons).

----------


## Tanarii

> I am again unclear on why its a problem in this particular instance when a player may disagree with a judgement call from the DM, but not in any other instance.


Because this is the DM telling the player that they're roleplaying their character wrong and/or their morals are wrong.

One or both of those are a huge issue to many people.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Because this is the DM telling the player that they're roleplaying their character wrong and/or their morals are wrong.
> 
> One or both of those are a huge issue to many people.


False. This is not the DM telling the player that (in the contexts we are talking about). That is you assuming we would have your problems. If the GM starts to describe my Mind Flayer as LN, they are not "telling the player that they're roleplaying their character wrong and/or their morals are wrong"

However yes, you are right those would be huge issues. However that is not happening in the contexts we are talking about with the players we are talking about.

----------


## Keltest

> Because this is the DM telling the player that they're roleplaying their character wrong and/or their morals are wrong.
> 
> One or both of those are a huge issue to many people.


Not really? At worst, the DM is telling the player that they wrote a line wrong on their character sheet. This might be more impactful in 3.5 edition or earlier where alignment is tied to class feature access sometimes, but unless the DM is saying "I wont let you choose to free the slaves because youre lawful and slavery is legal here." or something equally controlling, then its not really anything serious. And if the DM IS doing that, then the problem goes far beyond the use of alignment.

----------


## Tanarii

> False. This is not the DM telling the player that (in the contexts we are talking about). That is you assuming we would have your problems. If the GM starts to describe my Mind Flayer as LN, they are not "telling the player that they're roleplaying their character wrong and/or their morals are wrong"


Yes. They absolutely are. You choosing not to take issue with it doesn't make it not the case.

----------


## Keltest

> Yes. They absolutely are. You choosing not to take issue with it doesn't make it not the case.


Saying "doing X will make you lawful neutral instead of lawful good" is not telling you that youre playing wrong. Its not a judgement of the character in any way, any more than saying "jumping down this cliff will make you take 5d6 damage" is.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Yes. They absolutely are. You choosing not to take issue with it doesn't make it not the case.


Tanarii you just asserted you know a conversation between me and my GM better than I do. Are you sure you want to try to correct me about an event I witnessed and you did not?


No. In the contexts I am talking about the GM did not "tell me I was roleplaying wrong" and did not "tell me my morals were wrong".


I suggest you take a step back and start to assume I am not you and my GM is not you.


Better?


My GM made a ruling for something as it would apply to the current campaign. I might have ruled differently when running a different campaign. Nobody claimed anyone was "roleplaying wrong"*. Nobody claimed "my morals were wrong"**.

* In fact the assumption is your roleplaying of your character is axiomatically identical to your roleplaying of your character. It can't be wrong.
** No claims about IRL were made at all.


I am not you. Your problems are not uncommon. However they are not universal. Stop assuming I have them and you will have an easier time understanding my experiences and my use case.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

> Batman is the perfect example of why alignment fails when you go beyond basic categorization. He's a complex character with many complex reasons behind his complex actions. So you really can make an argument for him to fit into nearly any alignment simply because of how poorly defined each alignment is and what it means to actually be that alignment.
> 
> And that's before you get into the complexities of morality, something that people have never been able to come to an agreement on. Like killing for the most obvious example. Some people will say killing is always wrong. Others will say it is okay in defense of yourself or others, and others will say it is okay if it is for the greater good.


*Spoiler: A wordy foundation for my alignment argument*
Show


And that's not even getting into the Batman authors who accidentally make Batman a fascist without changing anything in an alignment-chart sort of way. The difference between Frank Miller's batman and Alan Moore's Batman isn't one of _kind_, but of _degree_.

(A note to forum moderators: I am not discussing fascism, I am discussing Batman, and also morality. I am trying _very hard_ to discuss a political subject apolitically. Please do not scrub this post.)

Not to start an argument about the intersection of politics, comic books, and morality, but _in my opinion,_ Frank Miller focuses so hard on the law-and-order part of Batman to the exclusion of his moral compass that he writes what could easily be a Chaotic Good character as being Lawful Evil instead. And critically, this isn't _just_ a matter of how he writes Batman himself! In "The Dark Knight Returns," Batman isn't framed as someone who combats corrupt authorities, but as someone who fights chaotic street crime, fighting those the police can't.

The act of beating up criminals has been transformed from Chaotic (an unlawful action against unjust authority) to Lawful (protecting law and order) *by framing alone.* And while part of why I perceive Miller's Batman as Lawful Evil is because he takes actions incompatible with my ethical beliefs, part of it is from how those beliefs are _framed_. I could see someone like Al Ewing writing a comic where Batman beats up crime lords, creates his own gang, and ultimately beats up a symbol of Justice and the American Way in such a way that Batman comes off as Chaotic Good, because he is doing it specifically to protect the powerless from immoral institutions.

*Spoiler: Tangent about the Mutant Gang*
Show


But in Frank Miller's words: "To [Batman] it wasn't just criminals he was fighting any more, it was moral decay"personified not as greedy businessmen or selfish politicians, but as street crime. In particular, the Mutant Gang, whose character designs evoke Cyclops of the X-Men, a group of mutants who have been used to represent various marginalized groups over the decades, which I assume Frank Miller is aware of because he has several functional sense organs. Also, Frank Miller said he patterned the Mutant Gang leader's speech after Mr. T's, which...yikes. The Mutant Gang is written as a symbol of everything wrong with Gotham, and it couldn't be a more obvious symbol for marginalized/counterculture groups without just putting queer people of color in it.


TL;DR: The Mutant Gang is framed as a symbol of the things Batman is fighting, and as allegorical for the sorts of things bigots hate. The fact that Batman is framed as fighting the Mutant Gang to combat the moral degeneracy they represent is a big part of what makes him read as Evil to me; if he was instead doing it to defend the powerless, he'd read as a Good character (in a world written by someone with a warped idea of what Evil looks like).

For more on the Batman side of things, Sophie from Mars covers TDKR in their video about interpreting superheroes as monsters. Note that Sophie is _way_ more willing than I to deduct political beliefs from an author's body of work. Please take political arguments over there so we don't call down the Wrath of Mod.


I'm going to leave Batman behind now, to turn that example into a broader point about alignment. And also explaining what that word I keep using means. "Framing," in a cinematic context, refers to how a scene in a movie is shot, separate from the elements within the frame. This (much shorter) video by Dan Olson is a good example; it analyzes a scene in _Rent_ not by the events being depicted, but by how the director has chosen to depict them, and the meaning this creates. I use this term more broadly, to cover how mediums other than film do the same thing; I've seen other people who know what they're talking about do the same thing, but I'm not 100% sure if this is accurate.

TL;DR: Framing is _how_ a story is told, and how this influences our interpretation of the story's events.


Alright, _now_ I'm getting to my point about alignment.

Alignment is consistently described as something either innate to the character, or innate to the sort of actions they take, but it isn't. It's contextual, it depends on framing. When Batman beats up criminals (to oppose corrupt institutions which threaten the weak), he's Chaotic Good. When Batman beats up criminals (to clean up the city and oppose "moral decay"), he's Lawful Evil. The actions don't change, and the character doesn't _necessarily_ changeall that needs to change is the context and how Batman is framed.

The D&D rulebooks even encourage this, to some extent, in different terms. The designers know that paladins trying to enforce moral purity, druids focused on protecting nature, and rogues stealing stuff leads to unwanted intraparty conflict. So the books encourage players to frame going along with what the party's doing (looting dungeons, slaying dragons, etc) in ways that align those actions with their different alignments. The paladin frames working with a Zhentarim necromancer as "working towards the greater good," the druid frames random side quests as gathering strength to defend nature better in the future, the rogue frames not stealing the party's magic items and retiring in the Fantasy Bahamas as working towards some bigger future score.

But look at the way I described that; the D&D rulebooks need to encourage players to frame their actions in specific ways to prevent morally opposed characters from causing problems. And yeah, _to some extent_ that's inevitable whenever players create characters without aligning their motivations in session 0, but the alignment system just provides a new axis for that kind of conflict.

Alignment doesn't _have_ to be an obstacle. It can be very useful in the right context, or with the right framing. For D&D's alignment system, it works best when Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are both explicit forces within the world, and significant forces within the narrative. _Planescape: Torment_ does a lot with this, for instance; the _Dragonlance_ novels do more boring stuff with it. But regardless of how interesting I find your campaign's use of Good and Evil, alignment works fine if it represents picking a side in a campaign-defining conflict rather than just trying to find a stereotype your character fits into.

Off the top of my head: The armies of Evil are attacking the peaceful kingdoms, who are split along Law/Chaos lines; the PCs need to unite them. The Lawful Good paladin is aligned with the forces of Good, specifically with the Lawful faction. The Chaotic Neutral rogue hates those Law *******s, and cares more about the well-being of his loved ones more than the war. The (Neutral) Evil Overlord has successfully united the Lawful orcs and Chaotic goblins under a single banner to crush the Good kingdoms _once and for all_.


Other alignment systems exist. Star Wars RPGs often have a basic light side/dark side alignment track, and the good ones let careless players can slip to the Dark Side the way Luke almost did. Some World of Darkness splats (read: monster types) come with mechanics that are kinda like alignment scores, symbolizing the core conflict of that splat and turning it into something the rest of the mechanics can interface with.

And _Avatar Legends_ gives each playbook (kinda like a character class) its own "alignment" track, a conflict between two different drives within them, which interacts with the playbook's other mechanics in unique ways. It makes each playbook feel unique, and focuses on the core conflicts driving these characters, and highlights Avatar's theme of balance through ways that are kinda tangential to this discussion.


Anyways, if I had to summarize my points in one sentence, it would be: *Alignments can be good when they do something for the narrative, but in D&D it's really easy for them to not do anything.* One size does not fit all.
(I do think that Good vs. Evil is a pretty weaksauce alignment system, though.)

----------


## Tanarii

> Tanarii you just asserted you know a conversation between me and my GM better than I do. Are you sure you want to try to correct me about an event I witnessed and you did not?


No I don't.  You're correct, that was a poorly made assertion.  My apologies.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Some players were backstabbing other members of the party for loot, so Gygax added it.


 Arneson.  
*Spoiler: from some posts Arneson made*
Show




> 'You can't stab me in the back. We're on the same side!" Early Blackmoor game
> Introduction of the Chaotic thief. (Character Class/Alignment)


*Spoiler: source*
Show

http://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!"  | 
>  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.  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.




FWIW 



> Because this is the DM telling the player that they're roleplaying their character wrong and/or their morals are wrong.


 No, they are not.  In a campaign based RPG, D&D, PCs are not static.  I can see the point you are making if the game is a one shot, though, or a different RPG system.

They grow, and they become 'who they become' over the course of their adventures.  They make choices and decisions which have in world consequences.  

They change in a variety of ways, and they make a variety of decisions.  What the DM is advising the player of is trends and (when a trend continues into a standard behavior, a change).   Your mischaracterization of this remains, as you are treating it like a digital on off switch (which is where the item impact is a different case, as I clearly spelled out) whereas how to do it well revolves around alignment being a result of player choices in a continuum over the course of various encounters and sessions.  (As but one example of similar character growth/change, see Gale in the Hunger Games trilogy; you can argue that he undergoes an alignment change from beginning to end, or, that a latent sentiment of his was not revealed until the stress of the story arc evoked it).  



> One or both of those are a huge issue to many people.


 Well, like I pointed out to the other poster, when you are doing it wrong it is a lot harder to deal with than not; we seem to agree that yes, it can be done poorly,  particularly if the people involved take the "it's a button" approach that you have demonstrated in this sub discussion. 

But I think that we may be talking past each other, perhaps due to our own experiences.

----------


## OldTrees1

> No I don't.  You're correct, that was a poorly made assertion.  My apologies.


Thank you.
Part of my reaction was because those statements are big deals. I appreciate your understanding and empathy.


You are right that it would be a huge deal if statements like "you are roleplaying wrong" or "your morals are wrong" were thrown around. In my use case when my GM describes my, previously LE, character's alignment as LN, they are not telling me either of those statements. It is just another ruling (so no downside to me) and includes that detail of my character as part of the description of this shared world (the utility).

I could compare part of this to a virtuous paladin vs a paladin that is trying to be virtuous. If you want to play a virtuous paladin, being virtuous is part of the chosen characterization just like a left handed buccaneer is left handed. In contrast a paladin that is trying to be virtuous is not necessarily virtuous. The player probably cares about how well the paladin achieves that goal, but the player expects it to be the outcome of the roleplaying & circumstances rather than a forgone conclusion. If the GM does not describe the paladin as virtuous, that would be telling the 1st player that they are "roleplaying wrong differently than the player intended" but would be telling the 2nd player that the character is currently struggling and failing at their goal. Even pointing out the former is not as harsh as you frame it, it still is a more uncomfortable situation than the latter. In the latter case the statement is not harsh, but did the player want the GM's involvement? (Maybe, maybe not, it depends on the player/character/context).

There can still be a concern of a GM & player disagreeing could send the message of "your morals are wrong". I don't hear those messages because I don't consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL and my GM does not consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL. This is not an automatic given when it comes to alignment, but it is true for my use case.


Ultimately your concerns are *very* important but not universally applicable. There are contexts where the GM making a ruling on a character's alignment is just another ruling. In those cases, if you desire the detail to be included in the shared world, it can be useful to grant the GM control over ruling about the detail's specifics as it interfaces with the shared world so the detail can enter the shared world.

As always: Just because I can find a harmless useful use of DM described alignment for some of my characters in some campaigns, does not mean it is a generally good fit. I suggest defaulting to not using alignment or only using it in the player's head. However I also default to trusting the player to know better than me if/how they want to use alignment with their character (including trusting the player if they want DM described alignment for this character).

----------


## Satinavian

> There are certain things that D&D allows that only make sense within the context of alignment. For example, Paladins who don't worship any specific deity or Clerics of Chaos. And there's all the various planar exemplar classes like Devils, Modrons, Eladrins, etc. that are embedded deeply with alignment. If alignment is removed, or even severely modified, a whole lot of the greater mythology of D&D collapses, and a lot of people _like_ that mythology, bespoke and bizarre as it is. After all, when 4e went and modified alignment in exactly that way the Planescape fandom absolutely revolted (was part of it, can confirm) and basically ignored all post-3.5e material forever.


A paladin is just a character with a code that gives him superpowers. No alignment needed for it whatsoever. Paladins exist in many systems without alignment and sometimes they are explicitely called that.
Priests without gods is different. They only fit in some settings. But if they fit, you can make them without alignment. You can even make Chaos-priests spefically if you have some comcept of Chaos. Warhammer in every variation does it for example.
Devils, Modrons, Eladrins... don't really need it either. Many many systems without alignment give you angels, devils and demons just fine and/or have their own additional groups of strongly behavioral focussed beings from other planes. You don't need alignment for those.

Which leaves the Great Wheel. A cosmology built around alignment. Sure, if you really really like it and want to use it, it is better to keep alignment. But cosmologies are a dime a dozen and the Great Wheel is not more than justr a setting element. I think i only ever have been once at a table where the Great Wheel existed (but still did not really matter). Keeping alignment because of the Great Wheel is a bit like keeping Shadow magic because of Shar.




> Alignment is a tool. If you dont know what kind of decision your character would make off hand, you can consult your alignment for ideas. Its also an easy shorthand for a declaration of intent. "I'm going to play a chaotic neutral character" is a lot easier for people to quickly process than a lengthy description of the character's opinions on various topics like the value of the city guard or how oppressive the nobility is. When somebody else says "Im going to play a lawful good character" then you can have a conversation about how much conflict the group is willing to entertain and if these two characters can coexist in the same party.


Alignment doesn't tell me anything about party cohesion The times i played with alignment, it didn't influence/predict which characters worked well with which others at all.

----------


## Eldan

Well, one could also play Planescape, which is a moderately popular setting and all about the Great Wheel.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

> That is how objective moral systems work generally - moral truths, whatever they may be, are true independently of any person who happens to be stating them.


Philosophy enthusiast here: That word does not mean what you think it means. You're describing _deontology_ (in opposition to consequentialism). Deontologists argue that right and wrong are determined by a set of arbitrary rules, consequentialists believe that the consequences of an action are what determine its morality.

The issue of subjective and objective morality is entirely separate. Moral objectivism is the belief that moral statements can be as true as mathematical theorems, or at least as scientific theories (when it's not the even more ridiculous belief that Ayn Rand was right about something). Moral subjectivism is the belief that moral statements cannot be definitively proven true or false.

Objectivity and deontology seem connected, but they're not the same, any more than all Good characters are Lawful Good. For instance, utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework, believing that the morality of any action should be judged based on the net utility of its consequences. It is also an objective ethical framework, believing that utility can (at least in principle) be determined objectively. By contrast, I would argue that the justice system in most countries is a form of subjective deontology.
*Spoiler: Explanation*
Show


Obviously, right and wrong are determined by the laws of a given jurisdiction rather than any consequences (except when consequences are referenced by those laws, e.g. the distinction between murder and attempted murder). But for all crimes, at least some of the elements that constitute the crime are subjective.

For instance, one element of negligence is a causal connection between the negligence and the harm done. This can be either causation in fact or proximate cause, the latter of which covers cases where there is no _direct_ causality connecting the two, but the [c]onnection between the act and the injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. The risk also has to have been foreseeable for proximate cause to be determined; it needs to be something a "reasonable person" would anticipate and guard against.

Now, there are specific legal guidelines on what qualities the legal "reasonable person" has or doesn't have. But at the end of the day, the Reasonable Person Standard boils down to the judge and jury deciding how this legal construct would actan ultimately subjective judgement. And I think that's a good thing! If a law is 100% objective, it will inevitably convict people who shouldn't be culpable and open loopholes for people who should.







> How would that even work? Even if you limit the values, can you really create fifty or a hundred meaningfully distinct degrees of goodness or evil? What's the difference between an alignment of (84, 63) and (83, 63)?


1, obviously.





> I think even conflicts with clear sides don't really benefit from alignments. If you want team jerseys and clear affiliations why not just introduce them ?


In fairness, I'm pretty sure that's what alignments were originally intended as. Paladins are on the Good Team, orcs are on the Evil Team, that's why they fight.

Over time, the designers realized that this sort of structure was good for the type of wargame excuse plot it was initially designed for and not much else, so alignment was loosened up. So in the modern day, you have an alignment system which had a specific purpose, being retrofitted into a role that actually matters to the game (but which it doesn't do a great job at because it was designed for something else).

At least, that's my understanding of what happened.





> I don't think ["The Greater Good" has] ever been uttered except to justify making someone else suffer so others can thrive.


You're wrong. For a D&D-specific example, there's every justification for a paladin not to be an a-hole to necromancers/thieves/other characters who do evil deeds. For a philosophical example, "the greater good" is a convenient shorthand for mixed-bag situations which genuinely do more good than harm.





> Lol yeah the Trolley Problem is a False Dilemma Problem, for philosophy professors to blow the minds of 1st year students. Not an actual analytical tool or in any way applicable to real world situations.


As I was introduced to it, it was originally a framework used to analyze how people react differently to fundamentally similar moral situations. People are empirically* more willing to pull a lever to run over one person instead of five, than they are to push one guy onto the tracks to stop the trolley before it hits five. The moral calculus is theoretically the same, but people's moral intuition treats them differently.

*_By asking people, not by staging trolley problems and watching what happens_

It's also shorthand for morally comparable situations, whether it's bombing thousands to stop a war or killing a alien who can't control his superpowers before he destroys New York. It makes sense that such a term would refer to the Platonic ideal of that kind of situation, and that the Platonic ideal for _any_ moral quandary is going to be boring.

Yeah, the trolley problem sucks as a philosophical argument. But it's useful for other things.





> I wasn't making a pro-3.5 argument. The point was alignment is deeply embedded in the structural tissue of D&D, dating back to at least 1e AD&D, and that removing it has impacts on the system that make certain things that rely on that portion of the structure no longer function. The Great Wheel Outer Planes only works with regards to the two axis alignment system, and vice-versa, which is why Pathfinder functionally duplicated the Great Wheel in a 'just-different-enough-to-avoid-a-lawsuit' way.





> Well, one could also play Planescape, which is a moderately popular setting and all about the Great Wheel.


I disagree. The Great Wheel is based on alignment, yes, but it works as a series of planes without needing that framework. It's not like (for instance) the Law planes have any consistent unifying featuresor, for that matter, like a plane defined by Law needs to be embedded in a specifically Gygaxian alignment chart to make sense.

I agree that alignment is embedded in the structural tissue of D&D, but it's embedded in the way whale pelvises are embedded in their musculoskeletal system, not the way human pelvises are. It's present, it's been present since the hobby/clade began, but it could theoretically be removed with a bit of effort. And it's a _lot_ easier to remove the alignment system from D&D (just come up with a brief explanation of the mindset behind each planeBaator is tyranny, the Abyss is destructive hedonism, Mechanicus is absolute order, etc) than it would be to...rework whale ontogeny to cause certain bones to never be developed or something? This analogy is flawed, but I think it gets the point across.





> Saying "doing X will make you lawful neutral instead of lawful good" is not telling you that youre playing wrong. Its not a judgement of the character in any way, any more than saying "jumping down this cliff will make you take 5d6 damage" is.


Fall damage is not explicitly framed as a description of a character's moral fiber. Alignment is. You can't give a DM the power to declare whether a character is literally Good or Evil (or in between) and then say "Oh, that's not judging the character".

D&D is marketed as letting you play your own fantasy epicyour own _Lord of the Rings_, or _Earthsea Cycle_, or _His Dark Materials_. Lots of players want to play fantasy _heroes_, not just fantasy dudes with swords. Other players want to play edgy dark fantasy assassins, not fantasy dudes with knives. Alignment is meant to define a character's morality, and morality is often an important component of fantasy characters.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Philosophy enthusiast here: That word does not mean what you think it means. You're describing _deontology_ (in opposition to consequentialism). Deontologists argue that right and wrong are determined by a set of arbitrary rules, consequentialists believe that the consequences of an action are what determine its morality.
> 
> Moral objectivism is the belief that moral statements can be as true as mathematical theorems, or at least as scientific theories. Moral subjectivism is the belief that moral statements cannot be definitively proven true or false.


Fellow philosophy enthusiast here. You are both correct. They were describing Moral Objectivism using Deontology as sufficient but not necessary example, they could have easily used Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, or Error Theory* instead. Their point was the moral statements have a truth value independent of the speaker (although not independent of any morally relevant facts i.e. intent/action/consequences). Just like the statement "the sky is a tree" is false regardless of who says it.

Solid post. Interesting justice system tangent. Oddly intent and consequences show up a lot in the justice system despite the deontological bend. For some accusations Malicious intent needs to be proved.

*Summary: All moral statements** are false.
**Although not necessarily meta-statements Godel

----------


## Tanarii

> There can still be a concern of a GM & player disagreeing could send the message of "your morals are wrong". I don't hear those messages because I don't consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL and my GM does not consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL. This is not an automatic given when it comes to alignment, but it is true for my use case.


This is one of those things like it is with me and folks telling me I'm collaborative storytelling.  No matter that I tell people that I and my players know we aren't doing it, they can't comprehend what I describe any other way, so they can't comprehend why I think it's an important distinction and the use that distinction brings to my table.

I can't tell you what is happening at your table in regards to how you and the DM are perceiving the interaction on alignment.  But I cannot contextualize it as anything but DM judgement and telling the player they are Doing Something Wrong*(TM) and alignment will adjust if they continue. And I'm automatically adding the caveat: player isn't bothered by that, in this case.
*wrong as in character behavior does not match current alignment. Not wrong as in a personal player failing.  Although it can and is easily be taken that way.

As I say, you tell me my contextualization is wrong, and you're the one in the know ... but it does mean that I cannot comprehend any use case or perceived benefit you see in the interaction / process.

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

Shifting topic slightly and/or providing an example of something where I think it is a possible use case for DM judgements on Alignment and telling the player they are Doing Something Wrong(TM), one thing Alignment is often used for is basically something like "Don't be a Jerk": No Evil Characters.
In that case, IMO the DM should call out in advance it's in their judgement, and be specific beyond "Evil". 
Using 5e as an example:
"Please don't have your character regularly and frequently behave like any of the three Evil alignment's associated behaviors, in my (the DMs) judgement."

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> .
> 
> ------------
> 
> Shifting topic slightly, one thing Alignment is often used for is basically something like "Don't be a Jerk": No Evil Characters.
> In that case, IMO the DM should 8 out in advance it's in their judgement, and be specific beyond "Evil". 
> Using 5e as an example:
> "Please don't have your character regularly and frequently behave like any of the three Evil alignment's associated behaviors, in my (the DMs) judgement."


Evil characters can be nice but they're still evil. I remember someone mentioning that the Penguin from Batman is very nice but he is still evil.  :Smile:

----------


## Tanarii

> Evil characters can be nice but they're still evil. I remember someone mentioning that the Penguin from Batman is very nice but he is still evil.


I've always interpreted "Don't be a Jerk" to have nothing to do with niceness, but rather with being disruptive.

The evil alignments associated behavior in the 5e PHB are things some number (but obviously not all) players won't want in their party, or a DM might find disruptive to the game.  And it's the pattern of regular and frequent character behavior that matters here, not what's written down on the character sheet.  That's why calling it out instead of an alignment is IMO important.

_Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. 
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. 
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust._ 

(Not that WotC official play excludes only NE and CE.  But I also think they make a mistake calling out the alignment instead of the associated behavior.)

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> I've always interpreted "Don't be a Jerk" to have nothing to do with niceness, but rather with being disruptive.
> 
> The evil alignments associated behavior in the 5e PHB are things some number (but obviously not all) players won't want in their party, or a DM might find disruptive to the game.  And it's the pattern of regular and frequent character behavior that matters here, not what's written down on the character sheet.  That's why calling it out instead of an alignment is IMO important.
> 
> _Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. 
> Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. 
> Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust._ 
> 
> (Not that WotC official play excludes only NE and CE.  But I also think they make a mistake calling out the alignment instead of the associated behavior.)


Yes. I understand playing evil characters is a problem for most games unless it is an evil campaign having an evil adventure party.

----------


## NichG

It's so much cleaner if you describe alignments like:

Beloved by Tyr. Beloved by Asmodeus. Hated by Selune. Hated by Orcus.

If you say 'what your character did counts as evil' and the player thinks 'actually that was a reasonable thing to do in that situation' then it can read to the player as the DM calling the player evil as a person, even if the DM didn't mean that. It shouldn't have to read that way, but some people will read it that way.

If the DM says 'Asmodeus approves of your character, and you gain a faint aura of his esteem', it adds an extra layer of separation that can be helpful. It also avoids philosophical debates - you can argue about whether what you did was good or evil, but its a lot harder to argue about 'this NPC smiled upon the act'. And if you don't agree with that NPC, you can go try to punch them.

----------


## Chauncymancer

> In fairness, I'm pretty sure that's what alignments were originally intended as. Paladins are on the Good Team, orcs are on the Evil Team, that's why they fight.
> 
> Over time, the designers realized that this sort of structure was good for the type of wargame excuse plot it was initially designed for and not much else, so alignment was loosened up. So in the modern day, you have an alignment system which had a specific purpose, being retrofitted into a role that actually matters to the game (but which it doesn't do a great job at because it was designed for something else).
> 
> At least, that's my understanding of what happened.
> ...
> 
> And it's a _lot_ easier to remove the alignment system from D&D (just come up with a brief explanation of the mindset behind each planeBaator is tyranny, the Abyss is destructive hedonism, Mechanicus is absolute order, etc) than it would be to...rework whale ontogeny to cause certain bones to never be developed or something? This analogy is flawed, but I think it gets the point across.
> 
> Fall damage is not explicitly framed as a description of a character's moral fiber. Alignment is. You can't give a DM the power to declare whether a character is literally Good or Evil (or in between) and then say "Oh, that's not judging the character".


The original world building idea that ties these pieces together is the notion that the alignments are an in universe attempt to describe a series of nine political alignments built around a common ethos: Lawful Neutral is the common belief structure of all the kingdoms sworn to the Edicts of Modron, Lawful Good the inter-religious principles represented on the Commandments of Celestia, Chaotic Evil those groups who swear the Abyssal Pact. A Lawful Neutral man knows he is LN, knows the moral precepts the LN churches preach in common, knows the common laws among all LN nations, and in a war between CG elves and LE cultists, hopes the cultists win.

----------


## Tanarii

> Yes. I understand playing evil characters is a problem for most games unless it is an evil campaign having an evil adventure party.


So can be writing down (something) Neutral and then frequently / regularly acting like these particular descriptions of Evil alignments.  This method handles both.

Alignment with descriptions of associate behavior isn't needed for that though.  Any descriptions of character behavior that would be disruptive if done regularly, for that particular campaign / table, will suffice.

But if alignment is desired as a roleplaying tool but the DM or players want to rule out "evil characters", IMO it's better to call out in advance it will based on specific behaviors rather than just leaving it as "No Evil characters".  I think that's really part of my point.




> It's so much cleaner if you describe alignments like:
> 
> Beloved by Tyr. Beloved by Asmodeus. Hated by Selune. Hated by Orcus.


Sounds kinda like 13th age Icons.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> So can be writing down (something) Neutral and then frequently / regularly acting like these particular descriptions of Evil alignments.  This method handles both.
> 
> Alignment with descriptions of associate behavior isn't needed for that though.  And descriptions of character behavior that would be disruptive if done regularly, for that particular campaign / table, will suffice.


Well unless an evil adventure party works together as a team it wouldn't be disruptive to some certain extent.

----------


## Tanarii

> Well unless an evil adventure party works together as a team it wouldn't be disruptive to some certain extent.


Sure.  Not arguing against Evil adventuring parties, or even non-evil ones with an evil character, if that's what the table wants.  Just an example of a use case under the way I view retroactive DM judging of character behavior.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Sure.  Not arguing against Evil adventuring parties, or even non-evil ones with an evil character, if that's what the table wants.


Well, at least we agree on something.  :Smile:

----------


## NichG

> Sounds kinda like 13th age Icons.


Dunno! But if I'm running anything that for some reason has to have alignment (because of spell interactions, setting stuff, etc), I tend to run it that way. People do whatever they do, powerful forces personified-as-entities with the ability to perceive things relevant to their interests may form opinions about those things, and because of their nature as anchors for those things that do interact with alignments, their opinions determine how those particular spells or effects interact with the person. 'Detect Evil' is actually just 'Detect Enemies of the Faith'

Which also means it can be a plot point that if the inheritor of one of the divinities who are considered to hold power over good turns out to be a total jerk, 'good' itself can become terrible. Because in the end its just some powerful entity saying 'I approve'.

----------


## OldTrees1

> As I say, you tell me my contextualization is wrong, and you're the one in the know ... but it does mean that I cannot comprehend any use case or perceived benefit you see in the interaction / process.


*salute*




> Shifting topic slightly and/or providing an example of something where I think it is a possible use case for DM judgements on Alignment and telling the player they are Doing Something Wrong(TM), one thing Alignment is often used for is basically something like "Don't be a Jerk": No Evil Characters.
> In that case, IMO the DM should call out in advance it's in their judgement, and be specific beyond "Evil". 
> Using 5e as an example:
> "Please don't have your character regularly and frequently behave like any of the three Evil alignment's associated behaviors, in my (the DMs) judgement."





> I've always interpreted "Don't be a Jerk" to have nothing to do with niceness, but rather with being disruptive.





> Alignment with descriptions of associate behavior isn't needed for that though. Any descriptions of character behavior that would be disruptive if done regularly, for that particular campaign / table, will suffice.


(quotes are a sampling of the new sub thread)

That is a good example possible use case. This one always struck me as odd. For me, I would prefer to use "Don't be a Jerk" (and be specific about what is disruptive) rather than "No Evil Characters" (and be specific beyond "Evil"). However it seems to work well enough for the groups / organizations that use it.

I think your addition of "and be specific beyond 'Evil' " improves that use case.

----------


## Saintheart

I'd just like to point out that I checked through the whole thread to see whether this image had been posted in here before I went and found a link to it.

I could claim it is very relevant to the discussion, but that would just allow this awful dandelion of a thread to blow its spores all over the nice clean lawn of my psyche, like all alignment threads do.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Speaking of alignments. I wonder if there's a magical item known as the Ring Of The Nine Alignment that exists in D&D games?

----------


## Lord Raziere

> I'd just like to point out that I checked through the whole thread to see whether this image had been posted in here before I went and found a link to it.
> 
> I could claim it is very relevant to the discussion, but that would just allow this awful dandelion of a thread to blow its spores all over the nice clean lawn of my psyche, like all alignment threads do.


That alignment chart really screwed up on the Chaotic Evil one by using that example instead of Crazy Steve from All Star Batman and Robin, who is a Batman written by Frank Miller who kidnaps his robin while he is age 12, forces him to live alone in the Batcave eating rats and bats, then goes around laughing crazily about how he loves being Batman while poisoning criminals, or setting them on fire, or attacks police officers, and is basically a sociopathic jerk going around brutalizing people, who if he had the green lantern claims he would want to rule the world, destroy unspecified enemies and exile superman from Earth. yeah, there is a reason why people don't like that series.

----------


## Satinavian

> Shifting topic slightly and/or providing an example of something where I think it is a possible use case for DM judgements on Alignment and telling the player they are Doing Something Wrong(TM), one thing Alignment is often used for is basically something like "Don't be a Jerk": No Evil Characters.
> In that case, IMO the DM should call out in advance it's in their judgement, and be specific beyond "Evil". 
> Using 5e as an example:
> "Please don't have your character regularly and frequently behave like any of the three Evil alignment's associated behaviors, in my (the DMs) judgement."


Never had a group that did this.


Most evil characters are not disruptive, most disruptive characters are not evil. While a higher percentage of evil characters are disruptive than non evil characters that is still a horrible tool to rein in disruptive behavior.

Also it basically makes it a table rule "if you play a character in a certain way, even if not disruptive at all, it becones an NPC", which is prone to make more problems than anything else.


I mean, look at the descriptions :

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. -> limits of code of tradition and order usually means playing nice with your in-group.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. -> only doing what one can get away with means sticking to stuff the group tolerates (or doesn't notice)
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. -> which can be played totally fine in the various violent conflicts the typical game is about without ever falling over some nonacceptable target.


Don't say "No evil allowed", when you actually want to say "no backstabbing, no PvP, no stealing from other party members, no sexual violence, no killing the questgivers etc."

----------


## Mechalich

> Also it basically makes it a table rule "if you play a character in a certain way, even if not disruptive at all, it becones an NPC", which is prone to make more problems than anything else.


I think that's debatable. I mean, if you play a Call of Cthulhu character in a certain way, they're going to become an NPC. Not instantaneously, but it's possible to lose one's mind awfully fast in that system.

If certain kinds of supernatural forces exist in a given setting, it is entirely reasonable to say that trying to run wild with them is outside the bounds of PC behavior. 




> Don't say "No evil allowed", when you actually want to say "no backstabbing, no PvP, no stealing from other party members, no sexual violence, no killing the questgivers etc."


That's not the only thing 'no evil allowed' is usually proclaiming. A lot of GMs don't want to tell stories where the protagonists are horrible irredeemable monsters, especially when operating under the assumption that said monsters will ultimately win out in the end (this should not be surprising, it's rather rare to want to read/watch stories of that kind too). One of the features of the D&D alignment system is that, because of the vastness of the neutral zone and the frankly rather extreme level of behavior allowed while still remaining with it, actually evil characters are pretty intense and can very easily lead to some really uncomfortable stuff even if its not disruptive to intraparty dynamics. 

Now, this does lead to the narrative division between what might be called 'cartoon evil' and 'real evil' which is well illustrated by stories like the animated Harley Quinn series, in which there's a rather bizarre but very real dividing line maintained between characters - like the titular Harley - who do evil stuff and even wrack up a sizeable body count but it's, 'all in the game' and only impacts supers, villains, and various thugs, cops, and other willing participants in this comic logic world, and characters who willingly murder actual innocent people just trying to live out their lives. In Wuxia this is often elevated to the level of practically a divine commandment, wherein the 'martial world' or whatever it happens to be called takes place in a completely separate zone from everyday life and involving normal people in the affairs of cultivators or martial artists or whatever is flatly never allowed to happen. However, this sort of thing is very difficult to enforce in tabletop.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Now, this does lead to the narrative division between what might be called 'cartoon evil' and 'real evil' which is well illustrated by stories like the animated Harley Quinn series, in which there's a rather bizarre but very real dividing line maintained between characters - like the titular Harley - who do evil stuff and even wrack up a sizeable body count but it's, 'all in the game' and only impacts supers, villains, and various thugs, cops, and other willing participants in this comic logic world, and characters who willingly murder actual innocent people just trying to live out their lives. In Wuxia this is often elevated to the level of practically a divine commandment, wherein the 'martial world' or whatever it happens to be called takes place in a completely separate zone from everyday life and involving normal people in the affairs of cultivators or martial artists or whatever is flatly never allowed to happen. However, this sort of thing is very difficult to enforce in tabletop.


Thats not a morality issue, thats a player investment in the setting issue.

if players don't care, alignment is just one more rule that they don't care about, like laws or the value of other peoples lives. the solution is not to play with uninterested yahoos more concerned with murderhobo antics than engaging with the setting. harping on some abstract moral ruleset and haranguing people to follow it is at best a bandaid on that problem, because its just a blunt stick when a setting should be interesting enough that someone forgets the fantasy of being in an open world with no consequences to allow themselves to be drawn into a role they want to play out more than whatever thrill they could get from killing at random.

and if they want a low budget open world no consequences simulator, they can find a GM that allows it as long as its not my game.

----------


## Satinavian

> That's not the only thing 'no evil allowed' is usually proclaiming. A lot of GMs don't want to tell stories where the protagonists are horrible irredeemable monsters, especially when operating under the assumption that said monsters will ultimately win out in the end (this should not be surprising, it's rather rare to want to read/watch stories of that kind too). One of the features of the D&D alignment system is that, because of the vastness of the neutral zone and the frankly rather extreme level of behavior allowed while still remaining with it, actually evil characters are pretty intense and can very easily lead to some really uncomfortable stuff even if its not disruptive to intraparty dynamics.


OK, that opens again the question of how extreme one must be to not count as neutral. Something the rules and alignment descriptions alone do not really answer. I am usually operating under the assumption of grabbing 10 random persons on the street will result in getting 3 evil and 3 good ones.

----------


## hamishspence

> I am usually operating under the assumption of grabbing 10 random persons on the street will result in getting 3 evil and 3 good ones.


Eberron suggests the same is the standard.

The third party book  Quintessential Paladin II provides some guidelines for what "up to 1/3 of the population are evil" vs "only a very small minority are evil" actually means.

*Spoiler*
Show

*Low Grade Evil Everywhere*
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil. 

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted. 

In such a campaign _detect evil_ cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts _detect evil_ on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.

*Evil As A Choice*
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses _detect evil_ on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

> That alignment chart really screwed up on the Chaotic Evil one by using that example instead of Crazy Steve from All Star Batman and Robin, who is a Batman written by Frank Miller who kidnaps his robin while he is age 12, forces him to live alone in the Batcave eating rats and bats, then goes around laughing crazily about how he loves being Batman while poisoning criminals, or setting them on fire, or attacks police officers, and is basically a sociopathic jerk going around brutalizing people, who if he had the green lantern claims he would want to rule the world, destroy unspecified enemies and exile superman from Earth. yeah, there is a reason why people don't like that series.


And here I thought _Dark Knight Returns_ was the worst Frank Miller's Batman got.

Anyways, I'm not surprised the meme went with a one-panel punchline over explaining how an exceptionally ****ty version of Batman did his bat-stuff. That would kinda ruin the vibe, and make the message feel less like "Alignment is arbitrary" and more like "Batman is inconsistent".





> OK, that opens again the question of how extreme one must be to not count as neutral. Something the rules and alignment descriptions alone do not really answer. I am usually operating under the assumption of grabbing 10 random persons on the street will result in getting 3 evil and 3 good ones.


Point 1: I'm pretty sure people self-segregate by alignment. You'd need to grab a _lot_ more than 10 people to get a statistically representative sample, and I'm pretty sure that qualifies as mass kidnapping (which is probably an Evil act).

Point 2: I think that's a good assumption to make, if you're going to worry about alignment that much. I'm not sure it's an assumption the D&D rulebooks make, though. Even if we ignore the fact that some races are usually Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil or what-have-you (which you shouldn't), the books seem to imply that Good and Evil represent _significant_ deviations from the "baseline". And that's not getting into how ye olde True Neutral was the bizarre position of actively working to keep Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos in balance.





> Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura.


...I want to make a joke that won't be perceived as either political or advocating for literal murder of literal landlords, and this is the closest thing I could think of.

Something something, advocating for the symbolic murder of the institution of landlording?

----------


## gbaji

Kinda skimming across a sample of posts (and realizing there were more than I thought).




> What is it that causes it to collapse, exactly? Take away alignment and you can still have different planar beings that are united by their philosophies. Is there really a need for Lawful Evil to be an objective truth for two devils to have common ground? 
> 
> As for the paladins, why not just have them follow a specific moral code? If anything that seems easier to manage than tying it to the vagueness of an alignment.


More or less this. There is no need for an alignment system that manifests as a characteristic on each character's sheet to allow for different outer planes that have "alignment" as a component of their operation/function. It's entirely possible to have what are essentially moral archetypes without having to apply those to each individual person in the game world.

In fact, one can argue strongly that archetypes are extreme representations of isolated concepts, and should *never* be applied solely to individuals at the mortal plane level. The people living in the world should naturally be a blending of the different concepts represented by said archetypes. One of the main issues I have with D&D style alignments is forcing the player to basically pick one (and only one) of those alignments and then writing it down on their character's sheet.

That's just... silly IMO. And yes, it lends itself to cardboard cutout roleplaying.




> It sounds like you half answered your own question. The downside "the problems" don't occur in every group. For some groups there is no downside to using alignment. It is not "potentially problematic" for those groups.


It's only not a problem in two cases:

1. The GM just doesn't enforce alignment rules. Which is great. But then, why bother having them written down on the character sheets.

2. The players make sure to stay "within the lines" of the alignment written on their character's sheet. Which means that it's a constant pressure on them in terms of roleplaying. Well, or they create characters who have the "cardboard cutout" alignments as part of their personality.

I honestly suspect that many players who have just become accustomed to D&D style alignments just aren't aware of how much the very existence of the system is influencing the types of characters (and character personalities) that they choose to create/play.




> One use of alignment is having the description of your character's moral character exist in the world rather than only in your head. I generally don't describe my character's hair (when they have it) unless asked. It is not something I care to have as a fact in the world. The other players can have their own assumptions about the hair color, but I see no use in the game knowing & establishing the color unless there is some reason that makes it important. For some players they view their character's moral character in the same way I view my character's hair color*. However some players do care to have the game know & establish their hair color. They value the hair color being an established detail in the game. Similarly when I play a Paladin that is trying to be moral, I value their moral character being an established detail in the game. The GM updating that description as necessary is part of the point of me playing a Paladin that is trying to be moral. Likewise when I play a Mind Flayer that is evil or other evil character, I like the game establishing the character is evil as one of the multiple ways I signal I don't condone their actions (which helps me feel comfortable and feel the group is comfortable with me roleplaying that evil character). I also like to leave the possibility of organic redemption/fall from grace for my characters that care about their moral character.


Sure. It can be a convenient shorthand. No doubt. But what happens if you actually want to play a character that has some personality traits that are contradictory to the alignment rules? What if I want to play a character who cares a lot about "doing the right thing" and "following the rules/laws", and has a strong moral code, but maybe there are certain things that will prompt him to violate those rules? So his children are kidnapped, and now he'll go all Charles Bronson on the bad guys, or something. Does that make him LG at first, but then CE after that sequence of actions? Why? Or we can say "he's someone who believes in doing the right thing, but if you cross him or his family, he'll stop at nothing to get you". Right?

You simply cannot model a character like that, (or Liam Neeson's character in "Taken" for example (or his character in Rob Roy, which is er, basically the same character, which in turn is basically Mel Gibson's Wallace, etc), or a dozen other similar film examples), without more or less breaking the D&D alignment system to bits. And that's before looking at characters who may behave very differently while "on the job",  and "sitting at home". Most people have elements of the different things that make up the classic law/chaos;good/evil alignment system, and may exhibit different aspects of those things at different times and under different circumstances.

I just personally find it much easier to manage on those "per situation" basis, than to try to wedge in some all-encompassing alignment determination to define each character all the time as a whole. But that's just me.





> If you are concerned about the known downsides, then it would help if you learned those downsides don't exist for every group. (Seriously, I don't have the problems with alignment that you do, so there is no downside.)


Again. I would suggest that if you and your table are not having issues with alignment, you are falling into one of the two categories I listed above. And yes, I do strongly believe that the very nature of  the D&D alignment system tends to push players away from playing more "complex" characters in the first place, thus avoiding the appearance of an issue. But that itself is an issue IMO.




> Your "known downsides" don't exist for everyone, you already knew alignment was valued by some and thus useful to those that valued it, and you quoted a post giving an example of one of the ways I find it useful.


Again. Only if you don't include in the list of "downsides" the concept that "Players will play their characters based on the alignment system in the first place". When you do (as I do), then every single table that is applying alignment rules to any degree is "suffering issues". They have just masked them via some sort of alignment compliance that they may not even be aware they are doing. And yeah, if you're having fun anyway, then that's fine.

It's just that I've found that by chucking it out entirely, you can experience games with characters with vastly more complex personality traits, and engage in much more complex roleplaying as a result. You'll find that you can play the "troubled paladin" type character who does what is "right" all the time, fights for the "greater good", and is willing to sacrifice himself for that, but is also a total wreck, hates people, maybe has a drinking problem, and maybe gets angry and kills people when he feels they're in his way or something. Or the assassin who is a total pro while on the job, but has some additional moral code he applies when taking jobs and/or helps out or protects friends and allies if they come up on "the list". Or the crazed guy who likes to burn things down, and is ok with killing people to commit his arson, but he's also committed to helping sick orphans or something in his spare time.

Again. Most people are not just card board cutouts of a single alignment. Most people will exhibit elements of any or all of them, at different times, and in different situations.




> In the use case I described, the utility is not from the Player and GM agreeing in how they would have described it. The utility is from the player desiring the description of that aspect of their character being part of the world and the GM making the world include describing that aspect of that character. It does not matter if disagreement is possible/impossible or happens/does not happen. The utility is independent of that.


I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that the GM re-defines what a given alignment is based on whether a player with a character with that alignment says "I'm doing action X, and I think it should be allowed under my alignment Y"? I'm not sure what utility you are creating here. Wouldn't it still just be easier for the player to just say "My character is doing X, because that's what my character would do?". And the GM allows it because the player is playing the character and decides what his character would do, period. Anything less than that, is exactly the form of "GM pressuring the player to play a particular way" that you are insisting doesn't happen. If it doesn't, then there would never be a case to need this at all in the first place.

Unless I'm completely misreading you.




> I have a Mind Flayer character that started with a philosophic & moral character I would have described as somewhere in the LE sector*. I would still describe them that way despite recent events. If the GM started describing them as LN (ooh "spooky", a disagreement), then I would be fine with that. Knowing their character is described in world (LE --> Le --> Ln --> LN) is the source of the utility. The "disagreement" is as inconsequential as two GMs having different rulings. In that campaign my Mind Flayer would have shifted to LN and that is the utility to me. Does this utility apply to all of my characters? No. However I don't use DM described alignment for characters that wouldn't have this utility.


Or, the alternative. You just play your Mind Flayer however you want. The GM just lets you play your Mind Flayer however you want. And there's no labels or rules assigned to that behavior and no consequences or changes based on that behavior other than natural in-game reactions to those actions based on how they actually affect other people (whether PC or NPC).

Why bother with deciding what you or the GM label the character's alignment? The mere act of doing to implies some sort of "effort" to follow some set of guidelines with regard to that character and his actions. Even if you are saying that the GM viewing things differently "isn't a problem", to whatever degree the GM deciding your alignment is LN instead of LE has some effect on the game, then it does have an effect, right? If it has no effect, then why bother? And if it does, then you may be pressured to comply with your intended LE alignment *or* have to allow whatever game effect changes occur by the GM deciding that your alignment is really LN.

I'm just struggling to understand how this doesn't pose any sort of problem at  all, while still actually having any real effect on the game. It's one or the other. 




> I could compare part of this to a virtuous paladin vs a paladin that is trying to be virtuous. If you want to play a virtuous paladin, being virtuous is part of the chosen characterization just like a left handed buccaneer is left handed. In contrast a paladin that is trying to be virtuous is not necessarily virtuous. The player probably cares about how well the paladin achieves that goal, but the player expects it to be the outcome of the roleplaying & circumstances rather than a forgone conclusion. If the GM does not describe the paladin as virtuous, that would be telling the 1st player that they are "roleplaying wrong differently than the player intended" but would be telling the 2nd player that the character is currently struggling and failing at their goal. Even pointing out the former is not as harsh as you frame it, it still is a more uncomfortable situation than the latter. In the latter case the statement is not harsh, but did the player want the GM's involvement? (Maybe, maybe not, it depends on the player/character/context).


And what if the player intends to play a character who is "struggling to be virtuous" as part of the character's personality in the first place? It's a questionable case because we assume a class called "paladin" has certain rules to be followed to maintain the class itself, so it's more than just alignment that has an impact. But isn't that the point? Why not have just those "rules" be followed and exist for a "paladin" type character? And shockingly enough, once you do this, you can expand the game a bit to allow for "paladin" classes/characters for any/every religious group or ideology, potentially with radically different moral codes to follow. Those who strictly follow their respective codes, even to the point of personal harm (or other things) can be elevated to "paladin" status within their respective belief systems (with perhaps additional bonuses and requirements involved).

Why restrict ourselves here? Purely because the alignment system exists, and says "paladins must be LG, and follow strict rules within that alignment"? Why can't we just have "rules" based on one's chosen belief system, that different people follow to different degrees. And that to be a cleric of some system, you must have X compliance with said "rules", and to be a paladin requires even more strict compliance. Don't need alignment at all to do this. In fact, alignment gets in the way.




> There can still be a concern of a GM & player disagreeing could send the message of "your morals are wrong". I don't hear those messages because I don't consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL and my GM does not consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL. This is not an automatic given when it comes to alignment, but it is true for my use case.


I can't speak for others, but I don't think folks are exclusively saying that the disagreements somehow spill out into real life moral alignment questions. I think we can stick entirely to in-game situations and still make the same argument. I'm not likely to care if a GM says that the way I play my LN character is actually more NG or something because I'm somehow wrong about how D&D alignment applies to real world moral issues. I probably care about it because I interpret the in-game actions a certain way, and the GM interprets them differently. Don't really care how that applies to RL stuff because none of us have D&D alignments stamped on our RL character sheets.





> As always: Just because I can find a harmless useful use of DM described alignment for some of my characters in some campaigns, does not mean it is a generally good fit. I suggest defaulting to not using alignment or only using it in the player's head. However I also default to trusting the player to know better than me if/how they want to use alignment with their character (including trusting the player if they want DM described alignment for this character).



Yeah. To be fair, despite everything I've written, I still do find that it can be a useful tool as a guide maybe. It does feel though that it can become  crutch over time, and I suspect that new  players, though they might find it  useful for them, over time will tend to then think in terms of those alignments when creating character personalities in the first place. It forms a sort of soft pressure to comply with the alignment system itself. So in many cases, instead of being a sort of training wheel situation that will later come off, they train the players to always stay "inside the lines" of the alignment system itself, so even later, they're still only riding that bike in a manner that the training wheels would allow.

At least, that has been my observation. And just judging by the sheer volume of folks really really trying to wedge in various "out of alignment" character examples I've come up with, I really do think this is a strong effect on many people's perceptions on the very nature of character personalities. They really don't actually have to fit inside the alignment system, but it's amazing how much effort people will go to in order to "make them fit". Somehow. Someway.

Why bother? It's just not the end of the world to say "This character doesn't comply with the alignment system at all, so don't even bother trying". I know. Scary not playing with the training wheels on, but it's totally worth it IMO.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Here's a scenario:

Imagine if the paladin detects evil in the NPC who happens to be the happiest and nicest person in the campaign who will assist in helping the adventuring party but true out to be pure evil. Of course, the paladin might ask what the NPC's intentions are instead of killing the NPC because the paladin is Lawful Good. But the paladin has a code of honor and goodness to follow.

----------


## Satinavian

> Here's a scenario:
> 
> Imagine if the paladin detects evil in the NPC who happens to be the happiest and nicest person in the campaign who will assist in helping the adventuring party but true out to be pure evil. Of course, the paladin might ask what the NPC's intentions are instead of killing the NPC because the paladin is Lawful Good. But the paladin has a code of honor and goodness to follow.


That is only an issue with the 3.x paladin CoC that includes "don't associate with Evil", not an issue with alignments or even Paladin CoCs in general.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> That is only an issue with the 3.x paladin CoC that includes "don't associate with Evil", not an issue with alignments or even Paladin CoCs in general.


Ok. So anyway this is a great topic to talk about alignment. I learn so much from other people's points of view.  :Smile:

----------


## Tevo77777

Oh come on, people migrated away from the previous thread? It was great!

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> But still, yet another alignment thread (YAAT) ;)


 You called it.  :Small Smile:  



> What alignment is it to start a discussion about Batman's alignment?
> I'm guessing chaotic good.


 I'll offer a bid for 'Chaotic' and leave it there. 



> Using 5e as an example:
> "Please don't have your character regularly and frequently behave like any of the three Evil alignment's associated behaviors, in my (the DMs) judgement."


 Or the AL guidelines. 



> I'd just like to point out that I checked through the whole thread to see whether this image had been posted in here before I went and found a link to it.


 Using the 9 box grid is part of the problem.  



> Speaking of alignments. I wonder if there's a magical item known as the Ring Of The Nine Alignment that exists in D&D games?


 It would self destruct, kind of like matter meeting antimatter. 



> Imagine if the paladin detects evil in the NPC


 Such original thought.   We now seque into the related topic of gotcha DMing.

----------


## hamishspence

> It would self destruct, kind of like matter meeting antimatter.


Just as the Unraveller from Planar Handbook is "all four elements in unsteady equilibrium in one creature" so the Concordant Killer  from MMIV can be "all four alignment forces in equilibrium in one creature" - with a _weapon_ that's holy, unholy, anarchic, and axiomatic simultaneously. PCs can't_ get_ that weapon though since it disappears once it leaves the creature's hand.

----------


## Millstone85

> Speaking of alignments. I wonder if there's a magical item known as the Ring Of The Nine Alignment that exists in D&D games?





> It would self destruct, kind of like matter meeting antimatter.





> Just as the Unraveller from Planar Handbook is "all four elements in unsteady equilibrium in one creature" so the Concordant Killer  from MMIV can be "all four alignment forces in equilibrium in one creature"


I see the Outlands itself in all these lights. It is only truly neutral near the middle, which as it turns out is a null-magic zone. Further away, it becomes "ishes": lawful-ish, good-ish, chaot-ish and evil-ish. Finally, the gate-towns form a ring of all alignments.

----------


## OldTrees1

> It's only not a problem in two cases:
> 
> -Gbaji's list then fails to include my situation-


Since I have first hand knowledge of it working in my case and you don't, and your list fails to include my case, then your list is incomplete.

Since your list is incomplete, I see no reason to address any assumptions based on that faulty premise.

The rest of your replies were of similar quality and not worth responding to.

If you are curious, then maybe fix your approach so I am willing to satisfy your curiosity. If you are not curious and just want to argue, then why would I bother fighting you about something I have first hand knowledge and you don't?

----------


## Tevo77777

> I'd just like to point out that I checked through the whole thread to see whether this image had been posted in here before I went and found a link to it.
> 
> I could claim it is very relevant to the discussion, but that would just allow this awful dandelion of a thread to blow its spores all over the nice clean lawn of my psyche, like all alignment threads do.
> 
> [IMG]batmanchart[/IMG]


Did someone else already point out, that there are at least three completely different Jokers, according to canon... And thus logically there are at least three different Batmans.

When people argue about if Punisher is Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Evil, they use proof from completely different writers, who viewed Punisher very differently.




> And here I thought _Dark Knight Returns_ was the worst Frank Miller's Batman got.
> 
> Anyways, I'm not surprised the meme went with a one-panel punchline over explaining how an exceptionally ****ty version of Batman did his bat-stuff. That would kinda ruin the vibe, and make the message feel less like "Alignment is arbitrary" and more like "Batman is inconsistent"


He is, he was, he will be. He writer doesn't write him completely the same.

Another great chance to bring up professional wrestling. In Pro-wrestling, the foundations of a character might stay the same (Such as being 'straight edge'), but the how they treat others will change (I'm a drug free babyface vs I'm drug free and _better than you_).

Pro-wrestlers might have a plot about always being second place and snapping, thinking cheating or changing friends or being more aggressive will give them victory. Wasn't there a version of superman where he snapped and killed Lex? Didn't one version of Red Hood use to be Robin?




> Since I have first hand knowledge of it working in my case and you don't, and your list fails to include my case, then your list is incomplete.
> 
> Since your list is incomplete, I see no reason to address any assumptions based on that faulty premise.
> 
> The rest of your replies were of similar quality and not worth responding to.
> 
> If you are curious, then maybe fix your approach so I am willing to satisfy your curiosity. If you are not curious and just want to argue, then why would I bother fighting you about something I have first hand knowledge and you don't?


5 bucks says the points being made, were squashed last thread, or some goal posts were moved

----------


## gbaji

Putting my own statement back in here for reference:




> It's only not a problem in two cases:
> 
> 1. The GM just doesn't enforce alignment rules. Which is great. But then, why bother having them written down on the character sheets.
> 
> 2. The players make sure to stay "within the lines" of the alignment written on their character's sheet. Which means that it's a constant pressure on them in terms of roleplaying. Well, or they create characters who have the "cardboard cutout" alignments as part of their personality.





> Since I have first hand knowledge of it working in my case and you don't, and your list fails to include my case, then your list is incomplete.


So your case is one in which the GM does enforce the rules and the players fail to play "within the lines" of alignment restrictions but... nothing happens? Er. Doesn't that then fall into case 1 (GM not enforcing the rules)? It's not a "list", it's literally all cases within the bounds of "having alignment rules in the game" *and* "not creating conflict". There are no other cases. I mean. Unless your case is that the players habitually violate the alignment rules, have their character's alignments change as a result, and everyone is just ok with this?

It's not even about alignment. We can substitute "alignment" with anything. Say "property rights". And we could also say that people will never run afoul of property laws (like say "no stealing") if either no-one enforces the law *or* they never break the law. If the law is both enforced and you break it, then you will run into problems as a result. Right? Again, I suppose, unless you just like being arrested and thrown in jail constantly (or whatever the equivalent is).




> Since your list is incomplete, I see no reason to address any assumptions based on that faulty premise.


It's not so much a "list" as a logical formulation. The only way you will never be punished for breaking a rule (like alignment rules, but applies to any rule) is if either the GM does not enforce them *or* you never break them. There are no "cases" outside that boundary.

But hey. If you think your case falls outside what I've said and I'm somehow failing to address it, then why not actually write it down, so we can talk about it? That might be more useful than you forcing me to play 20 questions and coyly saying "that's not it!" over and over.




> The rest of your replies were of similar quality and not worth responding to.


Similar quality to posting to say "you're not addressing my case", while refusing to actually tell me what this case is? I'm at least making arguments and posting examples to support them. You're certainly free to disagree (with either or both), but it's a bit silly to say "you're wrong", but not actually bother with any sort of follow through to support that assertion.




> If you are curious, then maybe fix your approach so I am willing to satisfy your curiosity. If you are not curious and just want to argue, then why would I bother fighting you about something I have first hand knowledge and you don't?


I am curious. So why don't you actually write down how you use alignment and don't run into problems, but it's not either of the cases I listed.

Let me also be extremely clear. I'm speaking exclusively of D&D style alignment systems. You seem to be insisting that you play in a way that somehow manages to avoid any of the conflicts and problems I've seen when attempting to use such systems. And I've outlined what I think is required to make them work without conflict (although I'm not sure if "always play within the alignment restrictions" counts as non-conflict, but that's just me).

My broad point on this subject has been that to whatever degree the GM does actually enforce the alignment rules it will tend to force players into playing characters that fit into those rules. To me, this is fairly axiomatic. If the rules are enforced the players must follow them. So if the set of actions X falls within alignment Y, you must stay within the bounds of actions X to stay in alignment Y. This is not crazy time thinking here. The only subjective opinion I'm even adding is that I personally feel that there are a lot of character personality concepts that can never work in an enforced D&D style alignment system simply because the personality just doesn't "fit" because some aspects of it will strongly lean to one alignment while others will lean into a different one (or more). I've even listed a few.

What play style or whatever do you use that gets around this, but *isn't* one of the things I listed above?

----------


## Mechalich

> My broad point on this subject has been that to whatever degree the GM does actually enforce the alignment rules it will tend to force players into playing characters that fit into those rules. To me, this is fairly axiomatic. If the rules are enforced the players must follow them. So if the set of actions X falls within alignment Y, you must stay within the bounds of actions X to stay in alignment Y.


For most characters 'staying within alignment Y' does not matter, at all. It's only meaningful if the character has an alignment dependent requirement for some character ability, usually a class (GMs who do things like banning evil characters are rejecting certain playstyles and insofar as this is an issue it remains an issue outside of any in-game morality system). Most characters either don't have alignment-based class restrictions or have extremely loose ones like 'any nonlawful' that are functionally meaningless. Clerics, Druids, and related classes with divine patrons like Warpriests or Inquisitors, are the most common type of alignment-based restrictions but these are bound up in divine doctrine such that any character violating the alignment restriction is almost certainly violating the doctrinal requirements anyway, which means the problem isn't really an alignment problem. 

One of the reasons paladins come up so often with regard to alignment-based restrictions is that it is basically the only class that regularly has a problem in this zone, and even that problem is readily solvable by requiring paladins to have a divine patron and follow their doctrine just as clerics do (and some D&D settings do this).




> The only subjective opinion I'm even adding is that I personally feel that there are a lot of character personality concepts that can never work in an enforced D&D style alignment system simply because the personality just doesn't "fit" because some aspects of it will strongly lean to one alignment while others will lean into a different one (or more). I've even listed a few.


Alignment is intended to be universal. If you find that personality types don't fit any alignment you are interpreting alignments too strictly. Yes, characters may have aspects of their personality that rest in different parts of the pie chart, but that's just a matter of doing the metaphorical math and figuring out which one wins out.

----------


## Chauncymancer

> You're still failing to explain what purpose DM judging of past character actions on a roleplaying and moral basis and assigning consequences is, and why it's beneficial to have it.
> 
> Is it about access to certain class features and magic items?
> Is it about a roleplaying tool for the players?
> 
> In both cases, why is a system where the DM warns the player they are roleplaying their designated morality incorrectly, and it'll change if they continue, superior?  What benefit comes from having the referee in effect telling them "you're doing it wrong" on two such sensitive areas, which will inevitably cause a table argument at some number of tables?


Because the point of alignment is to describe your ease of coexistence with three to nine explicit and diegetic in universe philosophical movements be they national codes, religions, philosophies, or cultural practices. The movement from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral is a shorthand of saying "Your behavior considered holistically is unsatisfactory to the Churches allied with Celestia, but you'd be considered a paragon of temperance and reason by the Colleges allied with Mechanus. The musical subcultures that romanticize Limbo consider you an abhorrent sellout." 




> And that's not getting into how ye olde True Neutral was the bizarre position of actively working to keep Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos in balance.


In this early metaphysic, True Neutral is essentially planar Home Rule: "What the armies of Celestia, Baator, The Abyss, and Arborea all have in common is that they should get the F--- out of our plane, stop using us as pawns in their interstellar cold war, and leave us alone forever."

----------


## Mechalich

> In this early metaphysic, True Neutral is essentially planar Home Rule: "What the armies of Celestia, Baator, The Abyss, and Arborea all have in common is that they should get the F--- out of our plane, stop using us as pawns in their interstellar cold war, and leave us alone forever."


Not quite. The old true neutral explanation is that the natural world, meaning a true wilderness without sapient beings in a primordial 'state of nature' is balanced equally between good, evil, law, and chaos. Now, humans do not live in such environments by choice, even simple hunter-gatherer bands _aggressively modify_ their environment to suit human needs. This is why humans were, originally, positioned as naturally tilted towards Lawful alignments. The classic True Neutral philosophy was that of the D&D druid, a character who actively rejected society in favor of a pro-wilderness viewpoint.

----------


## elros

I love the alignment system for NPCs and other encounters. It is a quick framework to give me an idea how someone may behave, and can quickly explain why different people would respond differently to the same situation. Alignment is a guide: it may not work in every situation, and it can be abused and lead to a poor play experience. 
I think the Giant does a really good job demonstrating the different alignments, including examples where the character represents the worst aspects of it (e.g. Miko).

As for superheroes, I think we can agree that silver age Superman was lawful good, and almost all incarnations of the Joker are chaotic evil.

----------


## OldTrees1

> But hey. If you think your case falls outside what I've said and I'm somehow failing to address it, then why not actually write it down, so we can talk about it? That might be more useful than you forcing me to play 20 questions and coyly saying "that's not it!" over and over.
> 
> Similar quality to posting to say "you're not addressing my case", while refusing to actually tell me what this case is? I'm at least making arguments and posting examples to support them. You're certainly free to disagree (with either or both), but it's a bit silly to say "you're wrong", but not actually bother with any sort of follow through to support that assertion.


Engaging with you, as demonstrated by this post of yours, is not worth my time. I am not forcing you to play 20 questions. I did write something down, in a discussion (with someone else) that was worth my time. You can freely read my posts in that discussion. A discussion that you are trying to graft yourself onto by replying to my posts in mass with a post that was a waste of time to read. I am refusing to engage as long as engaging with you is not worth my time. Either take a hint, improve, or be ignored.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Wait we didn't talk about the alignment of stupidity: stupid good, stupid evil, lawful stupid, chaotic stupid, and stupid neutral. Those types of alignment are very relevant in this thread.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Wait we didn't talk about the alignment of stupidity: stupid good, stupid evil, lawful stupid, chaotic stupid, and stupid neutral. Those types of alignment are very relevant in this thread.


There is also a few forms of "neutral stupid", however some of the blame for that can come from a bad choice of what to use for the lawful chaos axis.

Generally, outside the mentioned exception, these alignments of stupidity boil down to not realizing there are many different ways to be the same alignment or that alignment does not restrict what a character can do, but rather describes the character after the fact (or as a roleplaying guide before the fact without being prescriptive. Ask Tanarii for a detailed explanation)

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> There is also a few forms of "neutral stupid", however some of the blame for that can come from a bad choice of what to use for the lawful chaos axis.
> 
> Generally, outside the mentioned exception, these alignments of stupidity boil down to not realizing there are many different ways to be in the same alignment.


Well, put. If I was a D&D character My alignment will be Chaotic Good. I mean there's a D&D alignment test called easydamus.com

----------


## Tevo77777

> Engaging with you, as demonstrated by this post of yours, is not worth my time. I am not forcing you to play 20 questions. I did write something down, in a discussion (with someone else) that was worth my time. You can freely read my posts in that discussion. A discussion that you are trying to graft yourself onto by replying to my posts in mass with a post that was a waste of time to read. I am refusing to engage as long as engaging with you is not worth my time. Either take a hint, improve, or be ignored.


This is the same person who kept trying to insist Elan was Lawful Good, or that Roy was not Lawful Good, or that if you are CG you have to be a moron like Elan.

Oh and they tried to insist that Robin Hood, the quintessential example of CG, was too organized to be CG.

----------


## gbaji

> For most characters 'staying within alignment Y' does not matter, at all. It's only meaningful if the character has an alignment dependent requirement for some character ability, usually a class (GMs who do things like banning evil characters are rejecting certain playstyles and insofar as this is an issue it remains an issue outside of any in-game morality system). Most characters either don't have alignment-based class restrictions or have extremely loose ones like 'any nonlawful' that are functionally meaningless. Clerics, Druids, and related classes with divine patrons like Warpriests or Inquisitors, are the most common type of alignment-based restrictions but these are bound up in divine doctrine such that any character violating the alignment restriction is almost certainly violating the doctrinal requirements anyway, which means the problem isn't really an alignment problem.


Sure. But, somewhat by definition, we're examining the cases where it does matter. The character is of a class where having an alignment shift imposed on them would be a hardship, for example. Saying "The fact that this brand of propane tank is dangerous and could explode when used" cannot be handwaved away with "but that only affects people who use that brand of tank". It's still a problem.

I would also argue that the rules we're talking about (and the ones I have the most objection to) are exactly the rules that apply to various classes and characters for whom alignment shifts matter. 

Oldtrees. I literally went back and re-read every single post you've made in this thread. This is the closest you've come to any sort of example of your "case"




> You are also aware there are players/groups that do value using alignment. So you know it is useful to those groups. Even if you don't know why they value it and thus don't know how it is useful (beyond the high level "it adds that desired value").


This is just you saying "some players/groups do value it". Assertion. No explanation.


This "kinda" comes close. Maybe?




> One use of alignment is having the description of your character's moral character exist in the world rather than only in your head. I generally don't describe my character's hair (when they have it) unless asked. It is not something I care to have as a fact in the world. The other players can have their own assumptions about the hair color, but I see no use in the game knowing & establishing the color unless there is some reason that makes it important. For some players they view their character's moral character in the same way I view my character's hair color*. However some players do care to have the game know & establish their hair color. They value the hair color being an established detail in the game. Similarly when I play a Paladin that is trying to be moral, I value their moral character being an established detail in the game.


All fluff statements. Some people like this. Some people like that. None of this describes a method of managing alignment, nor how to resolve conflicts (or why conflicts may or may not occur).





> The GM updating that description as necessary is part of the point of me playing a Paladin that is trying to be moral. Likewise when I play a Mind Flayer that is evil or other evil character, I like the game establishing the character is evil as one of the multiple ways I signal I don't condone their actions (which helps me feel comfortable and feel the group is comfortable with me roleplaying that evil character). I also like to leave the possibility of organic redemption/fall from grace for my characters that care about their moral character.


Ok. Getting somewhere. So the GM "updating that description" is part of you playing your character. Got it. We're getting near a point here.

Can we stop with the euphemisms and say that "updating that description" is actually "The GM changes your character's alignment as written on your character sheet to match what he thinks it should be based on your characters actions and behavior in play"? Let's be specific. That's what we're talking about here, right?

Are you really just saying that if you create a paladin, and you are trying to play a moral character, and the GM says "nope. Your actions mean you are not LG. You are NG, and you lose your paladin abilities (or whatever)", you... what? That's not "conflict"? At all? Again, I'm somewhat falling towards two possibilities:

1. You intended for your paladin to "fall", roleplaying this out, and are perfectly fine with the results.

2. You intended for your paladin to retain his moral status, maybe made a mistake, maybe didn't see a situation the same as the GM did, and the GM punished you for something you did.

While it's entirely possible that for you personally, option 1 is the only case that ever happens, I'm reasonably certain that for the entire rest of the gaming community, option 2 is the vastly more common experience.

And again. If you were intending that roleplay action and outcome, did you really need the GM to "enforce the alignment rules" for you? No. In the absence of any alignment rules, you are 100% free to roleplay a character who is trying to uphold the virtues we might attribute to "being a paladin", and may absolutely choose to roleplay that character struggling with that choice, and even failing. There is absolutely no requirement for a bi-axial alignment system in D&D (or any game) to play a character struggling with moral dilemmas. At all.

I'm gong to loop back a bit to what I pointed out at the top of this post. The alignment rules somewhat exist solely to manage cases where there is a conflict or difference of opinion. If we all waltz around the game world always in agreement on everything, then yeah, there's no problem, but that's just bypassing the issue.

I would also argue that the only way that can actually happen in a game is if the players are intentionally creating character personalities literally using the alignment descriptions as templates, and never deviate from those attributes while in play. Which, as I've stated several times before, results in "cardboard cutout" style play.


Literally the rest of your posts is you responding to other people and insisting that you already explained your case (Tanarri asked this several times). IMO, your "case" is still incredibly weak. It assumes only a situation where the player intends for the alignment shift to happen and roleplays it out.

Can you even imagine a situation where the player and the GM may disagree on whether a particular action actually results in (for example) their paladin "falling"? I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly unlikely in actual play. You're free to insist that this is what happens in "some groups/players", and I'm sure that may be true. But I still maintain that this is only happening in those groups if the entire group has been so browbeaten by the alignment rules that they just never dare to violate them.

Either that, or they are playing in a game where the alignment rule violations just don't affect them. Either because they never play classes where it matters, or the GM has lessened the impact to the point where it doesn't matter as anything more than a RP choice. Um... Which is adjusting the alignment system to be more inline with what I've been arguing *for* this whole time.

Is that paragraph actually where you outlined your case? Cause I'm not seeing clear examples of character classes, alignments, actions, and reactions, much less any examination of these to show that they actually cause no conflict. Or maybe you and I just define "conflict" differently. Because to me, anytime the GM imposes a change on the character that is not what the player would have chosen, that is a "conflict". Whether that's hps being marked off their sheet as a result of damage, or a change to alignment, that's "conflict".

And if it's always due to player choice, then we aren't really in a paradigm where the GM is "enforcing the rules". That's just players choosing a RP path for their characters. And yeah,  I'm 100% behind that. But it's not what I'm talking about in terms of alignment rules creating problems. If the only affect of an alignment shift is the equivalent of "now my hair color is red", then you've basically just reduced the impact of alignment shift to the point it doesn't matter. Again. That's just bypassing the issue.

----------


## Tevo77777

> Can we stop with the euphemisms and say that "updating that description" is actually "The GM changes your character's alignment as written on your character sheet to match what he thinks it should be based on your characters actions and behavior in play"? Let's be specific. That's what we're talking about here, right?


So again, you're repeating what you did before.

1. If you're sitting at a table and more than half the group is convinced your character is Evil and not Good, they almost certainly are.

2. If you are arguing with the GM, who in earlier editions was literally called the "Referee", you are literally arguing with the Referee. You know, the person who settles disputes and blows the whistle? According to many of the rulebooks, the GM actually can override any specific rule, this is printed in the start of multiple editions.

You can't have conflict with the GM, the person whose job it is to settle conflict. 

Either you are an absolute tool for starting conflict with the peacemaker, the soother of conflict... Or you're going to have to.. Actually this is also like pro wrestling.

CM Punk wrestles for WWE, says he got super messed up and they made him wrestle, says he was deadly unwell, he had brain damage. This is like the player going "Oh ****, this GM is insane" and they quit.

CM wrestles for AEW, goes bananas after a big Pay Per View, starts fights with three of the executive VPs, already has beef with almost all the former champions, IRL beef, which should never happen. He gets fired basically. This is like when the player is so toxic, all the other players and the GM ban them from the Roll20 group and the Discord server, or kick them out of the house and the campaign.

This is not the fault of Alignment, someone is being confrontational or insane.




> Are you really just saying that if you create a paladin, and you are trying to play a moral character, and the GM says "nope. Your actions mean you are not LG. You are NG, and you lose your paladin abilities (or whatever)", you... what? That's not "conflict"? At all? Again, I'm somewhat falling towards two possibilities:
> 
> 1. You intended for your paladin to "fall", roleplaying this out, and are perfectly fine with the results.
> 
> 2. You intended for your paladin to retain his moral status, maybe made a mistake, maybe didn't see a situation the same as the GM did, and the GM punished you for something you did.


If things are not clear, the GM decides what the rulings mean, they interpret the "law". Not only that, but he law gives them the power to override the law at will, in the name of "fun" or "gameplay" or "function", all vague terms.

So again, it cannot be the Alignment's fault, because even if Alignment was simpler or more complex or anything, the GM could always ignore it, read it "wrongly", or hate you for no reason.

This is still an issue about the player or the GM. If anything goes wrong, it's a living breathing person's fault, not the rules.




> And again. If you were intending that roleplay action and outcome, did you really need the GM to "enforce the alignment rules" for you? No. In the absence of any alignment rules, you are 100% free to roleplay a character who is trying to uphold the virtues we might attribute to "being a paladin", and may absolutely choose to roleplay that character struggling with that choice, and even failing. There is absolutely no requirement for a bi-axial alignment system in D&D (or any game) to play a character struggling with moral dilemmas. At all.


The GM job is literally to enforce the rules, and to decide what they even are. 

In the absence of Alignment rules, the GM will just strip you off your powers for no reason, or you'll do something stupid or cringe and lose them. Same situation as before. 




> I'm gong to loop back a bit to what I pointed out at the top of this post. The alignment rules somewhat exist solely to manage cases where there is a conflict or difference of opinion. If we all waltz around the game world always in agreement on everything, then yeah, there's no problem, but that's just bypassing the issue.
> 
> I would also argue that the only way that can actually happen in a game is if the players are intentionally creating character personalities literally using the alignment descriptions as templates, and never deviate from those attributes while in play. Which, as I've stated several times before, results in "cardboard cutout" style play.


The rules do not exist so that we are all on the same page, but all rules, period, legal or games, are often vague or confusing in some way, and thus there is something to interpret them. 

The real reason of the rules is to make D&D into D&D. Why are the Elves the way they are? Because D&D. Why is this weird or that stupid or this bizarre, D&D. It's based on the designers of the specific edition, the designers of previous editions, going all the way back to that guy who wrote books about a fantasy world locked between "Law/Order" and "Chaos"... or that other book series (Same book series?) where wizards forget their spells when they cast them.

It's like joining a religion or a fraternity or a culture. Why are you do doing this strange chant in Latin? Tradition? Because it symbolizes or means something? 




> Can you even imagine a situation where the player and the GM may disagree on whether a particular action actually results in (for example) their paladin "falling"? I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly unlikely in actual play. You're free to insist that this is what happens in "some groups/players", and I'm sure that may be true. But I still maintain that this is only happening in those groups if the entire group has been so browbeaten by the alignment rules that they just never dare to violate them.
> 
> Either that, or they are playing in a game where the alignment rule violations just don't affect them. Either because they never play classes where it matters, or the GM has lessened the impact to the point where it doesn't matter as anything more than a RP choice. Um... Which is adjusting the alignment system to be more inline with what I've been arguing *for* this whole time.
> 
> Is that paragraph actually where you outlined your case? Cause I'm not seeing clear examples of character classes, alignments, actions, and reactions, much less any examination of these to show that they actually cause no conflict. Or maybe you and I just define "conflict" differently. Because to me, anytime the GM imposes a change on the character that is not what the player would have chosen, that is a "conflict". Whether that's hps being marked off their sheet as a result of damage, or a change to alignment, that's "conflict".
> 
> And if it's always due to player choice, then we aren't really in a paradigm where the GM is "enforcing the rules". That's just players choosing a RP path for their characters. And yeah,  I'm 100% behind that. But it's not what I'm talking about in terms of alignment rules creating problems. If the only affect of an alignment shift is the equivalent of "now my hair color is red", then you've basically just reduced the impact of alignment shift to the point it doesn't matter. Again. That's just bypassing the issue.


They don't cause any conflict. You literally said over and over "The player and GM disagree", that is the conflict. They can disagree if the character is dead or not, they can disagree if "This is what my player would do" or not. They can disagree if the player can be a noble, or if they know someone, or any number of things.

I can't recall who said this before, but earlier someone wiser and (Older?) than me suggested that your opposition to Alignment was not what was important. The inner truth was your seeming opposition to the GameMaster as a referee, to the very idea of someone being an referee. 

You railed against what was written, so you're not a Rules Lawyer. You railed against someone interpreting the rules, so you're not okay with a world without rules spelled out.

To me it sounds like you just want to make all the rules and decide everything, while also being a player somehow.

If not, you got to seriously prove that, because you've sure proved otherwise.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Oldtrees. I literally went back and re-read every single post you've made in this thread.


Good, now try doing it without replying to me. You had 3 options, you chose option 3. *plonk*

----------


## Mechalich

> Sure. But, somewhat by definition, we're examining the cases where it does matter. The character is of a class where having an alignment shift imposed on them would be a hardship, for example. Saying "The fact that this brand of propane tank is dangerous and could explode when used" cannot be handwaved away with "but that only affects people who use that brand of tank". It's still a problem.


If you have two options sets, and you deliberately chose the more dangerous option knowing that it is more dangerous, and then it blows up in your face, who is at fault?

Yes, sometimes imposed alignment shifts would be a hardship _and that's okay_. Players sometimes do things that have outcomes different what they intended, and consequently bad things happen their characters, sometimes including character death. Doing this with moral criteria as opposed to physical or emotional criteria is not anything special so long as everyone understands what those criteria are - in fact there are real-world contracts that include legally enforceable 'morality clauses.'

A player who produces a paladin, or some other kind of morality-bound character, is entering into an implicit agreement with the GM to allow the loss of that character's paladin powers is the GM makes a judgment that the character has acted outside the moral boundaries that constrain paladin behavior. Any player who thinks the GM doesn't get to decide that is operating under a misapprehension of how the power dynamic in TTRPGs flows.

Now, that is separate from whether or not a GM imposing an alignment change, and the loss of character abilities that may be associated with it, is being _fair_, which is an almost entirely OOC concern. And this is also where alignment's poor design comes into play, in the actual alignments are poorly defined and there's no in-game mechanism to track alignment movement or offer warnings (interestingly D&D video games have often done better in this regard, in PF: Kingmaker, your character's alignment dot marches across the pie chart with each choice and you know when you're close to crossing a boundary).

There's also the much, much broader issue that player/character separation can be challenging and that separating fantasy rules from reality can be difficult. There is a tendency for actual ideological differences between players and GMs to come into conflict within these sorts of discussion (especially with regard to the good/evil divide which is much more 'real' than the esoteric law/chaos one). Very often in cases where 'that's evil!' 'no it's not!' ends up becoming an argument at a table it reflects an actual moral disagreement between the people, not about how morality works in the fantasy world. After all, arguments of this kind occur in worlds that are functionally our own, like the oWoD - Mage: the Ascension fandom included a huge issue wherein the New Age heavy designers were functionally at war with the fanbase because they thought the Traditions were the good guys and the STEM-heavy player base thought this was ridiculous and of course the Technocracy were the good guys and the Trads were nuts. 

Consequently, arguments over 'alignment' often actually are not about alignment but are instead real world OOC arguments about morality and ethics by proxy. Insofar as morality systems in games are likely to spawn such arguments, and those arguments are disruptive and tend to poison tables, having such systems is problematic. However, such arguments can easily happen without any such systems, as in the aforementioned MtA case.

----------


## Tanarii

Here's how I view the possible alignment scenarios.  Two roots, several subsets, with net result in enjoyment of the system.

1) Player controls final alignment.
 A) DM stays out of it. Player and DM happy.
 B) DM offers feedback, player decides if they want to adjust character behavior and/or alignment, or neither.  Player and DM happy.
2) DM controls final alignment.
 A) DM offers feedback, player agrees.
  i) Player changes character behavior, DM does not adjust alignment.  Player and DM happy.
  ii) Player does not change character behavior, DM adjust to new alignment.  Player and DM happy.
 B) DM offers feedback, player disagrees.
  i)  Player changes character behavior, DM does not adjust alignment.  Player unhappy about being told how to roleplay, and DM possibly unhappy from table argument too.
  ii) Player does not change character behavior, DM adjust to new alignment. Player definitely unhappy, DM possibly unhappy from table argument too.

Since the only difference between 2A and 2B is player agreement about how their roleplaying lines up with alignment, the caveat to table happiness for DM control of final alignment is contingent on player agreeing with the DM's assessment.  

This view doesn't mean I can't understand that there are some cases of DM control where everyone ends up happy.  I just view it as contingent on something that seems unlikely to happen 100% of the time at a given table, so an automatically fragile state.  

So why even have a rule that depends on that as part of core rules, when you can just write in scenario 1 into the rules instead?

As per my previous, I do think there is a use case.  But IMO it's on that should be a called out exception to the standard rule of "player controls alignment".

----------


## OldTrees1

> There's also the much, much broader issue that player/character separation can be challenging and that separating fantasy rules from reality can be difficult.


It is true that separate of fiction from reality is a skill that improves. The topic of a fictional reality's morals is a safer topic than discussing IRL morals, when and only when everyone can separate the fictional reality's morals from IRL morals. If a group is not yet comfortable to safely discuss IRL morals, and has not separated fictional reality morals from IRL morals, then they should tread lightly with those fictional reality morals

I encountered an idea (occupational hazard of philosophy) for a theoretical campaign setting where maximizing the most harm is moral. The idea is not fleshed out but helps nail home that separation of fiction from reality.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Here's how I view the possible alignment scenarios.  Two roots, several subsets, with net result in enjoyment of the system.
> 
> 2B) DM offers feedback, player *disagrees*.


I think variations in what is meant by "disagrees" results in different 2B outcomes (they are still 2Bi and 2Bii but the enjoyment values differ based on what "disagrees" means). How amicable is the disagreement? Since 2B is a possible outcome of 2, I suggest only using 2 in contexts where 2B has no negative outcomes.

When I created my Mind Flayer character, I considered option 1 vs option 2. If I choose option 2 (which I did), I am giving the GM control over describing the alignment of my Mind Flayer character. Part of my giving the GM control to make rulings on this topic is my acceptance of them making rulings on this topic. There may come a situation where I would have ruled differently if I were running a campaign, but that would mean it was a different campaign. No longer do potential "disagreements" imply conflict where the player things the GM is GMing wrong. Instead the "disagreements" are merely these different GMs would make different rulings in different campaigns but implicitly acknowledge and accept the GM of the current campaign making rulings in this campaign.

Sidenote: When I created my Mind Flayer character I also basically deleted options "2Ai" and "2Bi". The character will continue their behavior and organic character development. This choice to remove "2Ai" and "2Bi" does not have much explanatory power itself, but might help understanding nuance. /end sidenote

If we file this "Technically I would rule differently in a different campaign, but that is irrelevant as I implicitly fully accept you making those rulings, about my character, in this campaign" as "player disagrees" then "2Bii" ends with the player (me) and the GM being happy. If we don't file it under 2B, then that might remove 2B for some players.

This is why it is stable enough for me, in my group, for this Mind Flayer character, in a long open-ended campaign. All roads lead to my group is happy.



Now, that was a lot of details that were OldTrees1 specific (lots of "If I then I" logic that does not follow necessarily if the player is an arbitrary player). Different people can differ. There are some players where the only 2B outcomes are negative. I don't encourage those players choose option 2.


PS: Your tree is not complete but only because you reasonably pruned distracting & irrelevant branches (Ex: DM reverts their decision). I appreciate that.

----------


## Tanarii

> If we file this "Technically I would rule differently in a different campaign, but that is irrelevant as I implicitly fully accept you making those rulings, about my character, in this campaign" as "player disagrees" then "2Bii" ends with the player (me) and the GM being happy. If we don't file it under 2B, then that might remove 2B.


I would definitely file this under "player agrees".  And maybe that's the core of where I'm running into a brick wall.

Possibly a better way to put it is "player disagrees with ruling and doesn't accept the DM ruling because dagnab it it's THEIR CHARACTER and they get to decide how they roleplay."

There are definitely systems where it's not assumed the player controls how their character feels and how the player role players the characters.  (Example: Exalted II, where you sometimes have to spend resources to decide your character feels or roleplay certain ways.) But usually D&D generally isn't considered one of them, especially in modern times, and instead it would be considered denying player agency.

It isn't, of course.  Because the player can still do whatever they want with their character's roleplaying, unless there's an additional house rule like "evil characters become NPCs".  But that prevalent attitude is why you're likely to end up at 2B.

Edit:  On the other hand, if players are coming to the table accepting what you have in quotes in the first place, DM judged alignment becomes a lot less unstable, if not our right stable.  They're implicitly going to agree no matter what, since they're ceding it to the DM as DM area of ruling in advance.

----------


## OldTrees1

> I would definitely file this under "player agrees".  And maybe that's the core of where I'm running into a brick wall.
> 
> Possibly a better way to put it is "player disagrees with ruling and doesn't accept the DM ruling because dagnab it it's THEIR CHARACTER and they get to decide how they roleplay."
> 
> There are definitely systems where it's not assumed the player controls how their character feels and how the player role players the characters.  (Example: Exalted II, where you sometimes have to spend resources to decide your character feels or roleplay certain ways.) But usually D&D (because alignment) generally isn't considered one of them, especially in modern times, and instead it would be considered denying player agency.
> 
> It isn't, of course.  Because the player can still do whatever they want with their character's roleplaying, unless there's an additional house rule like "evil characters become NPCs".  But that prevalent attitude is why you're likely to end up at 2B.
> 
> Edit: On the other hand, if players are coming to the table accepting what you have in quotes in the first place, DM judged alignment becomes a lot less unstable, if not our right stable. They're implicitly going to agree no matter what, since they're ceding it to the DM as DM area of ruling in advance.


Oh, if that would be fined under "player agrees" due to the acceptance despite the technical & irrelevant disagreement, then I might know how to explain.

While I was creating my Mind Flayer character, here is my decision tree.
Can Tanarii's 2B exist for me playing this character?
1) No. Does 2 add anything for this character?
1A) Yes. Sign up for for DM described alignment (Use Tanarii's 2).
1B) No. Don't sign up for DM described alignment (Use Tanarii's 1 instead).
2) Yes. Don't sign up for DM described alignment (Use Tanarii's 1 instead).

If I can't accept the GM making rulings about a detail about my character, I don't grant them control over making rulings about that detail of my character. Therefore if I grant them control over making rulings about a detail of my character, I already accepted them making rulings about that detail of my character.

Generally only my amoral characters (Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide) don't use DM described alignment. However the magic is in knowing if I would accept the GM making rulings about that detail of my character.

Edit: Yeah, granting the GM control over things you accept the GM having control over tends to be stable. Luckily alignment works like that for me. I suspect that is the minority rather than the majority. I advise other GMs to avoid using DM described alignment if Tanarii's 2B can happen.

----------


## Mechalich

> Possibly a better way to put it is "player disagrees with ruling and doesn't accept the DM ruling because dagnab it it's THEIR CHARACTER and they get to decide how they roleplay."


The player may believe that, but the nature of TTRPG play is that the player _automatically loses_ any such argument with the GM, even if the GM is being manifestly unfair, and the player's only option beyond simple acceptance is to leave the game. 

One of the reasons alignments specifically, and morality systems generally lead to conflict is that they are both very easy to use utilize in ways that are actually unfair - such as trap scenarios that seem to doom a paladin to fall no matter what - or they create the _perception_ of unfairness because of a combination of poorly defined criteria and underlying OOC disagreements about the moral weight applied to various actions/intentions. 

This leads into 'alignment is bad' arguments in the sense that it is the kind of mechanic that naturally lends itself to both deliberate unfairness and misunderstandings and can create conflicts between players and GMs where other, less emotionally loaded systems, would not. This is by no means unique to morality systems, basically any system that requires the GM to directly judge character actions and provide consequences wherein the criteria and meanings are vague is liable to do this. For example, in Vampire: the Masquerade, all vampires were capable of going into frenzy, an animalistic state in which the GM more or less took control of the character for a time. While actual entry into frenzy involved roles, the ability to need to call for a Frenzy role was based on very loose guidelines and in practice was almost completely at the GM's discretion. Good GMs quickly learned to avoid using Frenzy much at all and in many cases dropped it entirely except in specific cases such as blood loss that were unequivocal triggers, but GMs unfamiliar with the system could call for frenzy roles quite often and then watch their table collapse into infighting and resentment despite doing their best efforts to play the rules as written. Ultimately, alignment is the sort of mechanic that requires greater GM and player skill to handle properly.

----------


## OldTrees1

> The player may believe that, but the nature of TTRPG play is that the player _automatically loses_ any such argument with the GM, even if the GM is being manifestly unfair, and the player's only option beyond simple acceptance is to leave the game.


If there is a character detail the player can't accept the GM making rulings on, and the GM is making rulings on that character detail, then something has already gone wrong. Yes, if the GM has been granted the ability to make rulings on that character detail, then we players would lose any such argument. However we GMs also don't want to cause that conflict either. The point is not who would "lose" the argument. The point is, that conflict is a conflict to be avoided through finding compatible groups, playing compatible characters, and limiting your GM authority based on what fits best for each character.

When I GM I default to the players controlling their character's alignment (same as I default to the players controlling their character's dominant handedness). Then I turn on DM described alignment for the characters whose players opt in. Players that could have negative outcomes from me using DM described alignment for their characters, should stick to player controlled alignment for those characters. This model works well for my group and seems broadly applicable.

Edit:
Also there might be a relevant difference between the minimum acceptance (some form of begrudging acceptance can lead to a negative outcome), and full acceptance. In my case I am talking about full acceptance.




> Ultimately, alignment is the sort of mechanic that requires greater GM and player skill to handle properly.


True.

----------


## gbaji

> You can't have conflict with the GM, the person whose job it is to settle conflict.


A. That's patently false. if the GM says one thing, and the player thinks something different, that is a conflict.

B. This isn't "me". I'm presenting scenarios and discussing them. Period. Don't make this personal please.




> This is not the fault of Alignment, someone is being confrontational or insane.


Sigh. I'm not talking about how rules are ruled, or how differenct opinions at a gaming table are resolved. Nor is it about being or not being confrontational. I'm actually assuming exactly what you are: That the GM is the final arbiter on alignment. I'm just following that to its logical conclusion as far as how that affects players and how they play characters in a game with an alignment system like D&D.

The players, as a means to "avoid confrontation" will tend towards playing character types that facilitate that, right? That's literally what I'm saying here. That, as a result, tends towards what I call "cardboard cutout" character types.

Get it? You can't have it both ways. Either the GM is the final arbiter, and the players will therefore have to comply (even if they might otherwise disagree), or the GM is not. if the GM is not, then you don't have "enforced alignment rules" (that's case number one I wrote earlier). If the GM is, then you either have the players avoiding confrontation over this issue by adjusting the kinds of characters they play (or how they play their characters, which is more or less the same thing) *or* you get what you just talked about "someone being confrontational or insane".

I'm just examining all the cases here and showing how one set of rules and actions impacts other people's actions and decisions.





> If things are not clear, the GM decides what the rulings mean, they interpret the "law". Not only that, but he law gives them the power to override the law at will, in the name of "fun" or "gameplay" or "function", all vague terms.
> 
> So again, it cannot be the Alignment's fault, because even if Alignment was simpler or more complex or anything, the GM could always ignore it, read it "wrongly", or hate you for no reason.
> 
> This is still an issue about the player or the GM. If anything goes wrong, it's a living breathing person's fault, not the rules.


Sure. But in this case the rules are about how the GM arbitrates the very personality and decision making of the player characters. That's fundamentally different than say arbitrating how much damage a fall should cause. It moves us into an area that is very much at the heart of players actually roleplaying their characters.





> The GM job is literally to enforce the rules, and to decide what they even are.


Yup. I'm not disputing this. Again though, the problem with the alignment system in D&D is that "the rules" are literally ones that empower the GM to force players to play specific types of characters, complete with punishments to those characters if they don't comply.

We would all agree that any GM who, when a player says "I'm going to have my character do X" told the player "No. Your character does Y instead" would be dismissed as a really terrible GM who is trying to railroad and/or defeat player agency. Yet, with an alignment system (especially D&Ds) we have more or less that exact thing happening. Even if the GM isn't stepping in and actually saying "Your character wouldn't do that, it's against his alignment", the player knows the rules too, and knows that there may be a consequence for some actions, and will therefore moderate their own character's actions. The GM doesn't have to punish the PC. Just the mere fact that he could acts as a deterrent.

Some may say that's a good thing. Others that it's bad. I'm not even placing a value judgement here (well I am, but not right at this very moment). I'm just trying to get some people to even acknowledge that those rules do exist and do have an effect on players decisions when running their characters. You seem to be wanting to simultaneously claim that alignment doesn't restrict the players in terms of how they play their characters (my point) *and* that the GM is always right and must be followed when it comes to rulings on alignment.

I'm just pointing out how incredibly contradictory that is. There are rules. They must be followed. You just (very clearly and strongly) made this case. I agree. You can't hold that position and also claim that alignment rules don't affect how players play their characters. Right?





> They don't cause any conflict. You literally said over and over "The player and GM disagree", that is the conflict. They can disagree if the character is dead or not, they can disagree if "This is what my player would do" or not. They can disagree if the player can be a noble, or if they know someone, or any number of things.


Um. If there is literally no such thing as "Lawful Evil" in your game, then there can be no disagreement over whether a character is Lawful Evil, right? So yes. The very existence of alignments "create conflict". In precisely the same way that the moment I name my team "The patriots", and you name yours "The cowboys", we have created something we can disagree on and therefore have "conflict" over. This is pretty basic stuff here.

Maybe if I rephrase it? It doesn't actually create the conflict. It creates the thing that people can have conflict over. And, as I've said repeatedly, the nature of the D&D alignment system maximizes the odds that there will be conflict, due to it applying a "one size fits all" label to a host of different character aspects.




> I can't recall who said this before, but earlier someone wiser and (Older?) than me suggested that your opposition to Alignment was not what was important. The inner truth was your seeming opposition to the GameMaster as a referee, to the very idea of someone being an referee.


Nope. Could not be further from the truth. I'm a firm believer in GM power and importance as a referee in a game. In fact, it's because of that firm position on this that I identify the alignment system in D&D to be such a source of disagreement and conflict. My argument stems from the assumption that the GM is final arbiter of such disagreements, and merely examines the effect on PC play as a result.





> You railed against what was written, so you're not a Rules Lawyer. You railed against someone interpreting the rules, so you're not okay with a world without rules spelled out.
> 
> To me it sounds like you just want to make all the rules and decide everything, while also being a player somehow.
> 
> If not, you got to seriously prove that, because you've sure proved otherwise.


This is, again, not about me. It's my assessment of the effect of the alignment system in D&D on players. Period. How you got from that to examining whether I believe in following the rules, or whether GMs should be empowered to enforce rules, is baffling to me.

Again. My position assumes those things are in effect. Then it examines how this affects the player character personality choices over time in a game. And my conclusion is that it does, and that it tends to push players into playing cardboard cutout characters. I'm not sure how that's even in dispute. It literally says "write this alignment down on your character sheet", and then requires that you follow a set of personality standards based on what is written down there, complete with consequences if you don't.

What's weird is that, instead of examining that, we seem to be stuck in this odd circle going back and forth over the specifics of the *methods* by which alignment is enforced (or even, oddly, whether it actually is at all). Can't we just accept that, for any sane examination of the rules, we must assume that in some way, they are enforced? And can we then move past that to examine what the effect of that enforcement has? That's what I'm trying (apparently somewhat in vain) to do, but I keep getting caught up in circular arguments about GM power, or player attitudes, or whatever.




> Good, now try doing it without replying to me. You had 3 options, you chose option 3. *plonk*


Wait? So you want me to reply to what you said, but not to you? That's... strange.

Given that several posters have questioned your position and asked for clarification on it, maybe just declaring "I already told you" over and over isn't the most helpful response. Now, when someone actually does bother to dig through your earlier posts to try to noodle out what you are talking about, you respond with "don't talk to me".

You're the one who kept insisting that you'd already made an argument against a position I have taken in this thread, and refused (despite several requests) to clarify or repeat said argument. You're the one with the burden to back that up in some way. If you now don't want to discuss it, then I'll take that as a retraction of your disagreement to my position (which I'm assuming isn't your intent).

Or you can simply clarify what you were saying regarding the case you spoke of, and we can have a reasonable conversation about it. Just saying "nuh uh" over and over isn't terribly useful. Cause I looked at your case, and I believe that it doesn't really refute what I've been saying about alignment. Now, that could be because I am not understanding what you said, or you are not understanding what I'm saying. But in either case, just refusing to clarify and talk is never going to accomplish anything.





> This is the same person who kept trying to insist Elan was Lawful Good, or that Roy was not Lawful Good, or that if you are CG you have to be a moron like Elan.
> 
> Oh and they tried to insist that Robin Hood, the quintessential example of CG, was too organized to be CG.


Sigh. Again. I didn't "insist" anything. I'm literally not taking any position on who's alignment is what. I'm just presenting hypotheticals that violate the "rules" of the alignment system in D&D and showing how the resulting characters would be perfectly viable playable characters from a RPG perspective, but are not due purely to the existence of the specific alignment rules in D&D. Specifically, the idea that all characters have one and only one alignment, despite the fact that real people commonly exhibit diametrically different decisions and actions based on situations they are in (like Elan when following rules to the absurd letter in some cases, and then doing random other things "because it's fun" in others).

Those are just examples of a point, not me arguing that they *are* one way or another. I'm perfectly capable of examining what might happen if we all lived in a world with no shrimp, without actually arguing that this is the way the world actually is.

----------


## Tevo77777

> The player may believe that, but the nature of TTRPG play is that the player _automatically loses_ any such argument with the GM, even if the GM is being manifestly unfair, and the player's only option beyond simple acceptance is to leave the game. 
> 
> One of the reasons alignments specifically, and morality systems generally lead to conflict is that they are both very easy to use utilize in ways that are actually unfair - such as trap scenarios that seem to doom a paladin to fall no matter what - or they create the _perception_ of unfairness because of a combination of poorly defined criteria and underlying OOC disagreements about the moral weight applied to various actions/intentions.


I'm about to compare RPGs to Dating, but I'll read your third paragraph first. 




> This leads into 'alignment is bad' arguments in the sense that it is the kind of mechanic that naturally lends itself to both deliberate unfairness and misunderstandings and can create conflicts between players and GMs where other, less emotionally loaded systems, would not. This is by no means unique to morality systems, basically any system that requires the GM to directly judge character actions and provide consequences wherein the criteria and meanings are vague is liable to do this. For example, in Vampire: the Masquerade, all vampires were capable of going into frenzy, an animalistic state in which the GM more or less took control of the character for a time. While actual entry into frenzy involved roles, the ability to need to call for a Frenzy role was based on very loose guidelines and in practice was almost completely at the GM's discretion. Good GMs quickly learned to avoid using Frenzy much at all and in many cases dropped it entirely except in specific cases such as blood loss that were unequivocal triggers, but GMs unfamiliar with the system could call for frenzy roles quite often and then watch their table collapse into infighting and resentment despite doing their best efforts to play the rules as written. Ultimately, alignment is the sort of mechanic that requires greater GM and player skill to handle properly.


You are right, but I am still going to compare RPGs to Dating.

When I was dating, I used to on the second or third date "frontload" some of the more negative, private aspects of who I am. I would make it clear exactly what my religion was, and what my politics were not. If people were going to go into a frenzy and call me homophobic because I'm religious, or say I'm insane because I know about firearms, I wanted that to happen before.

The reason I bring this up, is because this kinds of behavior reveals personality flaws and conflicts early, so I don't  date someone a week or a month or a year, and then everything catches on fire and they're screaming at me.

If the Alignment system is such a wrench in the system, that everything locks up and breaks, the system was going to lock down and break anyways. 

Like dating, why be spending time in a campaign/relationship that is going to burst into flames, when you could be moving on to a better table, a better player, or a better relationship? 

When you finally have good players/good partner, you wish you had skipped or speed-dated through all the other people to get where you are now.




> *If there is a character detail the player can't accept the GM making rulings on, and the GM is making rulings on that character detail, then something has already gone wrong.* Yes, if the GM has been granted the ability to make rulings on that character detail, then we players would lose any such argument. However we GMs also don't want to cause that conflict either. The point is not who would "lose" the argument. *The point is, that conflict is a conflict to be avoided through finding compatible groups, playing compatible characters*, and limiting your GM authority based on what fits best for each character.
> 
> When I GM I default to the players controlling their character's alignment (same as I default to the players controlling their character's dominant handedness). Then I turn on DM described alignment for the characters whose players opt in. Players that could have negative outcomes from me using DM described alignment for their characters, should stick to player controlled alignment for those characters. This model works well for my group and seems broadly applicable.
> 
> Edit:
> Also there might be a relevant difference between the minimum acceptance (some form of begrudging acceptance can lead to a negative outcome), and full acceptance. In my case I am talking about full acceptance.
> 
> 
> True.


This person gets it.




> A. That's patently false. if the GM says one thing, and the player thinks something different, that is a conflict.


You literally failed to read the next sentence, literally the next sentence. 

"Either you are an absolute tool for starting conflict with the peacemaker, the soother of conflict... Or you're going to have to.." (Three paragraphs giving example where either you're a tool or the GM is a tool, thus making it very obvious that "can't" is a moral "can't".

As in you "can't" eat babies.)




> Sigh. I'm not talking about how rules are ruled, or how differenct opinions at a gaming table are resolved. Nor is it about being or not being confrontational. I'm actually assuming exactly what you are: That the GM is the final arbiter on alignment. I'm just following that to its logical conclusion as far as how that affects players and how they play characters in a game with an alignment system like D&D.


How can you bring up the GM, and not be talking about arbitration or settling conflict? This is like bringing up the Supreme Court, and not talking about anything they do or have done.




> The players, as a means to "avoid confrontation" will tend towards playing character types that facilitate that, right? That's literally what I'm saying here. That, as a result, tends towards what I call "cardboard cutout" character types.
> 
> Get it? You can't have it both ways. Either the GM is the final arbiter, and the players will therefore have to comply (even if they might otherwise disagree), or the GM is not. if the GM is not, then you don't have "enforced alignment rules" (that's case number one I wrote earlier). If the GM is, then you either have the players avoiding confrontation over this issue by adjusting the kinds of characters they play (or how they play their characters, which is more or less the same thing) *or* you get what you just talked about "someone being confrontational or insane".
> 
> I'm just examining all the cases here and showing how one set of rules and actions impacts other people's actions and decisions.


Based on our previous discussions, this is a ridiculous thing to bring up. 

You claim or seem to be worried that "Oh, I'll do this one thing and lose all my powers" or "Oh, I'll do this one thing and suddenly the GM will tell me what my new alignment is".

But based on your previous arguments and disposition, that isn't going to happen.

What would actually happen, if you brought a character like Roy or Elan to a table, and played them exactly as they were presented...  Not a single person (Out of how many people who've been on these forums) will think your characters (Roy and/or Elan) had any change in alignment ever.

What would actually happen, if you were playing these characters, is you would just erase Lawful or Chaotic and put something else down... and the whole table will think you're high or insane or joking.

Have we seen anyone insist that words on the alignment section should be erased and rewritten besides you? Have we seen anyone insist "Oh, that's where his alignment shifted" except you? Even I, when I bring up changes in alignment, based in Wrestling, it's typically cases where the wrestler and everyone else is on the same page about the new alignment.

The one exception (I ever gave involving alignment shift, where not everyone was on the same page) was a guy who dressed like Homelander and did Homelander things for months, and people kept thinking he was going to turn evil. 




> Sure. But in this case the rules are about how the GM arbitrates the very personality and decision making of the player characters. That's fundamentally different than say arbitrating how much damage a fall should cause. It moves us into an area that is very much at the heart of players actually roleplaying their characters.


No, because we once had D&D rules that were so vague and confusing that every single table was basically running a completely different mechanical version of how the game worked. 

Which effectively meant whatever the group or referee decided the rules were, was the rules. People had to learn completely new rules when they changed GMs, and the rules that were different were seemingly random.




> Yup. I'm not disputing this. Again though, the problem with the alignment system in D&D is that "the rules" are literally ones that empower the GM to force players to play specific types of characters, complete with punishments to those characters if they don't comply.
> 
> We would all agree that any GM who, when a player says "I'm going to have my character do X" told the player "No. Your character does Y instead" would be dismissed as a really terrible GM who is trying to railroad and/or defeat player agency.


No, because I've had and it was my duty to do this several times, and I did it, as was my obligation and job.

"My character kills the other player in their sleep" "My character does X which blows up the whole setting and makes the game unplayable." "My character does disgusting, horrible thing."

I retconned actions, I blocked actions, I banned actions, and I have banned people from the table on the spot for doing things. 

And the other players did not question it, except this one guy, who basically all the other players were relieved to see also banned. 

Often, Telling people no or blocking actions is not railroading or defeating player agency, it's keeping people from completely murdering all joy and fun. The GM is a player too. The other players are players as well. Anything a player does that makes me or two other players (Ones that have been playing longer or have played better) feel like this isn't fun anymore... That's basically suicide for the character. If the GM quits, the campaign dies. 

Also, you're basically just "raging against the GM", like I said you were. Also, I thought it was odd you keep raging against the GM and thinking the GM can't be trusted, will use any rule they can to choke your character out, ect ect.... So I checked to see how old your account is.

Let's just say I'm making assuptions about you, and you are totally not helping dispel them.[/QUOTE]




> Yet, with an alignment system (especially D&Ds) we have more or less that exact thing happening. Even if the GM isn't stepping in and actually saying "Your character wouldn't do that, it's against his alignment", the player knows the rules too, and knows that there may be a consequence for some actions, and will therefore moderate their own character's actions. The GM doesn't have to punish the PC. Just the mere fact that he could acts as a deterrent.
> 
> Some may say that's a good thing. Others that it's bad. I'm not even placing a value judgement here (well I am, but not right at this very moment). I'm just trying to get some people to even acknowledge that those rules do exist and do have an effect on players decisions when running their characters. You seem to be wanting to simultaneously claim that alignment doesn't restrict the players in terms of how they play their characters (my point) *and* that the GM is always right and must be followed when it comes to rulings on alignment.
> 
> I'm just pointing out how incredibly contradictory that is. There are rules. They must be followed. You just (very clearly and strongly) made this case. I agree. You can't hold that position and also claim that alignment rules don't affect how players play their characters. Right?


*Spoiler: The Alignment Does Nothing*
Show

No. I said no to this before, you are again, not listening, not even a little. Also, you are massively contradicting yourself.

You say the rules exist and must be followed. So you're a rules following guy right?

The rules say not to follow them, and the GM can override any rule at will. Edition after edition, you open it up, and it says this. 

The alignment restricts absolutely ****ing nothing. It's the GM and the player that restrict things. I again, said this over and over. The alignment rules can say whatever the hell they want, and literally nothing will change, underneath all the fluff and things you think matter... but don't.

The GM is always right, or you are sitting at the wrong table. 

You keep going "Oh I'm scared of the alignment rules, the GM will beat me or choke my character to death with them?" No. The GM will choke your character to death with his/her/their bare hands. The GM can open up the rule book and say the alignment rules read whatever the hell the GM wants or hallucinates or believes.

Either they are right, which has nothing to do with what the rules say, or they are wrong, which also has nothing to do with the rules say.


-

*Spoiler: The Simplest Fable Possible*
Show

Let me use some metaphor that you hopefully will understand, because I will make it very simple.

You are in front of a firing squad, you are about to be executed. For some reason (God, I have no idea why) you're saying the muskets or whatever are the reason you will die. "If only the muskets weren't there!" you cry out.

But no. The muskets are meaningless, they have no effect on anything.

"But they are going to kill me!"

No. Either the justice system is going to kill you, or you killed yourself.

Either the law is unjust or unfit and you're innocent, and being executed for unjust reasons.

*Or*, you are a serial killer and you deserve to be executed. This is justice.

Getting rid of the muskets will do nothing. You will be killed with swords, or an axe, or lethal injection, the chair, poison gas. 

In other words, either you as a player are wrong, and the GM is right to make a ruling.... Or the GM is wrong and you need to just find another table.

And exactly like being executed by firing squad, the jury matters. If the jury/otherplayers says "Hey, this guy is innocent" you stage a revolt and remove the justice system/GM, or you change the law or ruling. *Or* The jury/otherplayers say "Your honor/GM, that person is guilty."





> Um. If there is literally no such thing as "Lawful Evil" in your game, then there can be no disagreement over whether a character is Lawful Evil, right? So yes. The very existence of alignments "create conflict". In precisely the same way that the moment I name my team "The patriots", and you name yours "The cowboys", we have created something we can disagree on and therefore have "conflict" over. This is pretty basic stuff here.
> 
> Maybe if I rephrase it? It doesn't actually create the conflict. It creates the thing that people can have conflict over. And, as I've said repeatedly, the nature of the D&D alignment system maximizes the odds that there will be conflict, due to it applying a "one size fits all" label to a host of different character aspects.


*Spoiler: Reality of Play*
Show

You literally said we have separate teams, and brought up the names like it matters at all. 

You are still insisting that removing the musket will keep the person from being executed. You are also ignoring....

If the entire table looks right at you one day and says "Rocks fall, your character is dead"... Congrats, your character is dead. "But the rules say!?!" The rules say what? No one cares about the rules, everyone yells at you (That you are wrong or you need to stop talking) or starts ignoring you. 

It doesn't matter what you or the rules say, the table says your dead, you are dead. You walk up to NPCs and PCs, and no one replies to you. You swing your sword and it doesn't hit anything, because you are dead.

You are an invisible ghost unheard by the gods or the damned. The GM, and the players to a degree, decide what is reality and what is not. Either group can quote or ignore the rules at will. Consensus decides what is reality and what is not. Either the majority or whole group is with you, or they are not. Either you vote the GM out or the GM removes you and no one says anything (Voting yes).

This still fits the execution example, it still fits the wrestling example (The fans boo you, you get fired), and it fits a sport example (You get banned from the NFL).





> Nope. Could not be further from the truth. I'm a firm believer in GM power and importance as a referee in a game. In fact, it's because of that firm position on this that I identify the alignment system in D&D to be such a source of disagreement and conflict. My argument stems from the assumption that the GM is final arbiter of such disagreements, and merely examines the effect on PC play as a result.


If you are a firm believer in GM power, get down on your knees and do as they say. You say you follow the rules, the rules say to follow the GM. You say you are a firm believer in GM power, the GM says to follow the GM.




> Again. My position assumes those things are in effect. Then it examines how this affects the player character personality choices over time in a game. And my conclusion is that it does, and that it tends to push players into playing cardboard cutout characters. I'm not sure how that's even in dispute. It literally says "write this alignment down on your character sheet", and then requires that you follow a set of personality standards based on what is written down there, complete with consequences if you don't.
> 
> What's weird is that, instead of examining that, we seem to be stuck in this odd circle going back and forth over the specifics of the *methods* by which alignment is enforced (or even, oddly, whether it actually is at all). Can't we just accept that, for any sane examination of the rules, we must assume that in some way, they are enforced? And can we then move past that to examine what the effect of that enforcement has? That's what I'm trying (apparently somewhat in vain) to do, but I keep getting caught up in circular arguments about GM power, or player attitudes, or whatever.


No, because the only person who I've ever seen argue that someone should play a cardboard cutout.... Is you. You insisted that two or three characters did things that were in a neat, pretty brown colored opening, and said their Alignment had to be changed. 

You seem to be raging against the Alignment rules, but like that great song by Creed, you have made "My Own Prison". The very force that is telling you no, is literally you. 




> Sigh. Again. I didn't "insist" anything. I'm literally not taking any position on who's alignment is what. I'm just presenting hypotheticals that violate the "rules" of the alignment system in D&D and showing how the resulting characters would be perfectly viable playable characters from a RPG perspective, but are not due purely to the existence of the specific alignment rules in D&D. Specifically, the idea that all characters have one and only one alignment, despite the fact that real people commonly exhibit diametrically different decisions and actions based on situations they are in (like Elan when following rules to the absurd letter in some cases, and then doing random other things "because it's fun" in others).
> 
> Those are just examples of a point, not me arguing that they *are* one way or another. I'm perfectly capable of examining what might happen if we all lived in a world with no shrimp, without actually arguing that this is the way the world actually is.


You literally went on and on and on and on, listing "proof" and "evidence" that this character was this alignment or that character was that alignment. 

Your hypotheticals were not violating any rules, because everyone but you said they were not violating any rules. 

Also, in that very long, drawn out, nonsense "debate", you were told over and over that Roy was a perfect example that single actions meant very very little to what your alignment was. You kept saying "Roy did this, Roy did that" saying Roy's alignment should be changed, and people just ignored you or stared at you like you were crazy.

*"Specifically, the idea that all characters have one and only one alignment, despite the fact that real people commonly exhibit diametrically different decisions and actions based on situations they are in"*

Everyone but you said that Roy can exhibit ""diametrically"" different decisions and actions based on situations he was in....and keep the same alignment. 

Blah blah, I said this twice before in this post you haven't read yet.

----------


## Mechalich

> Like dating, why be spending time in a campaign/relationship that is going to burst into flames, when you could be moving on to a better table, a better player, or a better relationship?


This is an issue of relationship depth. There are lots of people out there who most people are perfectly capable of being long-term friends with but who would quickly reach toxic status if they attempted to date. A relationship can persist indefinitely if it remains sufficiently superficial that the disruptive issues are never raised. Related to gaming, we can talk about systems that are shallow or deep in terms of the level of compatibility and trust needed to avoid producing a conflict. 

Purely mechanical systems are shallow. It is extremely rare for a table to break down over arguments about 2d10 vs. 3d6 vs. 1d20. By contrast morality systems are deep, and it is extremely common for a table to break down over arguments regarding moral issues, this is in fact quite common even in games that don't have moral systems or even a moral emphasis simply because one player has their character do something that another player finds fundamentally inexcusable - this is why it's a good design principle to avoid setting up 'squicky' fluff unless absolutely necessary.

Now, the thing about tabletop, especially modern tabletop with is heavily played online among relative strangers, is that a very large proportion of groups aren't capable of handling a system that requires a high level of trust or compatibility without generating conflicts. 'Find a better group' is good advice, but it isn't always possible an adjustment to games to make them playable by low-quality groups are equally important.

----------


## Tevo77777

> This is an issue of relationship depth. There are lots of people out there who most people are perfectly capable of being long-term friends with but who would quickly reach toxic status if they attempted to date. A relationship can persist indefinitely if it remains sufficiently superficial that the disruptive issues are never raised.


But you are literally sitting together in a call, doing "fun stuff" together like you are "friends" for at least three hours a week, possibly for up to a 18 months. 

Also, when things break down 18 months in, like dating, it's someone's fault. Someone said something racist, someone went rabid dog, someone was creepy and harassing someone else, someone is rage quitting, ect ect.

If things "don't work out" in the first month or so, that's just that they weren't meant to be. It's the same thing with RPGs. This is why I have an "Expectations" document that explains the tone, how deadly the game is, and so on.

That is there so I don't have people making a character, and/or playing one or two sessions and going "Oh, I realized the tone or that this game is too or not deadly enough, this is not for me".




> Related to gaming, we can talk about systems that are shallow or deep in terms of the level of compatibility and trust needed to avoid producing a conflict. 
> 
> Purely mechanical systems are shallow. It is extremely rare for a table to break down over arguments about 2d10 vs. 3d6 vs. 1d20. By contrast morality systems are deep, and it is extremely common for a table to break down over arguments regarding moral issues, this is *in fact quite common even in games that don't have moral systems or even a moral emphasis simply because one player has their character do something that another player finds fundamentally inexcusable* - this is why it's a good design principle to avoid setting up 'squicky' fluff unless absolutely necessary.
> 
> Now, the thing about tabletop, especially modern tabletop with is heavily played online among relative strangers, is that a very large proportion of groups aren't capable of handling a system that requires a high level of trust or compatibility without generating conflicts. 'Find a better group' is good advice, but it isn't always possible an adjustment to games to make them playable by low-quality groups are equally important.


The bold and underlined part is true, the underlined part is false, unless you are being very very specific.

"Now, the thing about tabletop, especially modern tabletop with is heavily played online among relative strangers, is that a very large proportion of groups aren't capable of handling a system that requires a high level of trust or compatibility without generating conflicts"

Congrats famalam, you just described basically any system I would consider worth playing.

I have run cyberpunk settings, I have run modern era mil-sim/merc settings, I have run space opera settings.... I have run Starwars. I have used D-20 Mechanics, I have used Cogent, a system with the bare acceptable number of rules, I have run 5e Starwars, CoC 5e, ect ect

I have been doing this for six years. Guess how many of these systems don't fit your definition of "doesn't require a high level of trust or compatibility". Almost none of these systems have Alignment systems. I have had *so,* *many,* *fights or "debates" or discussions,* *about politics,* *or religion*.

*War Criminals (Murder Hobos? Evil Characters?)*
It is extremely common for cyberpunk style campaigns to fill up with war criminals and serial killers. It was a running joke among all the veteran players that they had to keep them on leashes. The solution ended up being PVP, or expecting the edgy player to just get bored. 

*Political Radicals*
I've literally played cyberpunk settings and somehow recruited players who worshipped Capitalism as their god. Every time we were trying to push against a megacorperation, they were blaming some nonexistent, collapsed "gov'ment". The other players had mixed feelings about having that person, and they didn't exactly fit the setting. It felt like any seconds they would sell the players down the river for being "communists" or something.

This was a much more common problem in Space Opera settings.

I have had to ban political discussion and bring up that it is banned so many times. I am tired of campaigns turning into Thanksgiving or whatever.

*People From Other Nations*

I've had players from South America and it's made it really tricky to set anything there. I've had players who lived through far-left or far-right terrorism, tyranny, ect ect... and that makes it really hard to have any specific type of ideology be good or bad. 

Let's not forget how Ukraine players had to be kept away from the Russian ones, and how the Serbian ones had to never learn my dad was US Army.

*TLDR*

Blah blah blah, if there are any politics in the setting, or any factions being overthrown or installed, or the players are in charge of anything, or the players come into contact with any government or rebel group at all....

There is instantly conflict or everyone has to trust each other, or people have to just let things slide or ignore things. 

I've had a few, maybe several groups pull guns on each other because of IC or OOC politics.

----------


## Keltest

> I've had a few, maybe several groups pull guns on each other because of IC or OOC politics.


I hope youre being metaphorical here, because if thats literal than I feel comfortable in saying that somebody exercised some extremely poor judgement in allowing these people into their home or place of business. Like, I cant even imagine playing D&D with somebody who feels the need to take a gun to the table in the first place.

----------


## Tevo77777

> I hope youre being metaphorical here, because if thats literal than I feel comfortable in saying that somebody exercised some extremely poor judgement in allowing these people into their home or place of business. Like, I cant even imagine playing D&D with somebody who feels the need to take a gun to the table in the first place.


I laughed when I read this. 

In character, in the game, they pulled guns on each other. 

I had one player who with two separate characters, completely ruined the process of the other players. The first time, it was the progress for two different campaigns. His first character also almost killed himself and two others, before all of that. 

That player had extremely poor judgement, and judged things the worst way every single time.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Ok, I've read most of the whole argument and I'm not going to get into that because that's not what this thread is about. So anyway I think many players don't like evil characters that much especially when they pull the stupid evil alignment move. I remember that I play a D&D 3.5 game that one of my adventure party members was a Bard and his alignment was Chaotic Evil. We were trying to get an NPC Cleric in our party to join but the bard kill the cleric in cold blood. The consequence was that the Bard went to prison and he died a short time in prison.

----------


## Tevo77777

> Ok, I've read most of the whole argument and I'm not going to get into that because that's not what this thread is about. So anyway I think many players don't like evil characters that much especially when they pull the stupid evil alignment move. I remember that I play a D&D 3.5 game that one of my adventure party members was a Bard and his alignment was Chaotic Evil. We were trying to get an NPC Cleric in our party to join but the bard kill the cleric in cold blood. The consequence was that the Bard went to prison and he died a short time in prison.


Yep, this is very common for Evil characters. D&D or otherwise.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Yep, this is very common for Evil characters. D&D or otherwise.


Yes. You're right about that. Good and evil don't mix very well.

----------


## Quertus

> I encountered an idea (occupational hazard of philosophy) for a theoretical campaign setting where maximizing the most harm is moral. The idea is not fleshed out but helps nail home that separation of fiction from reality.


Philosophers have the strangest random encounter tables.  :Small Big Grin:  Anti-Utilitarianism?  :Small Confused:

----------


## Satinavian

> Yes. You're right about that. Good and evil don't mix very well.


That is not really correct.

It would be better to say that everyone likes Good characters more than Evil characters. And it would be even more accurate to say that no one likes people who habitually dish out harm to their surroundings and screw everyone over for pure egoism and everyone likes people who help their surroundings and look out for others.

Genuinely nice people tend to get liked. ******** tend to get disliked. But that has nothing to do at all about mixing good and evil.



Even taking your example : If your group had had other evil characters who wanted the help of the cleric for the party, do you think they would have had a better opinion of the bard than the non evil PCs ?

----------


## OldTrees1

> Philosophers have the strangest random encounter tables.  Anti-Utilitarianism?


Anti-Utilitarianism was already taken as meaning against utilitarianism, and Negative Utilitarianism was already taken as meaning minimizing suffering. I don't think "maximize suffering" has a name yet (it probably does not need a proper name since it conflicts with common IRL moral intuitions).

However, yes, philosophers do roll on some strange random encounter tables. "37: Take a foundational premise and invert it"

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> That is not really correct.
> 
> It would be better to say that everyone likes Good characters more than Evil characters. And it would be even more accurate to say that no one likes people who habitually dish out harm to their surroundings and screw everyone over for pure egoism and everyone likes people who help their surroundings and look out for others.
> 
> Genuinely nice people tend to get liked. ******** tend to get disliked. But that has nothing to do at all about mixing good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Even taking your example : If your group had had other evil characters who wanted the help of the cleric for the party, do you think they would have had a better opinion of the bard than the non evil PCs ?


I'm not entirely sure but the game has died down shortly after the bard death. Most of the party was very good to neutral. Even if the party has other evil characters, they would have a better opinion to help the cleric for their own purpose than to have the bard kill the cleric for no reason whatsoever.

----------


## gbaji

Ok. Going to just focus on one bit here:




> Have we seen anyone insist that words on the alignment section should be erased and rewritten besides you? Have we seen anyone insist "Oh, that's where his alignment shifted" except you?


Ok. Then how exactly are the alignment rules enforced? From where I sit there are only two methods to actually enforce the rules of alignment in D&D:

1. The GM does not allow the player to play their character in a way that violates the character's alignment as written on the character's sheet.

2. The GM allows the player to have their character do anything they want to do, but will impose an alignment change if an action (or series of actions) clearly indicate the character has a different alignment than the one written on the sheet.

Right? Is there a "3" here that I'm not aware of? I'm not joking here. If you think there's a third method to actually enforce alignment rules in D&D, please list it here. If not, and we assume that alignment rules are in effect and enforced (obviously, we can all just pretend it doesn't exist, and this entire conversation is irrelevant, so I suppose we could call that "option 0"), then that's exactly the point I'm making.

That leaves us with either the GM is reducing player agency (option 1), or imposing penalties (option 2). Option 2, btw, is exactly the "insist that words on the alignment section should be erased and rewritten" that you are now claiming no one but me is even talking about. But if you, as the GM, are not doing this, then what is the only other option? It's "1", right? I'm just saying "pick one", and arguing that either one is "bad".




> No, because I've had and it was my duty to do this several times, and I did it, as was my obligation and job.
> 
> "My character kills the other player in their sleep" "My character does X which blows up the whole setting and makes the game unplayable." "My character does disgusting, horrible thing."
> 
> I retconned actions, I blocked actions, I banned actions, and I have banned people from the table on the spot for doing things. 
> 
> And the other players did not question it, except this one guy, who basically all the other players were relieved to see also banned.


So you default to option 1 then? And you honestly don't see how this might just be the alignment system creating restrictions on players roleplaying their characters? I get that you are talking about extreme examples, but is that the only case you do this in? How about if we not fall back to silly extreme examples instead?

So if a player lists "lawful good" on his character sheet, but regularly flips a coin when deciding to do things, charges into battle without waiting for any sort of plan or coordination with the rest of the party, steals stuff from merchants instead of paying for them, and otherwise engages in behavior that we don't associate with "lawful good", but aren't so evil and disruptive that you'd feel the need to ban the player from your table, what do you do? Do you just allow it and move on (basically, no enforcement of the alignment on the character sheet, or option 0)? Or do you tell the player "You wouldn't steal that food from the merchant. You must pay for it" (option 1)? Or, do you allow the player to do this and then at some point tell him "your character is now chaotic neutral" or something (option 2, which you claim doesn't exist, well, except for the times when you've had to do it)?

Which is it?




> Often, Telling people no or blocking actions is not railroading or defeating player agency, it's keeping people from completely murdering all joy and fun. The GM is a player too. The other players are players as well. Anything a player does that makes me or two other players (Ones that have been playing longer or have played better) feel like this isn't fun anymore... That's basically suicide for the character. If the GM quits, the campaign dies.


Regardless of what we think of a character's actions, can we agree that if your sole reason for "blocking actions" is because the character is wanting to do something that doesn't match that alignment, then that means that the existence of an alignment system is creating restrictions on how the player may play his/her character? What if the PC action is perfectly legitimate, isn't disruptive to the game, but merely isn't following the character's alignment? So it's an action that a CN rogue would do, and you'd have no problem with it, but because my character has LG written down, you'll tell me "no"? And you don't think that's restrictive?

It's strange because you literally just admitted that if a player does something outside their character's alignment, you will disallow that action. But my whole argument is that this is how alignment rules act as restrictions on PC roleplaying. How is that not restrictive?

Imagine if there was no alignment at all. I could play my character any way I want. If I want to say that my character is grieving because his best friend was killed (say another character on the last adventure), so he's fallen to drinking heavily, and lashing out at people and otherwise engaging in random acts of violence and destruction, which is normally out of character, but he's just going through a tough time, I can just do that, and everyone will roleplay along (including the GM, if my actions maybe land me in jail or something). But in D&D with you as the GM, you'd  what? Tell me I can't do that if it's not in line with my alignment? Like at all? Or will you impose an alignment shift while this is going on (maybe the better D&D answer, despite it being something you claim no one would ever do)? Which is it?

The very existence of a D&D style alignment system leads us in a direction that requires restrictions on PC play. This is by design of the entire system. I'm frankly baffled how you don't see this. And yeah, I get it if we never want to roleplay characters that change behavior or personality over time, or react differently to different situations, or otherwise have more complex personality features than those that might fit into the simplistic alignment grid of D&D. But that's the "cardboard cutout" types of characters that I'm talking about.




> Also, you're basically just "raging against the GM", like I said you were. Also, I thought it was odd you keep raging against the GM and thinking the GM can't be trusted, will use any rule they can to choke your character out, ect ect.... So I checked to see how old your account is.
> 
> Let's just say I'm making assuptions about you, and you are totally not helping dispel them.


I'm not sure how old my account on this forum is has anything to do with anything. I'm also confused how you equate this with "raging against the GM". It's not the GM that is the problem here. It's the alignment system, the rules surrounding them, and the fact that in order to actually use the alignment system as written, the GM absolutely has to apply one of the two methods I listed above (and likely some combination of both). I'm not blaming the GM for doing these things. I'm blaming the system for requiring the GM to have to do these things.

I've been very consistent with my argument. The alignment rules *require* one of the two options from the GM if they are to be enforced. And I find both of those options to be restrictive in terms of PC roleplaying. We can disagree on the degree of restriction, but I'm just not sure how one can argue that the things you are posting about what you do with players who don't follow alignment don't qualify as "restrictive". And no, strawman examples of players doing things to blow up the game don't count. There are lots of out of alignment actions that don't do this. What do you do in those cases?





> If you are a firm believer in GM power, get down on your knees and do as they say. You say you follow the rules, the rules say to follow the GM. You say you are a firm believer in GM power, the GM says to follow the GM.


Yes. But it's a poor GM who tells the players how to play their own characters. A good GM has his world and NPCs react to the player's choices. He doesn't force them by fiat. And, as I've pointed out many times now, the mere existence of an alignment system (especially D&D's) forces GMs to apply some level of GM power to make players play their characters in specific ways.





> No, because the only person who I've ever seen argue that someone should play a cardboard cutout.... Is you. You insisted that two or three characters did things that were in a neat, pretty brown colored opening, and said their Alignment had to be changed.


What do you think you are doing when you block/ban character actions because they aren't "in alignment"? Seriously. Think this through.




> You seem to be raging against the Alignment rules, but like that great song by Creed, you have made "My Own Prison". The very force that is telling you no, is literally you.


Except that, by your own admission, you enforce the rules in the exact manner I said that they would be enforced. Actually, you seem to be predisposed towards the "worst" of the two options I outlined. And yes, playing a character that is *any* single alignment, with a GM who disallows actions that he feels are out of alignment, results in forcing the players to play "cardboard cutout" characters.





> Everyone but you said that Roy can exhibit ""diametrically"" different decisions and actions based on situations he was in....and keep the same alignment.


So... option 0 then. No enforcement. I'm serious here. If a player were at your table, playing Roy, and proposed the actions he did (scamming the Inn for free stuff and tricking his party members into going on a personal quest for his own benefit), what would you do? Allow it? By your earlier statements, you would "voice of god" him into "doing the right thing". Heck. Maybe the whole "came back to save Elan after abandoning him" was the result of Roy's GM doing exactly that maybe? If his hypothetical Roy player did these things anyway, what would you do? Let him retain his LG alignment?

My point is that the existence of an alignment system requires that you must consider one of those options in each case. And that no matter what you do as a GM, it will result in less freedom for the player to play their character. None of those actions by Roy are "game destroying" actions by a character. A bit greedy in one bit (but he shared with some of the party), a bit self serving in another (heck, I've played characters that have tricked other PCs into going on adventures where I had my own benefit/motive for doing so, and never considered that "evil" at all).

Again. The only alternative to some sort of restrictive or punitive GM action is no action at all. At which point you are not "enforcing" the alignment system. Which I have always listed as an alternative (and a good one IMO). So which is it? This is not a rhetorical question. What would you do with this hypothetical player playing the LG fighter Roy in your game at your table?

Again. Let's recall that my entire argument is that *if* the D&D alignment system is enforced, it requires some combination of those two actions by the GM to actually enforce it. And both of those actions result in a reduction of Player RP flexibility IMO. You're free to disagree with me as to the degree of that reduction, but you seem to be arguing that it just doesn't exist at all. That's the bit I'm disagreeing with.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I saw this different variation of the alignment system on another Discord server which is very complex because this version has 25 alignments instead of the traditional 9 alignments. https://goanimate.fandom.com/wiki/Alignment_System

----------


## NichG

> Ok. Going to just focus on one bit here:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then how exactly are the alignment rules enforced? From where I sit there are only two methods to actually enforce the rules of alignment in D&D:
> 
> 1. The GM does not allow the player to play their character in a way that violates the character's alignment as written on the character's sheet.
> 
> 2. The GM allows the player to have their character do anything they want to do, but will impose an alignment change if an action (or series of actions) clearly indicate the character has a different alignment than the one written on the sheet.
> ...


I'm not a fan of alignment by any means, but #2 is not necessarily 'imposing penalties'. It only becomes so when maintaining an alignment is important to a character's mechanics or other things the character is expecting to be able to rely on in-universe. If you really do take seriously that alignments are equal and balanced and ensure that no alignment is better than any other alignment to be, it need not be a penalty.

Also I would disagree that imposing penalties is strictly bad either - but they have to be natural penalties and not artificial OOC constructs. That's where alignment fails for me. If e.g. you were to have your character kill an NPC's friend and that NPC became hostile to your character upon finding out, that would be 'imposing a penalty' but it would be a natural one. So if your character worships a deity and drags their name through the mud, and the deity gets angry and withdraws favor its again imposing a penalty, but a natural one. Or if your character once killed a sentient being and the setting had a 'Detect Slayer' spell that now pinged them, that could also be a penalty but again a natural one. To the extent that alignment does that sort of thing, I think it can be still be okay. But that sort of thing is why I'd tend not to design nearly anything as having alignment prerequisites unless its really a direct grant of power from a specific sentient force that the characters could in principle go to and punch if they find themselves in disagreement. 

Or, for things that are more intrinsic to the character, I would always leave it up to the player if they felt they violated those principles and the main point of the alignment (or oath or whatnot) would be to make us ask that question in the first place. If the player says 'no, killing orphans who were suffering is a good act in my book' and their power comes from their own fervent belief, then so be it, that's how that character is and what their paladinship represents. Which is a different matter than a character who doesn't actually need to think about whether its good to kill suffering orphans because nothing they do hinges on their philosophy like that. But anyhow, they keep their paladin powers, but they also ping on the Detect Evil cast by someone who worships a god who would firmly disagree.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Well, put. If I was a D&D character My alignment will be Chaotic Good. I mean there's a D&D alignment test called easydamus.com


 After taking it 5 times in the last 8 years and coming up NG each time, I stopped going there. 



> Good, now try doing it without replying to me. You had 3 options, you chose option 3. *plonk*


*Spoiler: Only ever seen that once before*
Show

 Plumjam, is that you? 




> I saw this different variation of the alignment system on another Discord server which is very complex because this version has 25 alignments instead of the traditional 9 alignments. https://goanimate.fandom.com/wiki/Alignment_System


 More is not better, in this case. Less is better. Try just doing L / N / C as the original game did it (much more room to work) and then take crack at 4e's _LE, CE, LG, CG, N_ idea (which I find appealing).

----------


## Tevo77777

> Or, for things that are more intrinsic to the character, I would always leave it up to the player if they felt they violated those principles and the main point of the alignment (or oath or whatnot) would be to make us ask that question in the first place. If the player says 'no, killing orphans who were suffering is a good act in my book' and their power comes from their own fervent belief, then so be it, that's how that character is and what their paladinship represents. Which is a different matter than a character who doesn't actually need to think about whether its good to kill suffering orphans because nothing they do hinges on their philosophy like that. But anyhow, they keep their paladin powers, but they also ping on the Detect Evil cast by someone who worships a god who would firmly disagree.


Do we really want the player to be controlling the very unknowable, fickle or overly rigid gods they should be worshipping and getting their powers from?

Pathfinder 2e makes it very obvious what the hierarchy is for Paladins/Champions and what order their obligations and oaths are in. It has specific dos and don't as well. What the dos and don't for Good are included in the description of the Champion.




> I saw this different variation of the alignment system on another Discord server which is very complex because this version has 25 alignments instead of the traditional 9 alignments. https://goanimate.fandom.com/wiki/Alignment_System


In the old days, and perhaps still now, we had "Neutral, favoring Good" and "Neutral Good, favoring Chaotic". This was a more flexible system and it allowed people to be like Roy, and do Roy stuff, and stay within their previous alignment.

Having 9 alignments makes it way too easy to have those of these things seem too similar and get into arguments..... Or to not be sure how many actions or behavior is enough to consider an alignment shift.

Looking at this chart, does give me ideas for NPCs, however.

----------


## Satinavian

> Do we really want the player to be controlling the very unknowable, fickle or overly rigid gods they should be worshipping and getting their powers from?


If you want gods as acting NPCs, probably not. If you want gods as removed, transcendend entities and targets of worship, sure, why not ?

But that whole was more about alignment, not gods. Alignment is not an acting character. It can be handled by the player without much problem. They put it on the sheet in the first place, why not have them also decide about whether character development changes it ?

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> They put it on the sheet in the first place, why not have them also decide about whether character development changes it ?


 Depends on what kind of player you are talking about. There is more than one kind. Our fellow playgrounder Talakeal offers some insights on that with various posts and laments.

----------


## NichG

> Do we really want the player to be controlling the very unknowable, fickle or overly rigid gods they should be worshipping and getting their powers from?


The specific case I gave was for when the powers came from the character's own zeal or faith, rather than being granted by a specific entity in the setting. Since you can have 'paladins of no particular deity' in some settings, it would apply there. 

But perhaps for a less contentious example, someone being Lawful in order to be a Monk. Or someone being non-Lawful in order to be a Bard. No one other than the character themselves is granting those powers, so it makes sense for the character to be the final arbiter of whether they qualify.

And in the middle of the road are things like PrCs with organizational alignment or code prerequisites. To me it makes sense that you could cheat those things so long as the organization itself was prevented from knowing that you did so. And furthermore, if you did get discovered (or if your alignment changed), you should keep innate abilities that are the result of training or gained knowledge, and only lose those things which are based on on-going institutional support.

----------


## Tanarii

> More is not better, in this case. Less is better. Try just doing L / N / C as the original game did it (much more room to work) and then take crack at 4e's _LE, CE, LG, CG, N_ idea (which I find appealing).


Clearly the best system is four alignments, LG / CG / LE / CE.  Everyone knows you're either Good or Evil, and by extension if Law and Chaos exist you must be one or the other. None of this Ethically and Morally Grey stuff!
  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## OldTrees1

> *Spoiler: Only ever seen that once before*
> Show
> 
>  Plumjam, is that you?


Sorry, no. It is just old slang that I learned from lurking on giantitp.




> More is not better, in this case. Less is better. Try just doing L / N / C as the original game did it (much more room to work) and then take crack at 4e's _LE, CE, LG, CG, N_ idea (which I find appealing).


Whether more is better or less is better can shift dramatically even mid sentence, because it depends on the usage.

When not going into detail, it is easy to summarize my Mind Flayer character as Orderly Evil on a 2 axis system (4 or 9 sections).
When going into detail, then breaking out more adjectives (25, 36, or 49 sectors) can help describe radius and angle without resorting to radius and angle. When 45 degree increments are good enough, then you don't bother the the increased adjectives.

Sidenote: I you are misremembering 4E's alignment. It was LG, G, Unaligned, E, CE (no CG or LE). I think your version is an improvement.




> Clearly the best system is four alignments, LG / CG / LE / CE.  Everyone knows you're either Good or Evil, and by extension if Law and Chaos exist you must be one or the other. None of this Ethically and Morally Grey stuff!


This, but acknowledging magnitudes vary and small deviations from the origin are small deviations, is one of the easy working systems.

----------


## Tevo77777

*Finally Reading What Was Said*




> steals stuff from merchants instead of paying for them, and otherwise engages in behavior that we don't associate with "lawful good", but aren't so evil and disruptive that you'd feel the need to ban the player from your table


No, because this behavior sounds incredibly disruptive and annoying. This kind of behavior would likely get the character killed, arrested, or get the player banned by the other players.

Roy is Lawful Good, because he is trying and because he spends the bulk of his time being Good and the bulk of his time being Lawful, and for every non lawful thing he does, he does two or three lawful things.

In other words, the GM and other players at the table wouldn't question him being Lawful Good. Again, only you have done this.

You keep acting like everyone and/or the GM is constantly changing your alignment based on your every action, but the only person skeptical of anyone's listed alignment is you.




> Regardless of what we think of a character's actions, can we agree that if your sole reason for "blocking actions" is because the character is wanting to do something that doesn't match that alignment, then that means that the existence of an alignment system is creating restrictions on how the player may play his/her character? What if the PC action is perfectly legitimate, isn't disruptive to the game, but merely isn't following the character's alignment? So it's an action that a CN rogue would do, and you'd have no problem with it, but because my character has LG written down, you'll tell me "no"? And you don't think that's restrictive?
> 
> It's strange because you literally just admitted that if a player does something outside their character's alignment, you will disallow that action. But my whole argument is that this is how alignment rules act as restrictions on PC roleplaying. How is that not restrictive?


No, because any GM that blocks your actions for any reason besides "this would **** over the party, and/or **** up my setting" is a bad GM. There are nuances and exceptions, but generally, actions should be blocked because they're dumb, cringe, they ruin the tone, they mess with the setting, ect ect. This is literally what MCDM says. 




> Imagine if there was no alignment at all. I could play my character any way I want. If I want to say that my character is grieving because his best friend was killed (say another character on the last adventure), so he's fallen to drinking heavily, and lashing out at people and otherwise engaging in random acts of violence and destruction, which is normally out of character, but he's just going through a tough time, I can just do that, and everyone will roleplay along (including the GM, if my actions maybe land me in jail or something). But in D&D with you as the GM, you'd  what? Tell me I can't do that if it's not in line with my alignment? Like at all? Or will you impose an alignment shift while this is going on (maybe the better D&D answer, despite it being something you claim no one would ever do)? Which is it?


Then the other players at the table would feed your character sleeping pills or equivalent, and then move a huge distance with no warning. They would IC try to get you the player unable to play, because you're annoying. 

If the majority and the GM say you had an alignment shift, you had an alignment shift. 




> The very existence of a D&D style alignment system leads us in a direction that requires restrictions on PC play. This is by design of the entire system. I'm frankly baffled how you don't see this. And yeah, I get it if we never want to roleplay characters that change behavior or personality over time, or react differently to different situations, or otherwise have more complex personality features than those that might fit into the simplistic alignment grid of D&D. But that's the "cardboard cutout" types of characters that I'm talking about.


Most of your examples of people stepping outside this "cardboard cutout" involve them being insanely annoying, enough that the other players characters would want to kill them on the spot. 

You have never proved that anyone can't have their personality shift over time or be complex. We have all told you what feels like a hundred times, that Roy is proof you can be extremely complex and still be Lawful Good.

Again, the only person who says you can't be insanely complex and keep the same alignment, is you.

You have literally made your own prison, it's in your mind. 




> I'm not sure how old my account on this forum is has anything to do with anything. I'm also confused how you equate this with "raging against the GM". It's not the GM that is the problem here. It's the alignment system, the rules surrounding them, and the fact that in order to actually use the alignment system as written, the GM absolutely has to apply one of the two methods I listed above (and likely some combination of both). I'm not blaming the GM for doing these things. I'm blaming the system for requiring the GM to have to do these things.
> 
> I've been very consistent with my argument. The alignment rules *require* one of the two options from the GM if they are to be enforced. And I find both of those options to be restrictive in terms of PC roleplaying. We can disagree on the degree of restriction, but I'm just not sure how one can argue that the things you are posting about what you do with players who don't follow alignment don't qualify as "restrictive". And no, strawman examples of players doing things to blow up the game don't count. There are lots of out of alignment actions that don't do this. What do you do in those cases?


Your arguments depend on you insisting that people will do things that no one will do, and include arguing that characters would have their alignment changed, when no one else thinks that.





> Yes. But it's a poor GM who tells the players how to play their own characters. A good GM has his world and NPCs react to the player's choices. He doesn't force them by fiat. And, as I've pointed out many times now, the mere existence of an alignment system (especially D&D's) forces GMs to apply some level of GM power to make players play their characters in specific ways.


A good GM has you lose your powers the instant you drive a sword through your master, because you disagree with everyone breathing about what Good and Lawful mean.

A good GM has everyone else kill you for what you've done.

Oh wait, Order of the Stick showed that too.

The Alignment forces nothing upon us, it's again, all in your head. 




> What do you think you are doing when you block/ban character actions because they aren't "in alignment"? Seriously. Think this through.


I block and ban actions because they are annoying, you literally just read me say that over and over.




> Except that, by your own admission, you enforce the rules in the exact manner I said that they would be enforced. Actually, you seem to be predisposed towards the "worst" of the two options I outlined. And yes, playing a character that is *any* single alignment, with a GM who disallows actions that he feels are out of alignment, results in forcing the players to play "cardboard cutout" characters.


Except that none of my examples were D&D and none of my examples involved alignment. 

I haven't GMed D&D in years, I've been a player for years. I play D-20 Modern, which doesn't have an alignment system. I can't be the worst of the two options, because your options involve alignment. 

All of the rules about Alignment say nothing about banning a character from doing things that change their alignment, it merely says stuff like "doing tons of evil stuff means you're evil now".




> So... option 0 then. No enforcement. I'm serious here. If a player were at your table, playing Roy, and proposed the actions he did (scamming the Inn for free stuff and tricking his party members into going on a personal quest for his own benefit), what would you do? Allow it? By your earlier statements, you would "voice of god" him into "doing the right thing". Heck. Maybe the whole "came back to save Elan after abandoning him" was the result of Roy's GM doing exactly that maybe? If his hypothetical Roy player did these things anyway, what would you do? Let him retain his LG alignment?


So before you were complaining that non-existent people are breathing down the players neck and insisting they play in a little box.

Now you're complaining that the box is too big and people are only checking up on you every week or so.

I said what feels like a hundred times.... Everyone but you thinks Roy is Lawful Good, Roy shouldn't get an alignment change because like 30-40% of his actions, during a tiny bit of time, were not perfectly Lawful and perfectly Good.

Also, my earlier statements say nothing of that sort. My earlier statements say that if Roy was hyper annoying or his player was annoying, I would nuke the character from orbit and ban the player on the spot. Same if Roy got in the way of all the other players.




> My point is that the existence of an alignment system requires that you must consider one of those options in each case. And that no matter what you do as a GM, it will result in less freedom for the player to play their character. None of those actions by Roy are "game destroying" actions by a character. A bit greedy in one bit (but he shared with some of the party), a bit self serving in another (heck, I've played characters that have tricked other PCs into going on adventures where I had my own benefit/motive for doing so, and never considered that "evil" at all).
> 
> Again. The only alternative to some sort of restrictive or punitive GM action is no action at all. At which point you are not "enforcing" the alignment system. Which I have always listed as an alternative (and a good one IMO). So which is it? This is not a rhetorical question. What would you do with this hypothetical player playing the LG fighter Roy in your game at your table?
> 
> Again. Let's recall that my entire argument is that *if* the D&D alignment system is enforced, it requires some combination of those two actions by the GM to actually enforce it. And both of those actions result in a reduction of Player RP flexibility IMO. You're free to disagree with me as to the degree of that reduction, but you seem to be arguing that it just doesn't exist at all. That's the bit I'm disagreeing with.


No, this is nonsense and you should know this. 

The world is not black and white. You complain that the alignment system forces people to act like it is, but it doesn't, that's just you.

The alternative to a totalitarian, oppressive police state that constantly micromanages your every action is.......

Literally anything else, like a million different things, possibly a billion. 

The options aren't hyper oppressive, you breathe and your alignment shifts.... or total anarchy and no enforcement.

The options are any number between 100% and 0%, including every single decimal of a percent along the way.

I said something like 4 to 6 times, everyone but you thinks Roy is Lawful Good and only you ever seriously question this.

*Spoiler: Third Party Opinion*
Show

Edit: Can someone else who is a third party explain to me something?

I have straight up been hammering home the most basic points I think I can make, over and over and over.

Even when GBAJI is replying to specific text, they reply in such a way that reads like they imagined whatever it is that I said.

They keep asking the same questions, some of which I answered a week or two ago. 

Whoever this person is, they have the most selective literacy I've seen in a long time. They are always arguing against things I've never said, or insisting other people will do things that no one else said they will do.

For example, I said, twice or three times, in lots of text, that I ban people for being hyper annoying and crashing the campaign into the ground, and somehow this is read as "He blocks people from doing out of alignment actions".

Am I being messed with, or is this person "reading between the lines" so aggressively the ratio of words they see to the words actually there is 2 to 1?

Earlier they were moving the goal posts so much I thought that I was answered different questions each time.... but for the last awhile...... It's just been like they're not even replying to me....Like they're talking to someone who isn't there.

Considering this as my last reply to them?

----------


## Lord Raziere

> *Spoiler: Third Party Opinion*
> Show
> 
> Edit: Can someone else who is a third party explain to me something?
> 
> I have straight up been hammering home the most basic points I think I can make, over and over and over.
> 
> Even when GBAJI is replying to specific text, they reply in such a way that reads like they imagined whatever it is that I said.
> 
> ...


Third party opinion:
This is just the giantitp forum when it gets talking about alignment. for some reason everyone gets selective about they reply to, selective about what the other person said, all the while pretending that they're the reasonable one and do so to the end of time because they want to direct the flow of the conversation around their talking points and not others, thus everyone gets stonewalled repeating the same arguments over and over because no one budges because no one wants to cede ground to the person they're trying to convince.

this is why I don't like and don't use alignment myself because even if you can demonstrate alignment can work, the online discourse around alignment quite frankly sucks, leads down nonsensical rabbit holes of morality that aren't relevant, and so on and so forth that even if it can work, I don't want to MAKE it work. I don't want to put in the effort, it just distracts from the real issues that are occurring in a game, and its just not particularly relevant to any game I'm interested in.

----------


## Tevo77777

> Third party opinion:
> This is just the giantitp forum when it gets talking about alignment. for some reason everyone gets selective about they reply to, selective about what the other person said, all the while pretending that they're the reasonable one and do so to the end of time because they want to direct the flow of the conversation around their talking points and not others, thus everyone gets stonewalled repeating the same arguments over and over because no one budges because no one wants to cede ground to the person they're trying to convince.
> 
> this is why I don't like and don't use alignment myself because even if you can demonstrate alignment can work, the online discourse around alignment quite frankly sucks, leads down nonsensical rabbit holes of morality that aren't relevant, and so on and so forth that even if it can work, I don't want to MAKE it work. I don't want to put in the effort, it just distracts from the real issues that are occurring in a game, and its just not particularly relevant to any game I'm interested in.


I don't know, I've basically felt I've understood and agreed with basically almost everything else that everyone else has said but this one person.

I don't even like Alignment that much, I just think that most of the flaws associated with it either don't exist, or are caused by GM or player issues.

I usually play Paladins and no one has ever challenged the alignment of my characters.

EDIT: How do you have less than 38 internets?

----------


## Lord Raziere

> I don't know, I've basically felt I've understood and agreed with basically almost everything else that everyone else has said but this one person.
> 
> I don't even like Alignment that much, I just think that most of the flaws associated with it either don't exist, or are caused by GM or player issues.
> 
> I usually play Paladins and no one has ever challenged the alignment of my characters.
> 
> EDIT: How do you have less than 38 internets?


Huh? I checked just now, I have 1407.

Anyways, thats also the nature of online discourse about this: we are currently living in two different worlds. your living in Alignment Works Land. I'm living in Alignment Doesn't Work Land. All the stuff that sounds reasonable AWL doesn't sound reasonable to ADWL and vice versa. these worlds both exist alongside each other and can never agree about whether or not these worlds existing is even a valid perception of this, because AWL doesn't live in the same mindset, opinions, social whatevers and so on that ADWL does. since this is giantitp, AWL dominates as its a DnD forum and will default to making DnD work. So when an ADWL perceiving individual shows up, they look unreasonable to anyone living in AWL.

----------


## Tevo77777

> Huh? I checked just now, I have 1407.
> 
> Anyways, thats also the nature of online discourse about this: we are currently living in two different worlds. your living in Alignment Works Land. I'm living in Alignment Doesn't Work Land. All the stuff that sounds reasonable AWL doesn't sound reasonable to ADWL and vice versa. these worlds both exist alongside each other and can never agree about whether or not these worlds existing is even a valid perception of this, because AWL doesn't live in the same mindset, opinions, social whatevers and so on that ADWL does. since this is giantitp, AWL dominates as its a DnD forum and will default to making DnD work. So when an ADWL perceiving individual shows up, they look unreasonable to anyone living in AWL.


Oh, it's not showing me how many you have.

The fact you don't want to use alignment, or the fact that it's not useful to you or others, doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means it's not useful, maybe.

I myself said, I don't really like it. I don't however, dislike it. I just think that most people who rail against it, don't understand it or are railing against something else.

gbaji looks crazy, because they're always arguing against flimsy strawmen and feeling imprisoned by people who don't exist. Many of their examples last thread about being boxed in by alignment, included Roy and Elan as examples... but both of them are complex characters that are not remotely boxed in by their alignment.... gbaji meanwhile kept insisting they should be.

When anyone says Roy is Lawful Good, and the arguments made in the comic explain why (Roy is trying, Roy does more Good than Neutral, is more Lawful than Neutral, Roy repents, ect ect), then gbaji defaults to some position like "So now you're not enforcing alignment" or "you're being hypocritical now".

Earlier gbaji was insisting that Robinhood can't be CG, despite being the archetype of CG, because he "plans too well" something about being too social with his merry band.

----------


## Starlit Dragon

I like alignment. Part of it is that I find it useful for character creation, even if only in a small way. Part of it is that I love arguing, and it's a nice, fun thing to have arguments about. Part of it is that it satisfies the urge to sort characters into categories.
I don't begrudge anyone for not using it, but personally I think it's amusing and sometimes helpful.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> I like alignment. Part of it is that I find it useful for character creation, even if only in a small way. Part of it is that I love arguing, and it's a nice, fun thing to have arguments about. Part of it is that it satisfies the urge to sort characters into categories.
> I don't begrudge anyone for not using it, but personally I think it's amusing and sometimes helpful.


Me too. I love alignment especially when characters with different alignment debates.

----------


## Tevo77777

> I like alignment. Part of it is that I find it useful for character creation, even if only in a small way. Part of it is that I love arguing, and it's a nice, fun thing to have arguments about. Part of it is that it satisfies the urge to sort characters into categories.
> I don't begrudge anyone for not using it, but personally I think it's amusing and sometimes helpful.


It does make it a little easier to make characters and sort them, but I agree, it's not useful for everyone and it is amusing.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

It is not uncommon when two good characters debate and disagree with certain things such as a lawful good character and a chaotic good character debate on certain issues for ethical reasons.

----------


## Starlit Dragon

> It is not uncommon when two good characters debate and disagree with certain things such as a lawful good character and a chaotic good character debate on certain issues for ethical reasons.


That's also fun, but doesn't need alignment as a concept in order to exist.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> That's also fun, but doesn't need alignment as a concept to exist.


I partially agree with you on your statement except if players want to use alignment in their games and if DM is ok with alignment then alignment there to exist as a concept to develop their personality for roleplaying purposes.

----------


## Satinavian

> Depends on what kind of player you are talking about. There is more than one kind. Our fellow playgrounder Talakeal offers some insights on that with various posts and laments.


That group is prone to endless arguing, has a somewhat adversial player-GM relationship and produces regularly questions about if the GM had been unfair doing this or that. That group is certainly better off without alignment as additional argument source at all. Do you really think the classical "GM decides about alignment" would be a good fit there ? That the players would just quitely accept what Talakael says about their characters ?




> It is not uncommon when two good characters debate and disagree with certain things such as a lawful good character and a chaotic good character debate on certain issues for ethical reasons.


It is also not uncommon for two lawful good characters to disagree and debate, even about ethics.


Really, of all the stupid things that alignment has, the idea that people of the same alignment work well together people of different alignments tend to disagree, argue or even fight, is one of the worst.

----------


## Tevo77777

If someone is constantly fighting the GM, that is a player problem and there isn't much you can do.

Maybe put them on some kind of leash or something, or therapy, or who knows.

What do you mean by "that group"?

----------


## Satinavian

Talakeal regularly posts here. He has a campaign log, but otherwise he regularly opens a post when there was serious disagreement at his table. I don't really want to go into more detail as it is neither my group not my original example. KorvinStarmast brought it up. If you really are interested, well, you can read it all. There is even currently one about clearing minitures from a battlemap and players feeling betrayed as they took it as a declaration of end of combat even if an enemy (not on the map) still was known to be around or something like that.

----------


## Mechalich

> Really, of all the stupid things that alignment has, the idea that people of the same alignment work well together people of different alignments tend to disagree, argue or even fight, is one of the worst.


Well, it depends on how you arrange the distribution in society. If the overwhelming majority of people are LG, LN, or NG, then society will conform to the consensus of those groups and the members of those alignments will get on comparatively well together. They'll have arguments with other societies that are organized somewhat differently, but those conflicts are likely to ultimately be motivated, whatever the excuses, by economic factors. Likewise, CG good freewheeling creative types do seem to enjoy each others company and form natural associations, though this may be because they have little choice in the matter, having bee forced to the fringes of society. But the others are indeed different. TN and CN individuals are likely to prefer NG and CG neighbors respectively, while all evil individuals would preferentially associate with neutral or even good individuals rather than other evil individuals, though they often end up grouped in unstable units such as criminal gangs - which fight each other constantly - because they have little choice.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> It is also not uncommon for two lawful good characters to disagree and debate, even about ethics.
> 
> 
> Really, of all the stupid things that alignment has, the idea that people of the same alignment work well together people of different alignments tend to disagree, argue or even fight, is one of the worst.


That sometimes happens as well.

----------


## Tevo77777

> Talakeal regularly posts here. He has a campaign log, but otherwise he regularly opens a post when there was serious disagreement at his table. I don't really want to go into more detail as it is neither my group not my original example. KorvinStarmast brought it up. If you really are interested, well, you can read it all. There is even currently one about clearing minitures from a battlemap and players feeling betrayed as they took it as a declaration of end of combat even if an enemy (not on the map) still was known to be around or something like that.


This just makes it sound like the GM and/or the players are bad and/or toxic.

My players have never felt betrayed except those two people in two separate campaigns that ragequitted. One because he wasn't god yet, and the other because his Cadillac escade got hit with an RPG.

----------


## Satinavian

> The fact you don't want to use alignment, or the fact that it's not useful to you or others, doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means it's not useful, maybe.
> 
> I myself said, I don't really like it. I don't however, dislike it. I just think that most people who rail against it, don't understand it or are railing against something else.


I always said it is not useful. That is my main argument against it.

And i am pretty sure most people who rail against alignment do understand it. They just really dislike it. Having a disagreement and asserting that the other party just must not be getting it because otherwise they would not have such a different oppinion, seems a tad arrogant imho.




> I usually play Paladins and no one has ever challenged the alignment of my characters.


No one has ever questioned the alignment of my characters either. Not my paladins, not my evil clerics not anyone else. I have not questioned the alignment of other players characters either, even as DM. I have also only ever once seen an alignment shift in game. That was when a player decided that when his PC was not ressurrected but brought back as a mummified creature (with the PCs consent of course via Speak with Dead) that his also should shift the alignment to LE.

I would see the lack of alignment questioning and alignment shifts less as "alignment is working" and more as "alignment is so irrelevant, it tends to get ignored most of the time".

----------


## Keltest

> I always said it is not useful. That is my main argument against it.
> 
> And i am pretty sure most people who rail against alignment do understand it. They just really dislike it. Having a disagreement and asserting that the other party just must not be getting it because otherwise they would not have such a different oppinion, seems a tad arrogant imho.


I find it useful.

There, you've been proven wrong. What now? Is that your only argument against its inclusion? If so, it's pretty weak in the face og people who do like it. If not, why are you leading with something so subjective?

----------


## Satinavian

Because i don't have to prove uselessness. Proving the lack of something is a pretty pointless endeavor. People claiming its usefullness should bring use cases forward that can be discussed then. The burden of proof is on them.

"I like it" is not a use. It is a matter of taste.


Not that it matters that much. I can just cut it from all my games and if i were to play in a groups that wants to keep it, i don't really have much problem to put two letters on my sheet and then ignore it for the rest of the campaign.

----------


## Keltest

> Because i don't have to prove uselessness. Proving the lack of something is a pretty pointless endeavor. People claiming its usefullness should bring use cases forward that can be discussed then. The burden of proof is on them.
> 
> "I like it" is not a use. It is a matter of taste.
> 
> 
> Not that it matters that much. I can just cut it from all my games and if i were to play in a groups that wants to keep it, i don't really have much problem to put two letters on my sheet and then ignore it for the rest of the campaign.


So you can't articulate why it's shouldn't be in, others find value in it and its inclusion doesn't distract from your experience? Sounds like you made the best argument for its inclusion then.

----------


## Satinavian

Yes, if i ever meet someone IRL who eally wants to include it, i might be convinced to do so just to make them happy. But i certainly would ask them why they think it would be beneficial for the game and how. Just to make sure they don't demand the DM to actually do anything with it or have other weird expectations.

----------


## Tevo77777

> I always said it is not useful. That is my main argument against it.
> 
> And i am pretty sure most people who rail against alignment do understand it. They just really dislike it. Having a disagreement and asserting that the other party just must not be getting it because otherwise they would not have such a different oppinion, seems a tad arrogant imho.
> 
> No one has ever questioned the alignment of my characters either. Not my paladins, not my evil clerics not anyone else. I have not questioned the alignment of other players characters either, even as DM. I have also only ever once seen an alignment shift in game. That was when a player decided that when his PC was not ressurrected but brought back as a mummified creature (with the PCs consent of course via Speak with Dead) that his also should shift the alignment to LE.
> 
> I would see the lack of alignment questioning and alignment shifts less as "alignment is working" and more as "alignment is so irrelevant, it tends to get ignored most of the time".


gbaji meanwhile, seems to indicate, they think, that alignment is an oppressive box that players are forced into, and that it makes their characters really boring and limited.

If alignment is irrelevant, I'm not sure how it can be oppressive.

There are plenty of times where gbaji has insisted that chaotic characters can't plan things or have to be anti-social. Other times they insist that lawful characters have to always obey all laws. This and other things indicate a major misunderstanding of how alignment works. 

You are the first voice I've seen in awhile, which pushes against alignment, and yet seems to understand it.




> Yes, if i ever meet someone IRL who eally wants to include it, i might be convinced to do so just to make them happy. But i certainly would ask them why they think it would be beneficial for the game and how. Just to make sure they don't demand the DM to actually do anything with it or have other weird expectations.


Alignment is indeed a bit of a mixed bag, and it's, as far as I can tell, not really that punishing, nor incredibly rewarding.

It's decent training wheels, but most of its function is taken up by oaths, with their dos and don'ts.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Because i don't have to prove uselessness. Proving the lack of something is a pretty pointless endeavor. People claiming its usefullness should bring use cases forward that can be discussed then. The burden of proof is on them.
> 
> "I like it" is not a use. It is a matter of taste.


"We like it" is a use. Since we like it, then adding it to the game increased the enjoyment we got out of the game. That increased enjoyment for our group is the usefulness our group finds in it. This is true about Alignment just like it is true of Mind Flayers, or Feats. The usefulness being based on the consequence of a matter of taste also explains why alignment being useful to me does not imply it is useful to you.

It would be a rather pointless endeavor to try and prove to me that I don't exist. So the burden of proof is on me. Hopefully this reply is sufficient proof that I exist.


Now, if you can accept I exist and accept I find alignment useful. Then I can entertain your curiosity about details of why I like it and details of the uses I use it for. However just like it is pointless endeavor for you to try to prove the lack of something, it is pointless for me to give a high detail proof when the low detail proof of "Hi I exist, I like alignment, and it works for our group." is a sufficient proof.





> Originally Posted by Satinavian
> 
> 
> And i am pretty sure most people who rail against alignment do understand it. They just really dislike it. Having a disagreement and asserting that the other party just must not be getting it because otherwise they would not have such a different oppinion, seems a tad arrogant imho.
> 
> 
> What now? Is that your only argument against its inclusion? If so, it's pretty weak in the face og people who do like it. If not, why are you leading with something so subjective?


You were replying to Satinavian but their other arguments are right there. Some really dislike alignment. I think it is readily apparent that alignment should not be used when it is disliked.

----------


## gbaji

> Also I would disagree that imposing penalties is strictly bad either - but they have to be natural penalties and not artificial OOC constructs. That's where alignment fails for me. If e.g. you were to have your character kill an NPC's friend and that NPC became hostile to your character upon finding out, that would be 'imposing a penalty' but it would be a natural one. So if your character worships a deity and drags their name through the mud, and the deity gets angry and withdraws favor its again imposing a penalty, but a natural one. Or if your character once killed a sentient being and the setting had a 'Detect Slayer' spell that now pinged them, that could also be a penalty but again a natural one. To the extent that alignment does that sort of thing, I think it can be still be okay. But that sort of thing is why I'd tend not to design nearly anything as having alignment prerequisites unless its really a direct grant of power from a specific sentient force that the characters could in principle go to and punch if they find themselves in disagreement.


Yes. I'm in complete agreement on having natural consequences for character actions in a game. And those absolutely can include things like a deity tossing someone out for not following their dictates, to a liege dismissing someone who doesn't follow their orders, to any order/organization ejecting people for not following their code of conduct, to party members turning on others who cause harm/disruption, etc.

But none of those things require an alignment system in the game to work. So I keep circling around to "why have it in the first place?".





> No, because this behavior sounds incredibly disruptive and annoying. This kind of behavior would likely get the character killed, arrested, or get the player banned by the other players.


I described Roy's behavior in the comic. He took advantage of a mistaken identity to get literal royal treatment at the Inn, and he lied directly and repeatedly to his party members to trick them into going on a side quest for the starmetal. That's what I was talking about, so if you think that's incredibly disruptive and annoying and would get the character killed, arrested or the player banned, then you are literally talking about punishing Roy here. Because that's what I was talking about.

Not sure if that's what you meant to respond to.





> You keep acting like everyone and/or the GM is constantly changing your alignment based on your every action, but the only person skeptical of anyone's listed alignment is you.


No. You keep presenting a strawman version of my argument where you insist this is what I'm doing and then argue against it, as though you are accomplishing something. That's not remotely what I'm arguing.

I'm saying that when it comes to D&D alignments we basically have a very simple pair of binary choices:

A. We do not enforce alignment rules at all.

B. We enforce alignment rules.

With me so far? If we choose A, then we aren't using alignment in the game, and our conversation is done. We've concluded (as I have) that alignment rules serve no purpose and can be ignored.

If we choose B, and you are the GM (the one who's responsible for enforcing rules in the game), we have two options:

B1: The GM prohibits actions by a character that are outside the alignment for that character (I think this is bad GMing, but I include it because you have mentioned "banning" or "blocking" actions so it's there as a possible GM response).

B2: The GM allows any actions, but if a character consistently exhibits behavior out of their listed alignment,  the GM will impose an alignment shift.

Following me? Are we in agreement that these are the "Rules"? I would hope so, given that this is pretty elementary and obvious, but for some reason, the moment I go one step past this point, some posters keep looping back to this step and claiming it doesn't exist, or doesn't happen, or whatever. You keep saying that I'm the only person saying that GMs may shift a PCs alignment, for example. Which is odd, because that's literally what the rules say the consequences are for failing to play within your character's alignment.

All I'm doing is going one step further and stating that if one wants to play a character that does not fit into a single alignment definition, and the GM is enforcing alignment rules, then they must be subject to B1 or B2. Right? Note, I'm not saying that this PC is disruptive, or homicidal, or otherwise a problem to the table, the game, or the players. Just that they are playing in a way that doesn't match the character's alignment. That's it. Everything else about disruption is stuff you made up. I never said it. Stick to what I'm actually arguing here.

So yes, if we assume that the player would like to play a character like that, to the degree that the rules are enforced, it does put a damper on that player's decisions and actions with their own character. And to the degree that there may be penalties associated with alignment shifts (assuming B2 option), then there's an active punishment for playing these types of characters.

I don't think it's unreasonable to further conclude that this will result in players feeling pressured to play their characters "within their alignment", or even "within any alignment" if we're to be a bit more broad. And yeah, I consider that "cardboard cutout" play. We can disagree on that, but can we get past this odd argument over "the rules" of alignment in the first place?





> No, because any GM that blocks your actions for any reason besides "this would **** over the party, and/or **** up my setting" is a bad GM. There are nuances and exceptions, but generally, actions should be blocked because they're dumb, cringe, they ruin the tone, they mess with the setting, ect ect. This is literally what MCDM says.


So you would not block PC actions as long as they weren't disruptive or game breaking? So you go with B2 then? I'm just trying to get you to commit *clearly* to what your preferred method of dealing with the situation I'm describing is.




> If the majority and the GM say you had an alignment shift, you had an alignment shift.


Great. That's what I was looking for. You play in the B2 scenario. So you agree that alignment shift is the consequence of not playing a character within their written alignment. Progress at last!





> Most of your examples of people stepping outside this "cardboard cutout" involve them being insanely annoying, enough that the other players characters would want to kill them on the spot.


None of them were. You've invented this assumption. The closest I came was my example of a character suffering grief over a dead friend and dealing with it by becoming angry, drinking, getting into bar fights, etc. All behavior that a typical barbarian character might just call "a normal Saturday night". Hardly something you'd ban a player for doing, right?





> Again, the only person who says you can't be insanely complex and keep the same alignment, is you.


What you call "insanely complex" I call "being a real person". And yes, you literally just said that if the GM and the other players believe that your character should have a different alignment, you'd change the character's alignment.

The only real question here is a matter of degrees. How many times must a character do things that are outside the written alignment before the GM imposes an alignment change? Clearly, I think we both agree, that just one thing, or maybe even a couple, doesn't warrant such a thing. But how about 10? or 20? or 100? 




> Your arguments depend on you insisting that people will do things that no one will do, and include arguing that characters would have their alignment changed, when no one else thinks that.


I've "insisted" that characters that are not played within their written alignment will have their alignment changed. You just said that's what would happen. It's funny because, like I pointed out earlier, you keep wanting to argue this phase of what I'm saying, but also seem to fundamentally agree with me on it. Maybe it's because I like to make arguments in a very formalized manner, and establish "agreed upon facts" first, and then move from there? Dunno. It's just strange.

The part you should be disagreeing with isn't whether alignment changes can or will be forced, but how frequently that happens and how much of a burden it actually is. But, oddly, you keep getting caught up on this part. It's almost like you disagree with my conclusion (which is perfectly reasonable btw), but because of this have adopted a "I can't agree with him on anything along the way" approach. Which has lead you to insist that no one but me has ever argued that a GM may impose an alignment change on a character if they fail to act within the constraints of their alignment. Which is ludicrous, but there you have it.





> The Alignment forces nothing upon us, it's again, all in your head.


It forces you to play your character within the alignment. Otherwise, it serves no purpose and can (and should) just be removed from the game. Seriously. If you never enforce alignment rules on any character in your game, and only do so via "natural consequences" as mentioned my NichG, then why bother writing anything on the character sheet in the first place?

And if you are enforcing it, then somewhat by definition, it does put limits on how a player may play their character. It's by design. I'm not sure how you don't get this. You get that the word "force" is contained within the word "enforce", right? That's not an accident of spelling or something.





> I block and ban actions because they are annoying, you literally just read me say that over and over.


Yes. You have said this over and over. I, on the other hand, was not talking about annoying actions. I was talking about players being played in a manner that is well within the behavior limits the GM has placed for PCs in the game, but that are *not* within the limits covered by the alignment written on their sheet.

What would you do, as a GM, if someone were to play a character with <whatever> alignment (let's not get stuck on details here), but exactly half the time they play the character as though they have <a different> alignment? Heck. What if the player says his character is a huge moon lover and his personality and behavior changes based on the phases of the moon. It's not some supernatural thing. He's not a member of a religion that acts this way out of devotion to the moon god or something. He just has a personality that says that in each phase change of the moon, he acts differently.

How would you handle that character? That's not even "insanely complex". It's just someone with an odd quirk. Let's also assume that none of these behaviors are "evil", nor does it result in any disruptive behavior. Just... different. And not a consistent alignment. What do you do as the GM?

And if moon-guy is too complex for you, how about a regular person who is high functioning, very organized, color codes his cover sheets for work projects, always has his tie on straight, donates to charities, helps the poor, volunteers at a soup kitchen, etc, but on the weekends he binge drinks, gambles excessively, and engages in a variety of high risk behaviors. Which alignment is he? Lawful? Or Chaotic? Both? Either? Neither? I've personally known a number of people who are like that. Totally buttoned up during the work week and in "polite society", and total wrecks the rest of the time (they would just say "cutting loose"). These people clearly exhibit behaviors that fall firmly into two diametrically opposed D&D alignments. And in the "real world", we just call that a "guy who parties on the weekends", but in D&D, we only get to pick one alignment for him. So is he CN, but pretends to be LG? Or is he really LG, but occasionally lets loose with some CN behavior? Which "side" of this person determines his "true" alignment?

I could probably come up with a dozen different, completely playable, PC personality descriptions that most posters here would have an incredibly difficult time fitting into any single D&D alignment. It's not really that hard. Unless, of course, you've become so accustomed to playing in a D&D alignment environment and you just naturally think in terms of "start with alignment, then define personality based on that". Which is precisely the "cardboard cutout" character types I'm talking about. Starting with personality and then trying to fit into an alignment? It's a lot more difficult and it wont take long before you start realizing how limiting it is.





> So before you were complaining that non-existent people are breathing down the players neck and insisting they play in a little box.
> 
> Now you're complaining that the box is too big and people are only checking up on you every week or so.


I'm examining hypothetical cases. What if <situation A>? What if <situation B>? And along the way showing that there's a lot of different behaviors and personalities that, while each may individually fit into an alignment category, are certainly possible for the same individual to have and act on, and not in a broad "I'm changing gradually over time" way either. Just "today I feel like doing X"  and "yesterday I felt like doing Y". Or even "when I'm in a fight I act this way, but when I'm out socializing I act another way, and when I'm at work I behave in yet another way". The alignment system in D&D simply does not handle this well (or at all really). Not if you actually attempt to enforce it as a GM.

Usually, you just end up ignoring it. Which, again, leads us back to "why bother having it"?

If you haven't figured it out yet, my main position on alignment is that it should just not exist. Requirements for membership in some club/religion/order/whatever? Absolutely. You don't need a bi-axial alignment system to do that though. Or any kind really. But certainly not the one that D&D has.

I'm just following that to the logical conclusion that the only time alignment *ever* matters is the kinds of cases I'm talking about. It only matters when someone doesn't comply with the requirements. So let's examine those cases. And when I do, I find that it either also doesn't matter (alignment shift didn't make any difference, so again why bother?), or it's a hardship on the character. It's that final case I'm examining and finding wanting. And yes, as I've stated a couple times now, the fact that the potential for hardship exists, tends to lead the player away from playing character types for which alignment shifts are a hardship and/or to be more diligent at complying with the alignment requirements if it does.

And that, IMO, results in restrictions on player freedom to play characters as broadly and in as much variation as they may wish to.




> I said what feels like a hundred times.... Everyone but you thinks Roy is Lawful Good, Roy shouldn't get an alignment change because like 30-40% of his actions, during a tiny bit of time, were not perfectly Lawful and perfectly Good.
> 
> Also, my earlier statements say nothing of that sort. My earlier statements say that if Roy was hyper annoying or his player was annoying, I would nuke the character from orbit and ban the player on the spot. Same if Roy got in the way of all the other players.


Set aside the "hyper annoying or his player was annoying". Would you agree that if Roy consistently behaved as he did at the Inn, or did while getting his party to quest for the starmetal, that Roy should have his alignment changed from LG? I'm not talking about what his alignment *is*, or what the Deva said. I'm speculating about what level of "Roy doesn't follow the LG alignment" results in some GM response in your opinion.

There has to be one, right? Where does that happen? And how does it happen? 






> They keep asking the same questions, some of which I answered a week or two ago.



You have yet to clearly state that "yes, if a PC is played consistently in a manner not consistent with their alignment in my game, I would impose some rule on them", nor have you clearly stated exactly what you would do. Instead, you've gone off on tangents about rude/disruptive  behavior, which was not at all what I was talking about.




> Whoever this person is, they have the most selective literacy I've seen in a long time. They are always arguing against things I've never said, or insisting other people will do things that no one else said they will do.


That's a funny bit of projection. I've been extremely clear about my statements and position, and you've done almost everything in your power to respond with everything under the sun *except* what I'm actually talking about.




> For example, I said, twice or three times, in lots of text, that I ban people for being hyper annoying and crashing the campaign into the ground, and somehow this is read as "He blocks people from doing out of alignment actions".


Yup. But I wasn't talking about cases of people being hyper annoying. I was talking about players not playing their characters within their alignment. Period. You invented this. Not sure how many times I can point this out to you.


I literally just want you to answer the question I posed:

What would you do as a GM if a player plays their character consistently in a way that is not in accordance with the alignment on their character sheet? It's not disruptive. It's not annoying. It's not game breaking. It's just not what their alignment says they should be doing.

What do you do?

I maybe made the mistake of assuming we all follow the same logical rules here. That it's a question of "enforce/not-enforce", followed by "prevent/punish" actions. Maybe that's what's lead to the confusion here. But at the core, this is what I'm assuming and basing my argument on. So what would you do in that situation? My personal conclusion and position derives from this answer, but I'm having difficulty getting that point across because you keep looping the argument back to this point instead. So maybe we settle this one question instead?




> I would see the lack of alignment questioning and alignment shifts less as "alignment is working" and more as "alignment is so irrelevant, it tends to get ignored most of the time".


This. Exactly this. If alignment rules never cause problems, then they aren't needed in the first place. But when they do... well... that's the conditions I'm looking at.




> There are plenty of times where gbaji has insisted that chaotic characters can't plan things or have to be anti-social. Other times they insist that lawful characters have to always obey all laws. This and other things indicate a major misunderstanding of how alignment works.


No. That was me in the other thread saying that these are the sorts of silly assumptions that *some other people claim*. I was the one specifically arguing that a chaotic evil assassin could have friends/family he would be willing to sacrifice for. I was countered by an insistence that this wasn't possible and that anyone who would do that couldn't be CE.

The lawful bit was examining different aspects of what (again) *other people* ascribe to being lawful. And yes, "obeying the law/rules" is one. "being orderly and structured in your behavior" is another. I was making no argument about what lawful *had to be*, but merely that different aspects of what many people do associate with "lawful alignment" can,  in some cases, be contradictory.

My argument there, as it is here, is that the entire thing is silly and we should just chuck it out. Most games would be much better off for it.




> Alignment is indeed a bit of a mixed bag, and it's, as far as I can tell, not really that punishing, nor incredibly rewarding.
> 
> It's decent training wheels, but most of its function is taken up by oaths, with their dos and don'ts.


I actually completely agree with this. I've even made the point that it can be useful from a "training wheels" point of view. But I do feel that if you want to play characters that are more nuanced, or have personality quirks, or are just plain inconsistent (like real people tend to be), those training wheels become incredibly restrictive.

And yeah, most of the "function" of alignments works with oaths/laws and the consequences for breaking them. The remaining function is IMO almost entirely harmful to roleplaying (excepting, again, the "training wheels" concept). So yeah, why not just eliminate them entirely? What real purpose does it serve? Would we have any less of an idea of what kind of person Roy is if we didn't know he was LG? Or any of the rest of the Order? I don't think so. We'd judge them based on their words and actions in the strip without arbitrary labels and be just fine with it.

Heck. Even the afterlife would work better. So we have Roy, his mom, and his brother all in the LG afterlife hanging out (and maybe his dad too, but that's subject to debate). Er, but what about his sister? So due to this silly alignment thing, she doesn't get to spend her afterlife with her family? We just kinda skirt around that? Ignore it? Hmmm...

----------


## NichG

> Yes. I'm in complete agreement on having natural consequences for character actions in a game. And those absolutely can include things like a deity tossing someone out for not following their dictates, to a liege dismissing someone who doesn't follow their orders, to any order/organization ejecting people for not following their code of conduct, to party members turning on others who cause harm/disruption, etc.
> 
> But none of those things require an alignment system in the game to work. So I keep circling around to "why have it in the first place?".


Again saying this as someone who isn't all that fond of D&D's alignments...

But, in some sense, that can be all the 'alignment system' is - an explicit tracker of how well received you are by different (cosmic) entities. If those entities are so omnipresent that their approval has actual physical effects, its just part of the cosmology. No different than say something like Shadowlands taint or Lying Darkness taint or Honor or Status in L5R. Explicitly mechanized trackers of things that have widespread but specific effects, to make it easier for players to understand the practical consequences of certain choices and to have things to plan or aim for.

I don't tend to use D&D alignments, but I do tend to use 'taint systems' that basically amount to cosmic forces that have noticed the character - could be Paradox or Song or Name or Idem or Nothingness or Grey or Madness or whatever. And characters can as a meaningful in-character statement want to have e.g. at least 3 points of Madness but not more than 5, by the scales of the things which measure such taints. You could just as well have a Heaven or Hell or Order or Chaos taint.

----------


## OldTrees1

> I don't tend to use D&D alignments, but I do tend to use 'taint systems' that basically amount to cosmic forces that have noticed the character - could be Paradox or Song or Name or Idem or Nothingness or Grey or Madness or whatever. And characters can as a meaningful in-character statement want to have e.g. at least 3 points of Madness but not more than 5, by the scales of the things which measure such taints.


That is a neat variation. I could adapt that to an elder evils campaign. (It is also a good explanation & example of that type of system)

----------


## Satinavian

> "We like it" is a use.


Well, maybe i need to go into more detail about what i mean with useful.

You see, i am not against to include stuff that someone wants if it does no harm and no one is opposed to that. But to be useful, it IMHO needs to have a beneficial impact on the game/campaign beyond that.

There are players who draw portraits for their characters or describe their hairdo or the cut of their characters garments etc. And they obviously derive some fun from this, so it is fine. But there is no actual impact on the game beyond some visual imagination hints. And even that is often limited to the player of the characters because many others often don't even pay attention or soon forget what they regard as unimportant detail.

I think that alignment tends to be similar. Sure, everyone marks two letters on their character sheet the same as everyone writes something into hair color and eye color (if the species has hairs and eyes), but usually that's it. Looking back, i would even say hair and eye color have more often become relevant to the game than alignment.


To be considered useful, one must actually do something with alignment beyond marking two letters on the sheet. And that must have a positive impact.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

> Heck. Even the afterlife would work better. So we have Roy, his mom, and his brother all in the LG afterlife hanging out (and maybe his dad too, but that's subject to debate). Er, but what about his sister? So due to this silly alignment thing, she doesn't get to spend her afterlife with her family? We just kinda skirt around that? Ignore it? Hmmm...


I'm sure there's some kind of vising system for close friends and family. or maybe it's like god ascension and (if she accepts) she'd be able to go to the LG afterlife on sponsorship from the rest of her family. Or maybe she'll have her own family she wants to hang out with, we don't see any of Roy's Mom's family up there.



Personally i'll never understand the whole "Alignment is restrictive" thing. Alignment is nothing, it is not a physical tangible thing, it's just a representation of your actions. You control it, not the other way around.

You're not forced into doing only chaotic good things because you're chaotic good, You're chaotic good because you do chaotic good things. And even then there's wiggle room, your alignment is what you're like a MAJORITY of the time. A Lawful character can still have a grief-induced tantrum that ends up breaking someone else's property, but this doesn't mean they're going to stop being lawful. Given their past deeds before the incident, it's likely they'll try to make amends for the issue and get the property replaced or repaired in some form. But even then, that's entirely up to them. That's just a prediction you can make based on their alignment, not an obligation they MUST comply too.

Saying alignment is restrictive just sounds a lot like saying the clothes you are currently wearing are restrictive. You are the one who chose what you are currently wearing, you can change them at any time. You're wearing your clothes because you put them on, you didn't put them on because they decided they'd be what you're wearing today.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Well, maybe i need to go into more detail about what i mean with useful.
> 
> You see, i am not against to include stuff that someone wants if it does no harm and no one is opposed to that. But to be useful, it IMHO needs to have a beneficial impact on the game/campaign beyond that.
> 
> There are players who draw portraits for their characters or describe their hairdo or the cut of their characters garments etc. And they obviously derive some fun from this, so it is fine. But there is no actual impact on the game beyond some visual imagination hints. And even that is often limited to the player of the characters because many others often don't even pay attention or soon forget what they regard as unimportant detail.
> 
> I think that alignment tends to be similar. Sure, everyone marks two letters on their character sheet the same as everyone writes something into hair color and eye color (if the species has hairs and eyes), but usually that's it. Looking back, i would even say hair and eye color have more often become relevant to the game than alignment.
> 
> 
> To be considered useful, one must actually do something with alignment beyond marking two letters on the sheet. And that must have a positive impact.


Ah, thanks for elaborating on what you mean as useful. You are ignoring the primary use case anything has in RPGs, but I now understand the requirement.

So something existing in the game and causing the playgroup to enjoy the game more than they otherwise would have does not satisfy this requirement unless they do a 2nd thing with the something that exists.

1) If we are ignoring the baseline positive effect, then does it matter if there is a secondary positive effect?
2) Does changing the alignment count as doing something? One of the use cases for GM described alignment is the GM describing the alignment. If the description alone is not enough of a "do something" then what about when the description changes?
3) I find playing evil characters in character often makes me wish they came with a disclaimer that I do not agree with some of their actions and advice. Similar to an unreliable narrator disclaimer. Alignment helps me feel comfortable playing such characters because it gives a passive disclaimer.

----------


## Tevo77777

> I'm sure there's some kind of vising system for close friends and family. or maybe it's like god ascension and (if she accepts) she'd be able to go to the LG afterlife on sponsorship from the rest of her family. Or maybe she'll have her own family she wants to hang out with, we don't see any of Roy's Mom's family up there.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally i'll never understand the whole "Alignment is restrictive" thing. Alignment is nothing, it is not a physical tangible thing, it's just a representation of your actions. You control it, not the other way around.
> 
> You're not forced into doing only chaotic good things because you're chaotic good, You're chaotic good because you do chaotic good things. And even then there's wiggle room, your alignment is what you're like a MAJORITY of the time. A Lawful character can still have a grief-induced tantrum that ends up breaking someone else's property, but this doesn't mean they're going to stop being lawful. Given their past deeds before the incident, it's likely they'll try to make amends for the issue and get the property replaced or repaired in some form. But even then, that's entirely up to them. That's just a prediction you can make based on their alignment, not an obligation they MUST comply too.
> 
> Saying alignment is restrictive just sounds a lot like saying the clothes you are currently wearing are restrictive. You are the one who chose what you are currently wearing, you can change them at any time. You're wearing your clothes because you put them on, you didn't put them on because they decided they'd be what you're wearing today.


I've been saying this, to a degree, for so many weeks. Roy and Elan have so much wiggle room in their alignment, but only one person disputes it.




> Again saying this as someone who isn't all that fond of D&D's alignments...
> 
> But, in some sense, that can be all the 'alignment system' is - an explicit tracker of how well received you are by different (cosmic) entities. If those entities are so omnipresent that their approval has actual physical effects, its just part of the cosmology. No different than say something like Shadowlands taint or Lying Darkness taint or Honor or Status in L5R. Explicitly mechanized trackers of things that have widespread but specific effects, to make it easier for players to understand the practical consequences of certain choices and to have things to plan or aim for.
> 
> I don't tend to use D&D alignments, but I do tend to use 'taint systems' that basically amount to cosmic forces that have noticed the character - could be Paradox or Song or Name or Idem or Nothingness or Grey or Madness or whatever. And characters can as a meaningful in-character statement want to have e.g. at least 3 points of Madness but not more than 5, by the scales of the things which measure such taints. You could just as well have a Heaven or Hell or Order or Chaos taint.


I know nothing about these mechanics, but they sound cool.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Ah, thanks for elaborating on what you mean as useful. You are ignoring the primary use case anything has in RPGs, but I now understand the requirement.
> 
> So something existing in the game and causing the playgroup to enjoy the game more than they otherwise would have does not satisfy this requirement unless they do a 2nd thing with the something that exists.
> 
> 1) If we are ignoring the baseline positive effect, then does it matter if there is a secondary positive effect?
> 2) Does changing the alignment count as doing something? One of the use cases for GM described alignment is the GM describing the alignment. If the description alone is not enough of a "do something" then what about when the description changes?
> 3) I find playing evil characters in character often makes me wish they came with a disclaimer that I do not agree with some of their actions and advice. Similar to an unreliable narrator disclaimer. Alignment helps me feel comfortable playing such characters because it gives a passive disclaimer.


I used to play an evil warlock who worships Nerull but it didn't turn out well.

----------


## Satinavian

> 2) Does changing the alignment count as doing something? One of the use cases for GM described alignment is the GM describing the alignment. If the description alone is not enough of a "do something" then what about when the description changes?


Yes. But that would need to actually happen, not just remain a theoretical possibility. Players changing their characters alignment as a method to make statements about the characters or GM giving regular alignment based feedback for the characters actions and actually shifting them around. And it has to be seen as something positive by most of the table.



> 3) I find playing evil characters in character often makes me wish they came with a disclaimer that I do not agree with some of their actions and advice. Similar to an unreliable narrator disclaimer. Alignment helps me feel comfortable playing such characters because it gives a passive disclaimer.


OK, that counts as a use. I am not really sure how effective that is as i have understood alignment never as such a disclaimer, but if it gives you more peace of mind, sure.

----------


## Mechalich

> OK, that counts as a use. I am not really sure how effective that is as i have understood alignment never as such a disclaimer, but if it gives you more peace of mind, sure.


Actually, along those lines, 'no evil characters' does serve as an at least somewhat accurate shorthand regarding the sorts of behaviors of the GM wishes to ban at any given table. This can be compared positively to VtM, where the amount of intraparty infighting desired in any given campaign was highly variable and making certain the players built a coterie that would actually work together in anything resembling a functional way took a lot of session zero monitoring. So, insofar as having an in-game mechanic that allows that GM to quantify 'don't be a d***' as an rule, alignment is useful - and while this shouldn't be necessary, regrettably, it absolutely is sometimes.

----------


## Satinavian

> Actually, along those lines, 'no evil characters' does serve as an at least somewhat accurate shorthand regarding the sorts of behaviors of the GM wishes to ban at any given table.


I am not agreeing about this one. While there is some overlap between "evil" and "disruptive", it is not that big. Alignment is not a good measure for sorting acceptable PCs. Giving guidelines for appropriate PC behavior is way better done without it.

----------


## Tectorman

> OK, that counts as a use. I am not really sure how effective that is as i have understood alignment never as such a disclaimer, but if it gives you more peace of mind, sure.


Does that count as a use for alignment, though?  I ask because it's sounding a lot like a placebo here, and while yes, the placebo effect is well-documented, that's really more a testament for our capacity for self-deception, rather than the thing (a sugar pill, alignment) being used as a vehicle for that self-deception.

I mean, if I wear an aluminum foil cap because I think it makes me safe from government agencies controlling my mind, does Reynolds get credit?

----------


## OldTrees1

> Yes. But that would need to actually happen, not just remain a theoretical possibility. Players changing their characters alignment as a method to make statements about the characters or GM giving regular alignment based feedback for the characters actions and actually shifting them around. And it has to be seen as something positive by most of the table.
> 
> OK, that counts as a use. I am not really sure how effective that is as I have understood alignment never as such a disclaimer, but if it gives you more peace of mind, sure.


With the additional restriction on the 1st use case, my group only sometimes qualifies when we use alignment. The alignment shift in a GM described alignment system is theoretical until it occurs. Once it occurs, then it satisfies Satinavian's criteria. Lux (a paladin being corrupted by lovecraftian insanity) would meet this criteria. My current Mindflayer character might or might not (foresight is not 20/20).

The 2nd use case works quite well for me and happens for roughly half of my aligned characters. 

Therefore, there exist groups where alignment is valued, working, enjoyed (primary use case), and even indirectly useful (Satinavian's criteria). 

Although it would be good to reiterate that: Just because it can reliably work for some groups, does not mean it is going to work for an arbitrary group. I suggest defaulting to not using alignment unless you have good reason to expect it to work and be valued by the group.




> I am not agreeing about this one. While there is some overlap between "evil" and "disruptive", it is not that big. Alignment is not a good measure for sorting acceptable PCs. Giving guidelines for appropriate PC behavior is way better done without it.





> Does that count as a use for alignment, though?  I ask because it's sounding a lot like a placebo here, and while yes, the placebo effect is well-documented, that's really more a testament for our capacity for self-deception, rather than the thing (a sugar pill, alignment) being used as a vehicle for that self-deception.
> 
> I mean, if I wear an aluminum foil cap because I think it makes me safe from government agencies controlling my mind, does Reynolds get credit?


I agree the overlap between "evil" and "disruptive" is not that big. However the groups using "no evil characters" often are the groups that experience high correlation between "evil characters in their group" and "disruptive characters in their group" due to those group having some underlying cause* resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive". Their reasoning behind "no evil characters" does not extend to other groups, but its conclusion of "reduced disruptive characters for their group" does hold.

* Sidenote Tectorman: This is not really a placebo if there is some underlying cause resulting in the high correlation for their group. Either the underlying cause of the correlation is treated, or treating one symptom will correlate with treating the other symptom.

Is "no evil characters" generally useful for sorting acceptable PCs? NO.
Is "no evil characters" useful for sorting acceptable PCs for specific groups? Yes, due to those group's having some underlying cause resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive".

So "no evil characters" to filter for "disruptive characters" for these groups, is a valid working use case. For everyone else, since alignment is not a good metric for "disruptive" in our groups, I advise we don't use it as a filter for "disruptive".

----------


## Keltest

> With the additional restriction on the 1st use case, my group only sometimes qualifies when we use alignment. The alignment shift in a GM described alignment system is theoretical until it occurs. Once it occurs, then it satisfies Satinavian's criteria. Lux (a paladin being corrupted by lovecraftian insanity) would meet this criteria. My current Mindflayer character might or might not (foresight is not 20/20).
> 
> The 2nd use case works quite well for me and happens for roughly half of my aligned characters. 
> 
> Therefore, there exist groups where alignment is valued, working, enjoyed (primary use case), and even indirectly useful (Satinavian's criteria). 
> 
> Although it would be good to reiterate that: Just because it can reliably work for some groups, does not mean it is going to work for an arbitrary group. I suggest defaulting to not using alignment unless you have good reason to expect it to work and be valued by the group.
> 
> 
> ...


This was a remarkably wordy post to say "it works except when it doesnt."

----------


## Satinavian

> I agree the overlap between "evil" and "disruptive" is not that big. However the groups using "no evil characters" often are the groups that experience high correlation between "evil characters in their group" and "disruptive characters in their group" due to those group having some underlying cause* resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive". Their reasoning behind "no evil characters" does not extend to other groups, but its conclusion of "reduced disruptive characters for their group" does hold.


Why would that be the case ? What makes groups that ban evil characters suddenly shift the meaning of evil or disruptive in a way that they suddenly overlap ?

I am pretty sure that doesn't actually happen. And that the groups that ban evil characters were better off without alignment and just addressing/banning disruptive behavior.

----------


## Keltest

> Why would that be the case ? What makes groups that ban evil characters suddenly shift the meaning of evil or disruptive in a way that they suddenly overlap ?
> 
> I am pretty sure that doesn't actually happen. And that the groups that ban evil characters were better off without alignment and just addressing/banning disruptive behavior.


There are a lot of reasons to ban evil characters besides disruptive behavior though, unless you're using "disruptive" in the circular sense of being associated with behavior that gets banned.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Actually, along those lines, 'no evil characters' does serve as an at least somewhat accurate shorthand regarding the sorts of behaviors of the GM wishes to ban at any given table.


"No evil? So like wot, don't wear black or cackle evilly? Ah, Thats easy. Now lets go kill that shopkeeper and steal his stuff."

----------


## Mechalich

> "No evil? So like wot, don't wear black or cackle evilly? Ah, Thats easy. Now lets go kill that shopkeeper and steal his stuff."


A player who acts in this way, even in a far less exaggerated fashion, has just held up a giant, blinking, sign saying 'kick me from the group now.' That's actually a highly useful second order effect.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> A player who acts in this way, even in a far less exaggerated fashion, has just held up a giant, blinking, sign saying 'kick me from the group now.' That's actually a highly useful second order effect.


Ah but this very paranoia about bad players leads to not trusting any players. you prevent worse roleplaying but don't allow for anything better than something narrow, mediocre and one note. we shouldn't restrict our hobby with something that lessens the potential of it that can be achieved.

----------


## Keltest

> Ah but this very paranoia about bad players leads to not trusting any players. you prevent worse roleplaying but don't allow for anything better than something narrow, mediocre and one note. we shouldn't restrict our hobby with something that lessens the potential of it that can be achieved.


Why not? Its a hobby, not some sort of philosophical construct. I'm fully prepared to kick somebody from the group who insists on behaving in a way incompatible with the rest of the group in the name of "roleplaying."

----------


## OldTrees1

> This was a remarkably wordy post to say "it works except when it doesnt."


Yes. Or more accurately "There exist cases when it works. There exist cases when it doesn't work.". The thread has pages scrutinizing the first half. 




> Why would that be the case ? What makes groups that ban evil characters suddenly shift the meaning of evil or disruptive in a way that they suddenly overlap ?
> 
> I am pretty sure that doesn't actually happen. And that the groups that ban evil characters were better off without alignment and just addressing/banning disruptive behavior.


Groups that can make non disruptive evil characters are not likely to want to ban evil characters as a means of banning disruptive characters (they can see the lack of correlation and thus the ban is illogical to them). Therefore groups that ban evil characters as a means of banning disruptive characters are not likely to be able to make non disruptive evil characters.

The same logic applies for any characteristic that does not normally correlate with being disruptive. The characteristic is usually only banned as a proxy for disruptive characters in groups that struggle to make non disruptive characters that have that characteristic.


I do agree that addressing/banning disruptive behavior is a better system. However sometimes strongly correlated proxies are good enough approximations to do some of the conversation.

----------


## Tevo77777

Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?

If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.

Looking back, I sorta wish I used alignment more, so I could could easily screen people who ended up causing war crimes and getting the party in trouble. It also would give me a reason to ban people without it being personal or political.

----------


## Anymage

> Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?
> 
> If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.
> 
> Looking back, I sorta wish I used alignment more, so I could could easily screen people who ended up causing war crimes and getting the party in trouble. It also would give me a reason to ban people without it being personal or political.


It boils down to if the issue is a problem concept or a problem player.

"No evil characters" can be used by people who don't have a full vocabulary to communicate that they want to have a heroic and cooperative party.  Which is fair, especially because characters in the morally gray (and possibly dark gray) spectrum are a common way to explore more roleplaying depth after first forays into standard heroic adventurer types.  If someone wants to try emulating the sort of panache that villains often have, a reminder to play someone who works well with the rest of the party can be useful.  Cooperative evils are possible, although a bit of an advanced topic so I understand the rest of the group not wanting to manage that if they're all new too.

If the issue is a player prone to behaving badly, I've seen far too many people try to dodge a "no evil" rule by using CM as the "I do whatever I want but I don't ping Evil" alignment.  And "whatever they want" tends to be pretty dark.  If someone is going to be problematic no matter what's written on their character sheet, I don't know that alignments can fix anything.  If it's what they choose to put on their character sheet they'll put whatever they think they can get away with, if alignments are enforced through DM fiat it seems like extra steps to just call someone out for being disruptive.

(Tangentially, I was reminded recently about how games can have traits that are used to justify bad behavior as "it's what my character would do".  Which are bad in their own right, but usually a lot more specific traits like "greedy" or "bloodthirsty" than just a letter E somewhere on your sheet.)

----------


## OldTrees1

> Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?
> 
> If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.
> 
> Looking back, I sorta wish I used alignment more, so I could could easily screen people who ended up causing war crimes and getting the party in trouble. It also would give me a reason to ban people without it being personal or political.


There is a campaign style sometimes known as a villain campaign where the players play as villain protagonists rather than hero/antihero protagonists. While it is possible to have a good villain, some groups ban good (or even neutral) characters for such campaigns. If I understand correctly (I have not experienced one yet myself) the goal is to customize potential PC vs PC conflicts to just the desired conflicts. I think this matches the hypothetical you were wondering about.

However this is probably less common than the inverse, due to obvious cultural influences.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Why not? Its a hobby, not some sort of philosophical construct. I'm fully prepared to kick somebody from the group who insists on behaving in a way incompatible with the rest of the group in the name of "roleplaying."


And if a roleplaying game isn't better served by having alignment within it, what then? (Keep in mind this is roleplaying general, not any specific edition of DnD forum, so any response along the lines of "I don't have to care" doesn't work when its a thread about all roleplaying games by definition of where this thread has been posted and thus includes all roleplaying games in its discussion.)

----------


## Satinavian

> Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?
> 
> If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.


Alignment is not really symmetric like that. Even in a pure villain group there is usually no backlash for "good" characters or even evil characters doing good stuff occassionally as long as it doesn't get in the way of the other party members or the overarching goal. The only difficulty is that the good character has to tolerate the stuff the other party members do and that is mostly a problem for the player of the good character. But then again, the evil characters have to tolerate each others evils as well and that can be just as difficult.

I mean, the world is big, there are probably groups somewhere who ban good characters. Haven't seen any, not even among those doing explicitely grey or villainous campaigns.

Furthermore, disruptive "I kill the shopkeeper for the lulz" PCs are usually not a good fit for evil campaign either. It is those that tend to get banned in villainous campaigns, not the good PCs. 


Not that a group that decides "we do a villain campaign" tend to put forward that many good characters in the first place. But then again, a group that decides "we do a heroic campaign" would probably also only get rather heroic entries ranging from aspiring to reluctant hero at best.

----------


## Batcathat

I really don't understand how banning evil characters is in any way easier than simply saying that the party needs to be able to work together without major issues, if that is the intended goal. Yes, having Belkar in an actual party could easily cause issues, but so would having Miko in an actual party. So why not have a rule that prevents both while also allowing non-disruptive Evil characters?

----------


## Tanarii

> It boils down to if the issue is a problem concept or a problem player.


No it doesn't. It boils down to the associated typical behavior of evil alignments being disruptive to many tables, as well as repulsive to many folks trying to sit down and enjoy a relaxing game of entertainment.  

(Not really directed at you *Anymage*, your comment here was just perfectly worded for me to make a pithy response to the idea being bandied around in this thread that evil associated behaviors and disruptive behavior don't have a causal relationship or even necessarily correlate.)

----------


## Tevo77777

> I really don't understand how banning evil characters is in any way easier than simply saying that the party needs to be able to work together without major issues, if that is the intended goal. Yes, having Belkar in an actual party could easily cause issues, but so would having Miko in an actual party. So why not have a rule that prevents both while also allowing non-disruptive Evil characters?


I mean its assumed that everyone knows that you shouldn't be a d*** when you play RPGs, but so many "players"/"GMs" are.

I have a full document about expectations, dos and don'ts, and its done very little to weed out bad actors. I had three people who read and quoted everything, but still brought an insane chainsaw god homebrew barbarian. It was like they saw everything and understood nothing.

Miko violated her alignment and lost her powers.

----------


## Mechalich

> I really don't understand how banning evil characters is in any way easier than simply saying that the party needs to be able to work together without major issues, if that is the intended goal. Yes, having Belkar in an actual party could easily cause issues, but so would having Miko in an actual party. So why not have a rule that prevents both while also allowing non-disruptive Evil characters?


Miko is a deliberate representation of playing a Paladin in the worst possible way. Examples of this nature do occur, but they can be corrected by having the player improve their role-playing. Belkar, by contrast, is a violent sociopath. Many of the highly disruptive aspects of his character and his actions result from his character being played _correctly_. 

Now, in D&D alignment terms this gets to the law/chaos divide. Lawful Evil characters tend to be massively more manageable than neutral evil or especially chaotic evil characters. Violent sociopaths tend to be disruptive even if they, somehow, have a heart of gold. Schlock Mercenary very notably stars exactly such a character (Schlock is literally told by Petey that he's a violent sociopath) and he is disruptive as it comes and would be an absolute nightmare to have in a party.

----------


## Tevo77777

> Miko is a deliberate representation of playing a Paladin in the worst possible way. Examples of this nature do occur, but they can be corrected by having the player improve their role-playing. Belkar, by contrast, is a violent sociopath. Many of the highly disruptive aspects of his character and his actions result from his character being played _correctly_. 
> 
> Now, in D&D alignment terms this gets to the law/chaos divide. Lawful Evil characters tend to be massively more manageable than neutral evil or especially chaotic evil characters. Violent sociopaths tend to be disruptive even if they, somehow, have a heart of gold. Schlock Mercenary very notably stars exactly such a character (Schlock is literally told by Petey that he's a violent sociopath) and he is disruptive as it comes and would be an absolute nightmare to have in a party.


Based, Schlock mercenary fan. Were you introduced by Atomic Rockets as well?

Has anyone run into the issue of Lawful Good characters doing stuff that Gygax would consider Lawful good, but we would consider Lawful Evil?

----------


## Batcathat

> Miko violated her alignment and lost her powers.


Sure, but even before that moment she would probably have been a very disruptive presence in an actual party.




> Miko is a deliberate representation of playing a Paladin in the worst possible way. Examples of this nature do occur, but they can be corrected by having the player improve their role-playing. Belkar, by contrast, is a violent sociopath. Many of the highly disruptive aspects of his character and his actions result from his character being played _correctly_.


While it's (thankfully) not the way most people play Lawful Good, the incredibly vague nature of alignment makes it tricky to say whether it's outright an "incorrect" way, I think.

In any case, let's not get bogged down by the specific example. My point was that since there are non-Evil characters that can be disruptive and Evil characters that may not be disruptive, banning Evil characters to avoid disruptive characters seems like a less than ideal plan.

----------


## Satinavian

> Now, in D&D alignment terms this gets to the law/chaos divide. Lawful Evil characters tend to be massively more manageable than neutral evil or especially chaotic evil characters. Violent sociopaths tend to be disruptive even if they, somehow, have a heart of gold. Schlock Mercenary very notably stars exactly such a character (Schlock is literally told by Petey that he's a violent sociopath) and he is disruptive as it comes and would be an absolute nightmare to have in a party.


Now if want to say, that "banning chaotic characters" does a better job at getting rid of disruptive behavior than "banning evil characters", that... is quite possible. But that is not exactly high of a hurdle. It is still pretty bad at it and there are many nondisruptive chaotic characters and many nonchaotic disruptive characters.

----------


## Keltest

> Sure, but even before that moment she would probably have been a very disruptive presence in an actual party.


How do you figure? Most of her disruptive behavior was in service to the railroad plot. She was vaguely annoying beforehand, but most of that was from the various members of the Order basically choosing to pick a fight with her.

----------


## Coeruleum

> For instance, you mention Batman... From what I gather, Batman's "alignment" is one of the most controversial of any character in all media, and he's been pegged as being pretty much every position on the chart at some point or other.


That's because of all the different versions of Batman. I tend to see alignments as being rather like political compass. You just put your ideology and actions somewhere on the alignment compass and if you're a huge hypocrite that's an alignment too, then you can either get divine spells and powers by believing in that or otherwise qualify for and interact with various supernatural, magical, and psionic spells and abilities based on what you are aligned with. Even if you aren't evil, often something like casting an evil spell, being under an evil effect (even unwillingly,) or lying might make you ping as evil temporarily and in many games that's explicitly called out, so even if you're normally good, if you're dominated and start killing your good teammates maybe you'll start pinging as evil temporarily, and if you become super evil and don't want to be, that's what Atonement and similar effects are for.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

My D&D group has a ban on evil characters. It's primarily because our group started as part of a public meetup group who met in a public place and was accessible to children, i myself was a highschooler when i first joined. And because the Evil alignment could theoretically include things like butchering innocents, torturing, kidnapping, abuse, and other heinous crimes, the alignment was banned to make sure that the group was relatively PG.


It was also about making sure everyone was able to work together in the general direction of the group's goals. Yes it sucked that we never had a "Paladin working with a lawful evil warlock" dynamic in the party, but it's not all bad. a lot of campaigns are designed with good or neutral characters in mind anyways.

----------


## Keltest

> It was also about making sure everyone was able to work together in the general direction of the group's goals. Yes it sucked that we never had a "Paladin working with a lawful evil warlock" dynamic in the party, but it's not all bad. a lot of campaigns are designed with good or neutral characters in mind anyways.


Im not convinced this is a useful or good dynamic anyway. Invariably you end up with the paladin losing patience with the warlock and confronting him, or the warlock losing patience with the group and wanting to leave, or people artificially cutting out those parts of the arc because they both have the PC tag over their heads so obviously they have to get over it and work together.

----------


## Satinavian

And still i have seen it work out well nearly every time people tried.

----------


## Keltest

> And still i have seen it work out well nearly every time people tried.


What does "well" mean though? That the warlock's evil alignment doesnt actually matter? That the paladin decided to compromise his ideals? That you were in a dungeon crawl so it was never relevant? Or that the warlock had his fun then got kicked out of the party and/or killed and the player rolled up a new character?

----------


## Satinavian

> What does "well" mean though? That the warlock's evil alignment doesnt actually matter? That the paladin decided to compromise his ideals? That you were in a dungeon crawl so it was never relevant? Or that the warlock had his fun then got kicked out of the party and/or killed and the player rolled up a new character?


First of all, it usually is not about the good and evil characters in a vacuum, both are part of the whole party and have reasons to be in that party. Which means their goals and the party goals overlap well enough.
Then the evil character usually has no real problem "doing good" if it keeps his allies happy, as long as it doesn't cost him resources or hurts his real goals. In cases it does, he usually can get recompensation or other concessions. The good character is likewise is usually more interested to have the party succeed or to get it to tackle the problems he cares about than in trying to impose his morality on his companions.
Additionally there are all the other regular interactions and relationships. Becoming friends is extremely common for long term adventurers, starting off as family gives additional reasons to stick together, help each other and overlook each others problems. And "lovers" fills several genres. Sometimes it is society that forces them to work together, they might be in the same organization being ordered to to so.

Evil characters generally don't do evil for evils sake. They do it because it is beneficial for them or advances their goals. Which also means they don't tend to do it when everything they get from it is hostility and lost allies. There is a time and place for this stuff.


There are also the options of "greater Evil" or of the evil character doing their thing in secret or of the good character trying to reform the evil one, but all three of those are just not my personal taste. But others like them and they can work as well.

Generally, most stuff that happens in a campaign is not particularly focused on alignments or even morality. If both characters are group compatible, their personal differences don't take center stage all that often. And when it happens, they can still talk it out like adults.



As for the a Paladin specifically, it obviously doesn't work in editions with "can't associate with evil" in the code of conduct. Except when the paladin never realizes that their companions are evil which i have seen once as well, but only once. But in other editions you can do it with paladins as well.


And obviously with "it worked" i don't count cases of characters being thrown out of the party or killing each other. I have seen such occasions sometimes as well, but this has never been about alignment. Ok, the first one i witnessed could probably framed as a law and chaos conflict, not that it happened in a system that had these.

----------


## Keltest

> First of all, it usually is not about the good and evil characters in a vacuum, both are part of the whole party and have reasons to be in that party. Which means their goals and the party goals overlap well enough.
> Then the evil character usually has no real problem "doing good" if it keeps his allies happy, as long as it doesn't cost him resources or hurts his real goals. In cases it does, he usually can get recompensation or other concessions. The good character is likewise is usually more interested to have the party succeed or to get it to tackle the problems he cares about than in trying to impose his morality on his companions.
> Additionally there are all the other regular interactions and relationships. Becoming friends is extremely common for long term adventurers, starting off as family gives additional reasons to stick together, help each other and overlook each others problems. And "lovers" fills several genres. Sometimes it is society that forces them to work together, they might be in the same organization being ordered to to so.
> 
> Evil characters generally don't do evil for evils sake. They do it because it is beneficial for them or advances their goals. Which also means they don't tend to do it when everything they get from it is hostility and lost allies. There is a time and place for this stuff.
> 
> 
> There are also the options of "greater Evil" or of the evil character doing their thing in secret or of the good character trying to reform the evil one, but all three of those are just not my personal taste. But others like them and they can work as well.
> 
> ...


I mean, to me that just sounds like your hypothetical warlock is not actually meaningfully evil except to get a token nod to the fact that its written on his character sheet every now and again.

----------


## Satinavian

> I mean, to me that just sounds like your hypothetical warlock is not actually meaningfully evil except to get a token nod to the fact that its written on his character sheet every now and again.


Oh, those were evil characters. Just not disruptive ones. Like nearly ever other character they were built to fit the corresponding planned campaign and unsurprisingly this went exactly as imagined.
Really, there are many motivations that are  archetypal for evil characters and still fit in most groups : greed, revenge, pride, hate, elevating your in-group, ambition among them. And there are even more that, while not particularly associated with evil could still reasonably fit an evil guy.

----------


## NichG

...

Ban evil players, not evil characters.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

> I mean, to me that just sounds like your hypothetical warlock is not actually meaningfully evil except to get a token nod to the fact that its written on his character sheet every now and again.


There's a big differences between "evil" and "Evil".

Evil is your "I'm going to take over and / or destroy the world" villain like Sauron or Emperor Palpatine. They genuinely don't see value in anyone other then themselves and seek to have control over their respective worlds in one way or another. Or are alternatively serial problem-causers such as the Joker, who maybe isn't after control over everything, but has no sense of morality and regularly destroys or kills just for the fun of it.

Then you have "evil" which is much more tame. This would be situations like Fuzzy Lumpkin and some other (Non-Him) Villains from Powerpuff girls, Rogue the Bat from Sonic, or maybe even Adventure Time's Ice-King (Never saw the show so could be wrong there). These are characters who's goals mainly just don't align with the majority of society. They can still be fair and reasonable people that you can talk too and hang out with, and they won't be "out to get you" on a regular basis. They just have for the most part different opinions of the world, like thinking eating humanoid flesh is perfectly fine, that there is nothing wrong with killing an unarmed enemy or putting down weak and deformed offspring, and that if they want something that doesn't belong to them, they should be able to keep it if they can manage to overpower whoever has it or take it without being noticed. 

These characters have no interest in making life miserable for the rest of the world, they can easily be friends and allies with neutral and good characters, particularly if they have a common goal like a larger Evil threat. The Predators from Alien Vs Predator franchise could be a good example of evil. Their society is so far removed from our own that they have no problems in hunting humans for sport, but they only hunt capable combat-worthy humans, avoid humans who are unarmed, sick, or pregnant, and are willing and able to fight alongside humans towards a common goal if in the presence of a greater threat such as the Xenomorphs from the "Aliens" franchise, or the "Super Predators" in the "Predators" film. They can honour and respect Humans if they prove themselves capable warriors, but a lot of what they do might be seen as weird or unacceptable on our terms. 

So a Paladin travelling around with Sauron or Emporor Palpatine sure, that's not going to work. But a Paladin travelling around with a dude who just sees meat as meat no matter the source, has no problems looting the dead, and who has a bit of a problem grasping the concept of "Private property"? Sure, that could work. They could travel together fine and even get along well with one another for the most part.

----------


## NichG

> There's a big differences between "evil" and "Evil".
> 
> Evil is your "I'm going to take over and / or destroy the world" villain like Sauron or Emperor Palpatine. They genuinely don't see value in anyone other then themselves and seek to have control over their respective worlds in one way or another. Or are alternatively serial problem-causers such as the Joker, who maybe isn't after control over everything, but has no sense of morality and regularly destroys or kills just for the fun of it.
> 
> Then you have "evil" which is much more tame. This would be situations like Fuzzy Lumpkin and some other (Non-Him) Villains from Powerpuff girls, Rogue the Bat from Sonic, or maybe even Adventure Time's Ice-King (Never saw the show so could be wrong there). These are characters who's goals mainly just don't align with the majority of society. They can still be fair and reasonable people that you can talk too and hang out with, and they won't be "out to get you" on a regular basis. They just have for the most part different opinions of the world, like thinking eating humanoid flesh is perfectly fine, that there is nothing wrong with killing an unarmed enemy or putting down weak and deformed offspring, and that if they want something that doesn't belong to them, they should be able to keep it if they can manage to overpower whoever has it or take it without being noticed. 
> 
> These characters have no interest in making life miserable for the rest of the world, they can easily be friends and allies with neutral and good characters, particularly if they have a common goal like a larger Evil threat. The Predators from Alien Vs Predator franchise could be a good example of evil. Their society is so far removed from our own that they have no problems in hunting humans for sport, but they only hunt capable combat-worthy humans, avoid humans who are unarmed, sick, or pregnant, and are willing and able to fight alongside humans towards a common goal if in the presence of a greater threat such as the Xenomorphs from the "Aliens" franchise, or the "Super Predators" in the "Predators" film. They can honour and respect Humans if they prove themselves capable warriors, but a lot of what they do might be seen as weird or unacceptable on our terms. 
> 
> So a Paladin travelling around with Sauron or Emporor Palpatine sure, that's not going to work. But a Paladin travelling around with a dude who just sees meat as meat no matter the source, has no problems looting the dead, and who has a bit of a problem grasping the concept of "Private property"? Sure, that could work. They could travel together fine and even get along well with one another for the most part.


Eh... You lost me at the Predator example. 

If you know that saving your team mate means they will commit at least one murder in the future, then any character whose morality is more important to them than pragmatism (and who cares about murder) is going to be bothered. And then perhaps not heal them or let them die in a fight, or even say 'its me or them - I won't make it easy for you to compromise with evil just out of convenience'. If we have to be a team of six against the apocalypse, why not drop the monster and we'll just get another of my brothers from the church to help?

If it's harms that can be reversed it might be okay - the habitual thief steals, the paladin leaves gold for damages, it's annoying but maybe fine. 

Really, the characters who are problematic are those who are in any way compelled. Any character who, in a given situation can lead their player to saying 'I have no choice, I must act this way' is a potential problem for a group.

In that sense Sauron or Palpatine might even be okay, if they can put the current events over their pursuit of power, and if they can present themselves as capable of compromise and generally follow their agreements. As long as they don't compulsively betray, control, etc, but do so when it flows naturally or when situations are already inherently grey.

There's a Sauron/Taylor Wormfic called Ringmaker iirc that does this well, dipping in and out of acceptable evil, with different characters having different lines for that at which they break away or come back.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

> 'I have no choice, I must act this way' is a potential problem for a group.


That's your problem then. No character should -ever- be saying this unless they are under direct mind control or something.

Your alignment is a reflection of your actions. You are not being FORCED to do ANYTHING by your alignment.


Saw a video today about Anti-heroes and the hunter from "The Fox and the Hound" and i think he might also make a good case for an "evil" character. From his perspective he's just trying to live his best life on his own with his dogs, then this fox comes in, appears to attack his chickens, and the hunter (Amos Slade) attempts to defend them. He then gives the motive "if that fox is ever on my property again i'll kill him for sure", and when the Fox goes onto his land a 2nd time, he does indeed attempt to kill him. This time though, as a direct result of the Fox's actions, one of his dogs gets badly hurt / dies (depending on if in movie or book), and now he's out for a personal vendetta. But later when that very same Fox saves him from a Bear, and his own Dog tries to spare the Fox, he relents and returns home without completing his mission. When he's not on a personal vendetta against wildlife however, he's still just a normal agreeable human with a temper, he's even able to hold a civil relationship with the neighbour who raised said fox.

I think a lot of "Anti-Villains" like him could theoretically fit the match of "evil", and thus be okay for a good or neutral party to travel with without going into full-blown "Evil" territory.

----------


## NichG

> That's your problem then. No character should -ever- be saying this unless they are under direct mind control or something.


It's a player problem - even if its not me thinking that, someone else at the table having that attitude may cause a problem for me via the group. And its not specific to alignment, though alignment often reveals that this sort of attitude exists. I had a player play a character once who basically 'could not let any insult or slight go unpunished, period'. Not in a system with alignments or morality scores or anything like that. Just, this was this player's image of their character (and really it was a bit of a reflection of the player too), and it was so inviolable they basically at one point slaughtered their sister's honor guard because when they flew up at high speed without identifying themselves to approach their sister's ship and made a demand, the crew opened fire rather than immediately capitulating.

Compulsive characters are a popular trope, because they're easy to make distinctive and its easy to have things to do to show the character. Compulsive truth teller, compulsive moralist, compulsive gambler, drug addict character, compulsive rebel, etc. But it can be a trap.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I mean if players have personal issues with other players and/or DM because they're being jerks then yes that can be a problem.

----------


## Tanarii

> Saw a video today about Anti-heroes and the hunter from "The Fox and the Hound" and i think he might also make a good case for an "evil" character.


Just because he's a Disney antagonist doesn't mean he is a D&D something evil character.

Nor, conversely, are Disney protagonists automatically D&D something good characters.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

> Just because he's a Disney antagonist doesn't mean he is a D&D something evil character.
> 
> Nor, conversely, are Disney protagonists automatically D&D something good characters.



Question: ...what?

A) i never said they would be, B) i was using him as an example of what an "evil" character would be like. C) I'm not... entirely sure what you're trying to say here? :Small Confused:

----------


## Tanarii

> Question: ...what?
> 
> A) i never said they would be, B) i was using him as an example of what an "evil" character would be like. C) I'm not... entirely sure what you're trying to say here?


A) Then why are you using them as an example?
B) On what basis?
C) Being a Disney antagonist is the only basis one could classify this character as "evil".  They wouldn't qualify under D&D evil from any edition I know of, so I assumed that was the basis.

I'm using the term antagonist, because villain seems like an inappropriate word to use in this case.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

> A) Then why are you using them as an example?
> B) On what basis?
> C) Being a Disney antagonist is the only basis one could classify this character as "evil".  They wouldn't qualify under D&D evil from any edition I know of, so I assumed that was the basis.
> 
> I'm using the term antagonist, because villain seems like an inappropriate word to use in this case.


A) Because that's how examples work. you take thing A and equate them to thing B in order to make an explanation. That's what the whole "Fold a paper in half and poke a hole through it to explain how wormholes work" thing is about.
B) On the basis that he is Against general society but can still be a fair and agreeable person under certain conditions. He's not trying to take over the world or bring flowers to the land or anything like that, he's just a guy living on his farm and protecting his property with violent means that most people might disagree with. evil, but not Evil.
C. it was not. See B.

----------


## Tanarii

> evil, but not Evil.


So a personal real world definition of evil, not related to  alignments?

Edit: Even if I believed in real world good/evil, I'd have trouble placing this guy in the category of evil.

----------


## OldTrees1

> A) Then why are you using them as an example?
> B) On what basis?
> C) Being a Disney antagonist is the only basis one could classify this character as "evil".  They wouldn't qualify under D&D evil from any edition I know of, so I assumed that was the basis.
> 
> I'm using the term antagonist, because villain seems like an inappropriate word to use in this case.


1) The missing context might be useful to the discussion:
Anti-villains are also villains.
"a character with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues who is ultimately the villain."

The video Draconi Redfir mentioned in passing describes the hunter antagonist from The Fox and the Hound as an anti villain.

2) The example was about "I have no choice, I must act this way" not being about alignment.
The point of the example was some alignment systems are not prescriptive. They used the mildly evil Hunter as an example by showcasing when the Hunter had the choice to relent from the personal vendetta.

Although the point of the post is a bit superfluous considering the person they were replying to (NichG) agreed before the post.

3) Lowercase "evil"
I suspect this time the lowercase indicates milder severity.


Sidenotes (not worth turning into subthreads):
The movie focuses on the evils of revenge.
This thread is about alignment, not exclusively D&D nor D&D RAW.
D&D 3.5 does indicate there is an alignment difference between justice and vengeance.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

> So a personal real world definition of evil, not related to  alignments?
> 
> Edit: Even if I believed in real world good/evil, I'd have trouble placing this guy in the category of evil.


i don't think I'm saying any of that, it kind of sounds like you're trying to say "Don't put non-D&D characters onto the alignment square chart" or something? Can't say i understand that but i feel like it's not super relevant.


I'm mainly trying to say here is "You can be evil and still work with and cooperate with neutral and good people. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're Evil, you can still be an okay and agreeable person, you just have some different views on society then most people. If you want an example of what this might look like, Amos Slade, the hunter from "The Fox and the Hound" could be a good case-study of this, as well as potentially any other anti-villains you may encounter in fiction. Evil and evil are different things. Evil is like Palpatine or Sauron, wanting to destroy or rule over everything. evil is more like Amos Slade, who is just against or otherwise disagrees with some aspect of society in general."

I'm not saying "Amos Slade is this alignment", I'm saying "If you want an example of this alignment, i think Amos Slade fits the general definition".





> *snip*



Also all of this ^ Thank you for putting this into words i couldn't.

----------


## Tanarii

> I'm not saying "Amos Slade is this alignment", I'm saying "If you want an example of this alignment, i think Amos Slade fits the general definition".


Okay.  In that case, I wholeheartedly disagree.  But because retroactively assigning alignments to fictional character doesn't work well even generally, I will phrase my disagreement as: I could play a large number of neutral characters to behave something quite like Amos Slade but can't see myself ever playing even a small-e-evil character to behave something like Amos Slade.  The character doesn't display any behavior I would consider to fit with the typical but not consistent associated behaviors for the evil alignments, so I'd find it unlikely that using those behaviors as motivations I'd ever end up at something like character.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Okay.  In that case, I wholeheartedly disagree.  But because retroactively assigning alignments to fictional character doesn't work well even generally, I will phrase my disagreement as: I could play a large number of neutral characters to behave something quite like Amos Slade but can't see myself ever playing even a small-e-evil character to behave something like Amos Slade.  The character doesn't display any behavior I would consider to fit with the typical but not consistent associated behaviors for the evil alignments, so I'd find it unlikely that using those behaviors as motivations I'd ever end up at something like character.


From what I understand of your motivational alignment system, this makes sense and is not surprising.


It has been a while since I watched The Fox and the Hound, but what I remember matches the video's premise that Amos Slade is an Anti-Villain. Such a character is generally defined by when typically heroic behaviors & traits result in villainous behavior. The main consistent associated behavior for evil alignment would be the treatment of the Fox and later Revenge (misplaced to boot) against the Fox. However even then Amos does reconsider and relent eventually. So under your alignment system I would expect neutral motivational alignment would be the closest to producing a character like Amos. (I would also assume most Anti Villains to borrow associated behaviors from both the good & neutral lists despite their villainy).

----------


## Pauly

Re: Evil characters  in an otherwise good party.
Generally I think its a bad idea, but there are some examples of situations where it can work.

The Shadow/Solomon Kane. Both of these characters would set off a Paladins detect evil like a Christmas tree. However despite their evil nature both characters they are driven to seek redemption and are committed to doing good to atone for their pasts.
The Punisher/Dexter. Both are fighting evil with evil. 
Harry Flashman. As long as having the party succeed saves his skin hell whatever it takes to survive. The instant the balance shifts to selling out the party though  You wouldnt want Harry in your long term campaign, but he could be very useful in a one shot.

----------


## Witty Username

> Re: Evil characters  in an otherwise good party.
> Generally I think its a bad idea, but there are some examples of situations where it can work.
> 
> The Shadow/Solomon Kane. Both of these characters would set off a Paladins detect evil like a Christmas tree. However despite their evil nature both characters they are driven to seek redemption and are committed to doing good to atone for their pasts.
> The Punisher/Dexter. Both are fighting evil with evil. 
> Harry Flashman. As long as having the party succeed saves his skin hell whatever it takes to survive. The instant the balance shifts to selling out the party though  You wouldnt want Harry in your long term campaign, but he could be very useful in a one shot.


I would add the penitent, a character that is evil in the now but has begun to drift in the direction of good. Evil may take the form of vindictiveness, cynicism, or uncontrolled impulse, but the cause is just (or at least benign). The idea would be that the character would become neutral or good at some point, but not start there.
Catra from She-Ra is on the brain, but Captain Cold and Heat Wave from DC Legends of Tomorrow, or debatably Estinien from FF14 also fit.

That may also be a situation for GM adjudication being a positive, as the character's shifting alignment may be better handled by dialog than a personal take of the player.

Also, the weapon, a PC that is under control of the party by force, but are effective in a way the party needs to maintain the alliance. Suicide Squad archetypes, it could invite too much party conflict for some groups but it is definitely fun when everyone is on board.

----------


## Satinavian

> Catra from She-Ra is on the brain.


You can go significantly further than Catra. Even Shadow Weaver from the same franchise would work.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Ban evil players, not evil characters.


Those two sets overlap somewhat.  :Small Wink: 



> 1) "a character with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues who is ultimately the villain."


 Using a Hunter as a villain requires an anti-humancentric attitude or frame of reference.  Hunting is normal human behavior particularly in the pre modern era that most D&D settings are positioned as. 


> The example was about "I have no choice, I must act this way" not being about alignment.


 It's about a potentially troublesome player. 



> Re: Evil characters  in an otherwise good party.
> Generally I think its a bad idea


Yes, with rare exceptions in the hands of skilled players.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Using a Hunter as a villain requires an anti-humancentric attitude or frame of reference.


Off topic. This is not about a generic "Hunter" in their role as a hunter. The fact we refer to them as "the hunter" is merely convenience for those, like myself, that did not learn their name decades ago.

The video was examining the hunter from The Fox and the Hound that happens to fit the anti-villain trope.  Considering their antagonistic role is a cautionary tale about revenge, I don't think we need to abandon the humancentric frame of reference to see the anti-villainy.

If we did abandon the humancentric frame of reference and think about the consequences of the animals being people but not recognized as people by hunters, then it would be too easy to draw parallels between hunters and Mind Flayers.




> The example was about "I have no choice, I must act this way" not being about alignment.
> 			
> 		
> 
> It's about a potentially troublesome player.


Yes

Well, technically Amos was used as a counter example. Amos demonstrated they had a choice. This demonstrates the "I have no choice, I must act this way" is about a potentially troublesome player and not inherently about alignment.

However both the speaker and the listener already agreed before the post was made. Nitpicking the precise wording of the post clarifying the timeline is a bit unecessary?

----------


## Satinavian

> Yes, with rare exceptions in the hands of skilled players.


Some bare minimum of player skill is needed, sure.

But honestly, i wouldn't want to play anything with a player who is not even able to play an evil character in a good group without causing issues.

----------


## Draconi Redfir

> However both the speaker and the listener already agreed before the post was made. Nitpicking the precise wording of the post clarifying the timeline is a bit unecessary?


Yeah, i was more trying to add to the discussion rather then argue with the person i was agreeing with. Posting my comment about the hunter in a separate paragraph was intended to show that it was unrelated to the sentence above it, sorry if that didn't come out clearer. I just saw the video shortly after arguing a case for "Lowercase-e evil is different from uppercase-E Evil" and thought "This would make a good addition to that."

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The Fox and the Hound


 A crap film; I was subjected to the entire library of Disney films on VHS as my kids grew up in the 90's.

----------


## gbaji

> Some bare minimum of player skill is needed, sure.
> 
> But honestly, i wouldn't want to play anything with a player who is not even able to play an evil character in a good group without causing issues.


To be fair. Correctly played, they should "cause issues", but the issues should be positive RP opportunities, not pure disruption for disruptions sake. Unfortunately, many players do assume that if their character is "evil" that automatically means they are an antagonist to the rest of the party and will play it that way. But there are a lot of ways an evil character can fit into a party, work with them, care about them, and bleed with/for them, while still having other evil things they do. The party rogue? Takes jobs as an assassin when they're not off adventuring with the party. The party wizard? Experiments with necromancy and demonology on the side (and maybe secretly collects "parts" during the adventure, cause why not?). The party ranger? Is actually part of a human trafficking ring that uses hidden locations in the outlands as transport depots. The party fighter? Is secretly in the employ of the evil baron guy over there, and uses adventuring as a cover to gather information on other lands, and maybe influence things to his masters benefit.

There's a ton of motivation for even evil characters to work with an adventuring party, as long as the party itself isn't going directly after them or something they are connected to. And even then, things can become "interesting". You just have to have players who get the whole "we're all trying to have fun here" concept of a gaming table and it works out just fine. It's entirely possible for PCs to have ulterior motivations or plans that don't at all conflict with the actions of the adventuring party they are working with. Quite easy actually. And even when they do, there are ways to play this out that don't devolve directly into PvP conflict.

Er. I suppose it bears mentioning that this *also* requires a GM that will allow this to work as well. I've played with GMs who, unfortunately, swing wildly in opposite directions on this. Some will encourage conflict between the party members if there is any perceived alignment conflict. So these GMs will force scenarios in which the evil characters evilness will require them to take action against the party in some way, basically setting up the evil PCs player to have to do harmful things to the rest of the party and keep those actions secret to facilitate this (basically taking "the side" of the evil character against the party). I've also seen the flip side where the GM doesn't disallow evil characters, but acts in extreme passive aggressive ways towards them. I played once with a GM who literally could not allow any PC to keep any secret from any other PC in the game, and went to sometime ludicrous lengths to ensure that any such thing would be dramatically revealed, no matter how implausible the conditions. Obviously, this environment makes it impossible to play an actually "evil" character (and was just plain annoying for playing out "harmless secrets" kind of things).


So yeah, it does requires both players and GM be on the same page for this to work properly. Well, unless you actually do want a more cutthroat PvP style game.

----------


## Tanarii

> From what I understand of your motivational alignment system, this makes sense and is not surprising.
> 
> 
> It has been a while since I watched The Fox and the Hound, but what I remember matches the video's premise that Amos Slade is an Anti-Villain. Such a character is generally defined by when typically heroic behaviors & traits result in villainous behavior. The main consistent associated behavior for evil alignment would be the treatment of the Fox and later Revenge (misplaced to boot) against the Fox. However even then Amos does reconsider and relent eventually. So under your alignment system I would expect neutral motivational alignment would be the closest to producing a character like Amos. (I would also assume most Anti Villains to borrow associated behaviors from both the good & neutral lists despite their villainy).


That, and other non-alignment motivations might easily put them at odds with protagonist, in ways that aren't good.  Especially (in 5e personality trait terms) Bonds or Flaws. Or they might put them on the same side as the protagonist.

This holds just as true for Good characters of course.

But if those other motivations result in regular and consistent behavior that lines up with another Alignments typical associated behavior, the player would do well to consider changing their alignment.  Occasional conflict between traits and alignment is appropriate and often an awesome thing for a game.  But consistent conflict that results in behavior that maps more to a different alignment probably indicates something is out of whack with the motivation for alignment.

----------


## Pauly

> Some bare minimum of player skill is needed, sure.
> 
> But honestly, i wouldn't want to play anything with a player who is not even able to play an evil character in a good group without causing issues.


Lets take a basic example of the players capturing an enemy. The good path as agreed to by the rest of the party is to escort the prisoner to jail at considerable inconvenience to the party.

The evil players alignment appropriate responses include
- killing the prisoner
- torturing the prisoner for information
- letting the prisoner go for the lolz.
- complain incessantly about how escorting the prisoner is a stupid idea.
- leave the party and try to solo the rest of the mission.

If the evil character just goes along with the partys plan without causing any disruption the player really isnt roleplaying evil. Maybe a player might give some post hoc justification about being in deep cover or something, but the reality is that theyve decided to get along with the rest of the players rather than play their character.

----------


## NichG

Characters do what they do, and if that leans evil they get an E. A player shouldn't feel obligated to try to enact their character's written or assigned alignment. There can be an alignment associated with a response, but there are no 'appropriate responses' for a character of a given alignment. That's the route that does tend to inevitably lead to problems.

No reason your pro-debtor-slavery character for whom the cruelty is the point should feel obligated to kill a prisoner the party wants to transport.

----------


## OldTrees1

> LetÂs take a basic example of the players capturing an enemy. The ÂgoodÂ path as agreed to by the rest of the party is to escort the prisoner to jail at considerable inconvenience to the party.
> 
> The evil playerÂs alignment appropriate responses include
> - killing the prisoner
> - torturing the prisoner for information
> - letting the prisoner go for the lolz.
> - complain incessantly about how escorting the prisoner is a stupid idea.
> - leave the party and try to solo the rest of the mission.
> 
> If the evil character just goes along with the partyÂs plan without causing any disruption the player really isnÂt roleplaying evil. Maybe a player might give some post hoc justification about being in deep cover or something, but the reality is that theyÂve decided to get along with the rest of the players rather than play their character.


An evil character can be okay with, or even enthusiastically argue for, the prisoner being escorted to jail.

1) Evil characters can, and often do, make moral judgements. For example they can believe: The law enforcement system is an important foundation of society. Sure sometimes it is inconvenient to do things by the law, but having a strong law enforcement system is worth the inconvenience due to the undesirable behaviors it oppresses. (Hopefully you noticed the authoritarian vibes)

2) Evil characters can have standards. Just because a cruel murderer has standards that they only hunt wild prey, it does not make them non evil. If the prey successfully achieves asylum with the party (becomes captured) then they will be sent to jail.

3) Evil characters can compromise. They can accept prisoners going to jail if they benefit from associating with the party. Up to and including "I don't want the world to be destroyed. That's where I keep all my stuff.".


No. A character that is evil has many appropriate responses to the party wanting to jail a prisoner, including taking the prisoner to jail.

----------


## gbaji

> Lets take a basic example of the players capturing an enemy. The good path as agreed to by the rest of the party is to escort the prisoner to jail at considerable inconvenience to the party.
> 
> The evil players alignment appropriate responses include
> - killing the prisoner
> - torturing the prisoner for information
> - letting the prisoner go for the lolz.
> - complain incessantly about how escorting the prisoner is a stupid idea.
> - leave the party and try to solo the rest of the mission.
> 
> If the evil character just goes along with the partys plan without causing any disruption the player really isnt roleplaying evil. Maybe a player might give some post hoc justification about being in deep cover or something, but the reality is that theyve decided to get along with the rest of the players rather than play their character.


Disagree 100% Why would the evil character want, much less feel required, to do any of those things? If this is an "enemy", he's an enemy to the evil character too, right (barring some other secret subplot we aren't aware of)? Having the enemy hauled off to jail and therefore out of his hair benefits the evil character in the party just as much as the good ones. 

Let's assume that the evil character has some reason he's travelling with the party and adventuring with them. Some common goal/quest/whatever. Evil doesn't mean "impatient" or "stupid". He's not going to jeopardize that just for the thrill of killing someone. Torture? Why? Not every evil character wants or needs or desires to torture people, again, doubly so if that may cause harm to some other larger purpose (again, we're assuming there's a reason he's with the party). Maybe he doesn't care what this guy knows, but just wants him "gone". Certainly, if he had an opportunity to kill the person during the fight, maybe he would take it. Again though, not every "evil" character is a mindless killer or something.

Letting the prisoner go? Why? Again, evil does not mean "stupid". If this is  an enemy captured in the course of the adventure, and there's some value to having the person removed from whatever is going on, then he'd just go along with it. Certainly not let him go.

The complaining thing is valid, but irrelevant. Good PCs can RP complaining about things they'd want to do differently as well, and just as frequently. And there's no specific reason to assume, given the situation, that the evil character has any greater idea or objective about what to do with this captured enemy than the "good" idea of "take him to the law". Heck. Maybe there's a reward, and he just wants a piece of that action. Why cook the golden goose? He can work with the goodies, get rewards with less risk, and maybe take out  some of his competition along the way. Seems like it's all positives for the evil guy here.

Leave the party and solo the adventure? What? Why? Again, let's start with the base assumption that there is some in-character reason why this person is traveling with the party in the first place, and that this reason didn't magically disappear in the last 5 minutes. That's arbitrary, and frankly has zero to do with being "evil" as being an idiot. A "good" character could just as likely decide the party is delaying their critical mission and go off to do this too. Has nothing to do with alignment at all.

I see evil characters in an adventuring party as going to great lengths not to reveal their nature. They'll be model party members. Work with the team. Always helping out. They're playing the long game. Working the angles. And something had better come along that's really really amazingly awesome (like once in a lifetime, I'm promoted to overlord of the universe level stuff) for them to throw that away. Otherwise, you just have an idiot player playing like an idiot and intentionally disrupting the game.

Which, again, has little to do with the alignment they've chosen for their character. Evil does not mean "antagonist to the party". Evil characters can absolutely engage in activities that align perfectly with the same things good characters are doing. They probably want to go kill orcs and take their stuff just as much. They probably want to delve into that dungeon and get treasure just as much. The areas where the evil alignment may come in are going to be the social interaction stuff. The evil character may want the captured princess to die instead of being rescued (or maybe not, if the person doing  the kidnapping is someone he wants to eliminate and ingratiating himself to the king here may help him down the line).

I think when playing an evil character, you have to determine (as with any character) what their goals, objectives, likes, dislikes, quirks, etc are. And yeah, you obviously can't play an evil character that is just going to do random evil things, precisely because that guy would never hook up with a party of "good" characters in the first place. Somewhat by design, any evil character in a party has to be the sort that is hiding and biding his time, and engaging in various "evil things" on his own time, and on the side, when he can safely get away with it.

And those things very rarely actually cause disruption at the table. Even when the are at cross purposes, they will appear to be things "someone else" did, that causes some new problem to solve, or negative situation that affects them, or the area they are in. Evil character secretly kills someone in town for <hopefully good reason>. Party may be aware of this. It may impact  them in some way. But it's not a conflict because they don't know the other PC did it. It's just additional background of "things going on around you". Again. Why on earth would the evil PC deliberately pick exactly the actions most likely to get him killed? That's not "evil". That's just "dumb".

----------


## hamishspence

> Evil characters can absolutely engage in activities that align perfectly with the same things good characters are doing. They probably want to go kill orcs and take their stuff just as much. They probably want to delve into that dungeon and get treasure just as much.


If you go by the DMG's "random NPCs with PC class levels"  tables and take them as representative of "rival adventuring parties" then 50% of Adventurers are Evil.

----------


## Witty Username

> No. A character that is evil has many appropriate responses to the party wanting to jail a prisoner, including taking the prisoner to jail.


As long as I get paid I'm happy is a simple enough explanation to explain alot of evil character behavior.

Good, Neutral and Evil can fly under the radar if not tested, OOTS had a gag on this pretty early on where no one really knew anyone's alignments for awhile simply because it didn't come up much in the dungeon crawl.

Evil is self serving, but not necessarily at the cost of others when there are better ways.
Good is altruistic, but not at the expense of the self, unless necessary.
Neutral is defined by not fitting clearly into other alignments, so it can be hard to pin down outside of extreme situations.

----------


## Satinavian

> Lets take a basic example of the players capturing an enemy. The good path as agreed to by the rest of the party is to escort the prisoner to jail at considerable inconvenience to the party.


If the party _agreed_ to do something, nearly all evil PCs will keep that agreement. Time to disagree was the prior discussion and if it were really that inconvenient, PCs, evil or not, might have voiced an objection here.

Most things in the list are similar to saying :

"A chaotic character would free the prisoner because freedom is above all"
"A good character would free the prisoner because of pity/because to give them a chance of redemption"

or they were not actually playing chaotic or good.

Well, this is just not how it works.

----------


## Vahnavoi

You lot are dancing around an issue that was explicitly dealt with by 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, the part where Gygax gives hints and tips for new players for how to play as a party. That part explicitly lays out what kind of Evil and selfish Neutral characters can be expected to fit in a party, and which kind cannot. It also makes the same observation of unco-operative Good and "Good" characters. Differing alignments are an obvious source of conflict between characters, but there is no single alignment that is impossible to work with, nor is co-operation guaranteed by characters having the same one.

The idea that characters of differing alignments can act in ways that perfectly align is still false, though, it is so both in practice and by definition. Any argument of that sort requires equivocation or recasting of alignment differences as something else. Shortly: any case where two characters act in perfectly aligned manner is an argument for those two characters being of the same alignment. Duh. Any case where two characters end up in conflict because their behaviors and values are opposed is an argument for those characters being of different alignments. Also duh. These are actual basics of the system. They are what the plain English word of "alignment" imply even outside D&D context.

Moving on:




> It's a player problem - even if its not me thinking that, someone else at the table having that attitude may cause a problem for me via the group. And its not specific to alignment, though alignment often reveals that this sort of attitude exists. I had a player play a character once who basically 'could not let any insult or slight go unpunished, period'. Not in a system with alignments or morality scores or anything like that. Just, this was this player's image of their character (and really it was a bit of a reflection of the player too), and it was so inviolable they basically at one point slaughtered their sister's honor guard because when they flew up at high speed without identifying themselves to approach their sister's ship and made a demand, the crew opened fire rather than immediately capitulating.
> 
> Compulsive characters are a popular trope, because they're easy to make distinctive and its easy to have things to do to show the character. Compulsive truth teller, compulsive moralist, compulsive gambler, drug addict character, compulsive rebel, etc. But it can be a trap.


You left out one: Rule-like absolute character traits are popular because they are the easiest way to remember to play a role at all. A lot of reasons why "it can be a trap" is only because some hobbyists are actively hostile to it and other "baby steps" approaches to roleplaying.

The major thing, in context of this thread, is the concept of "the party" as the actual operative unit of a game, instead of players or their characters. That is: the point of the game is for "the party" to do things and thus any uncompromising traits of individual characters that get in the way of "the party" are undesirable.

The funny thing is that this mindset has an alignment in D&D terms, but it is not Good as opposed to Evil. It is Lawful as opposed to Chaotic - organized group versus the individual. A lot of the ideas commonly thrown around about how players and their characters should behave demand that players toe the Party line like it's 1984.

The tragedy is that it's often quite pointlessly fighting an uphill battle. If players want to play uncompromising individual characters, it's possible to just build a roleplaying game on that and the resulting conflict between characters. There's more than one way out of the trap, and at least one of them does not require doing away with what you call "compulsive" characters.




> Characters do what they do, and if that leans evil they get an E. A player shouldn't feel obligated to try to enact their character's written or assigned alignment. There can be an alignment associated with a response, but there are no 'appropriate responses' for a character of a given alignment. That's the route that does tend to inevitably lead to problems.
> 
> No reason your pro-debtor-slavery character for whom the cruelty is the point should feel obligated to kill a prisoner the party wants to transport.


This dances around the issue of self-motivation and self-prescription. If I am the one who made a character and I am the one who described them as Evil, then I have an emotional self-obligation for them to act Evil. Not doing so means I never actually achieve playing the character I said I would play.

This is not unique to alignment, you can replace "Evil" above with any other descriptive term - for example, if I describe my character as an alcoholic but never touch alcohol during a game, ever, what grounds did I have for that description in the first place? Even more, this kind of incongruity isn't something that's just in my head, it's visible to every other player who understands what the descriptive terms mean.

The issue is compounded by demand for contrast. That is: Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos or any other juxtaposing pair) is defined by and made visible through opposition. So if a Good character backs up a plan to do a thing explicitly because it is the right thing to do, then that alone give player of an Evil character a reason to oppose them, because Evil is defined by by backing up the wrong thing to do.

This naturally leads to people playing Evil as impulsive and short-sighted - that is, as "impatient" or "stupid", because in the real world around us there is a widespread conflation between morality and thinking in the long term, or "acting smart". Having reviewed a lot of arguments on the issue, I have to conclude that hobbyists who fight against his instinct are purposelessly tilting at windmills. "Evil" is not rational self-interest. Even in real life, high-functioning psychopaths who can put up a front of being respectable members of society while secretly committing atrocities are a minority rare. Most immoral and amoral people are, by contrast, insufferable and poorly tolerated by others. The groups they form between themselves are often toxic, dysfunctional and kept together by threats and use of violence. The evils they commit frequently are impulsive and lead to long-term detriment of both themselves and others. They actually do the kind of things that would lead to themselves being killed, or jailed, or exiled etc., because they don't think that far ahead or just don't care about the consequences on themselves. Their "whys" are often extremely straightforward and intuitive: why did they do the "dumb" thing? Because it felt good in the moment. Why did they hurt you even if it will hurt them as well later down the line? Because they hate your face and don't give a damn about "later down the line".

Most players play the most realistic "Evil" characters they can when you just allow them to play normally, without thinking or caring too much about the consequences for their fictional characters, nevermind "the party". It just so happens that this natural, banal Evil is not conductive to 100% unproblematic smooth-sailing party play. This is not, however, an "inevitable" problem. It doesn't have to be a problem at all. Again, there's more than one way out of the trap. In this case, the simplest way is for a game master to simply pass the ball to the players themselves and tell the players that if they want their characters to function as a group, each and every one of them must individually play in a way that is conductive to functioning as a group, and they live or die by that. That involves characters punishing each other for breaking conduct, or rewarding each other for jobs well done, so on and so forth, as opposed to a game master babysitting them and trying to make them conform to external expectation of group play above and beyond what the game rules require.

----------


## Satinavian

I don't really care much about Gygax ideas of alignments. Gygax brought us "nits making lice". Gygax brought us "A paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide". And he is also somewhat responsible for alignment languages.

D&D has moved away quite a lot from Gygax' ideas about alignment and is the better for it.




> Most players play the most realistic "Evil" characters they can when you just allow them to play normally, without thinking or caring too much about the consequences for their fictional characters, nevermind "the party".


Players with evil characters general don't built a character around the concept of Evil and try to shoehorn them into a party. They build a character for the party and then, when putting down alignment, they look at the 9 options and choose one of the evil ones as the best fit for their existing concept.

----------


## NichG

> You left out one: Rule-like absolute character traits are popular because they are the easiest way to remember to play a role at all. A lot of reasons why "it can be a trap" is only because some hobbyists are actively hostile to it and other "baby steps" approaches to roleplaying.


'It can be a trap' in the sense that you're forcing yourself to commit to follow through with any mistakes you made in conceiving the character and matching it to the game at hand. By viewing your character as 'if they didn't fulfill this compulsion, they would not be that person', you're eschewing agency that could be used to adapt to changing or unexpected circumstances. It's the same kind of trap as 'writing yourself into a corner'. You could have chosen to think of your character in other terms, which would make it easier to see ways around sticking points that emerge. 




> This dances around the issue of self-motivation and self-prescription. If I am the one who made a character and I am the one who described them as Evil, then I have an emotional self-obligation for them to act Evil. Not doing so means I never actually achieve playing the character I said I would play.
> 
> This is not unique to alignment, you can replace "Evil" above with any other descriptive term - for example, if I describe my character as an alcoholic but never touch alcohol during a game, ever, what grounds did I have for that description in the first place? Even more, this kind of incongruity isn't something that's just in my head, it's visible to every other player who understands what the descriptive terms mean.


Basically I'm saying: don't do this. Rather than playing the game as 'I'm going to say what I will do, then do it', just skip the first bit and 'do what you will do'.

----------


## Vahnavoi

> I don't really care much about Gygax ideas of alignments.


Gygax will stop being relevant once people stop recycling concepts defined by Gygax and having problems Gygax already told them how to solve. Not like everything Gygax said should not stop even you from noticing that what he said about the very issue at hand is still applicable.




> Players with evil characters general don't built a character around the concept of Evil and try to shoehorn them into a party. They build a character for the party and then, when putting down alignment, they look at the 9 options and choose one of the evil ones as the best fit for their existing concept.


The part you quoted does not actually care about any of that. The claim was that most player play most realistic "Evil" characters when they are allowed to act on impulse without caring too much about the consequences. I made no claim of how people generally go about building "Evil" characters.

---




> 'It can be a trap' in the sense that you're forcing yourself to commit to follow through with any mistakes you made in conceiving the character and matching it to the game at hand. By viewing your character as 'if they didn't fulfill this compulsion, they would not be that person', you're eschewing agency that could be used to adapt to changing or unexpected circumstances. It's the same kind of trap as 'writing yourself into a corner'. You could have chosen to think of your character in other terms, which would make it easier to see ways around sticking points that emerge.


I don't disagree; if I spot players doing this, I can probably recite from memory a spoof Sartre that ends with telling that player to embrace their radical freedom and do something different.

The trick, though, is that the player arguing 'if they didn't fulfill this compulsion, they would not be that person' is not wrong. Personality is defined by persistent or at least long-term character traits, and by extension, so are roleplaying characters. The only way to play someone who is not you is to have rule-like statements about what their personality is and how they would act in hypothetical situations. For any character, there is a point were shirking from those statements means breaking character, and any reasonable player would acknowledge this means the person of their character has changed, or is changing.

Psychological resistance to changing the person you're playing may work out to nothing more than a sunk costs fallacy, but it's still worth recognizing that the choice is between playing different persons, or roles.




> 'Basically I'm saying: don't do this. Rather than playing the game as 'I'm going to say what I will do, then do it', just skip the first bit and 'do what you will do'.


You are skipping a step: in order to play someone who is not you, any human will have to think what they do before they do it.

Furthermore, the advice is genuinely quite difficult to follow in any game that begins with character creation. Character creation is fundamentally a player thinking of what they will do and how they will act in a game.

It's possible to avoid voicing any of it aloud, but in a multiplayer game, there's a clear function to communicating such intent. It's about setting expectations and then showing you can actually follow through. You can't achieve that by doing whatever and letting other people worry about it.

----------


## Satinavian

> Gygax will stop being relevant once people stop recycling concepts defined by Gygax and having problems Gygax already told them how to solve. Not like everything Gygax said should not stop even you from noticing that what he said about the very issue at hand is still applicable.


If i ever find any advice from Gygax that is actually useful for any of my groups, i might reevaluate him. But so far i really don't consider him an authority for how roleplaying or groups work best.
It is not his fault. We now have many decades of experience and have seen the results of many games doing different things. He didn't.





> The part you quoted does not actually care about any of that. The claim was that most player play most realistic "Evil" characters when they are allowed to act on impulse without caring too much about the consequences. I made no claim of how people generally go about building "Evil" characters.


I disagree.

Evil is neither about being dumb nor about being impulsive. Nothing in the alignment description hints this way and many of the common evil archetypes (the evil scheemer, or the mastermind, the overlord ) are just the exact opposite.

None of the alignments are linked to intelligence or ability for long term planning (or the lack of it). If anything you might make some weak argument about Chaos being about impulsive, whimful behavior, but surely not Evil.

----------


## Vahnavoi

You are not disagreeing with what I actually argued, then. You are simply performing the same tilting at windmills I was criticizing. I know the rules decouple cognitive ability (intelligence, wisdom, charisma) from alignment and personality and I know there are fictional archetypes for "smart Evil" characters. None of that debunks what I argued for, because game rules don't define what people see as amoral or immoral behaviour in real life, nor do they define what players can realistically play. Abstract game rules are capable of decoupling character traits that go together in real life, leading to characters that are unrealistic or even unplayable.

It's real life where thinking two steps ahead and having concern for others is considered moral, and short-sighted selfishness is considered immoral, and that reflects in behaviours and choices made by players. It's real life where we see a notable overlap between what is considered immoral, and impulsive behaviour getting people jailed, killed etc.. It's real life where most people have no insight as to what being an "evil genius" or a "mastermind" would be like, but are perfectly capable of acting impulsively to mimic short-sighted pettiness,violence and cruelty.

----------


## Satinavian

Eh, discussion of real life and morality only gets into banned topics. I won't do that.

This discussion is only about game alignment, not real life morality. And only about fictional people, be it PCs or figures from other media, but never real people.

----------


## Vahnavoi

The players around a table are real people, and you have to be willing to talk about their real capabilities if you want to argue what they can or cannot realistically play. But, for the record, the same thing happens in fiction and is very visible when talking about D&D fantasy novels in particular. For example, for Dragon Lance characters, we often have official character sheets for the villains, with game mechanically appropriate high scores for Intelligence, Wisdom etc. for Evil Clerics and the like. But then, when you actually go and read the books, the same characters act in short-sighted, petty, cruel and self-sabotaging ways, and don't come off as particularly intelligent or wise.

Rich Burlew effectively made a joke on the same topic in Order of the Stick, with an early strip where Belkar suddenly becomes a better person after having Owl's Wisdom cast on him.

The simplest explanation for both is that in real life, the authors and the audience members see wise and intelligent decisions as moral also, and immorality as both unwise and unintelligent. And that trickles to how they treat characters in D&D fiction, no matter if the rules insist these things are uncorrelated.

You can, probably, find Rich commenting on the strip and this very idea somewhere on these forums.

----------


## Batcathat

> The players around a table are real people, and you have to be willing to talk about their real capabilities if you want to argue what they can or cannot realistically play. But, for the record, the same problem happens in fiction and is very visible when talking about D&D fantasy novels in particular. For example, for Dragon Lance characters, we often have official character sheets for the villains, with game mechanically appropriate high scores for Intelligence, Wisdom etc. for Evil Clerics and the like. But then, when you actually go and read the books, the same characters act in short-sighted, petty, cruel and self-sabotaging ways, and don't come off as particularly intelligent or wise.


I think that has less to do with any views on morality or intelligence and more to do with the classic issue of authors wanting their protagonists to cleverly outwit the villains, but can't be bothered to actually think of a clever plan, so instead the villains randomly turn into idiots.

----------


## Vahnavoi

You are conflating the Idiot Ball with the Villain Ball. What sets these apart is that the latter trope often specifically carries a moral lesson about how evil is self-defeating. In case of Dragon Lance, you are also wrong. The observation is about persistent character traits in the novel fiction as contrasted with game statistics, not any particular dramatic turn. The case with Belkar is the opposite of what you're thinking of: an evil character who is consistently self-sabotaging and awful, randomly becomes less so when their Wisdom score is increased. Arguably post-Azure City character development of Belkar is a case study of someone becoming both wiser and moral moral.

----------


## NichG

> You are skipping a step: in order to play someone who is not you, any human will have to think what they do before they do it.
> 
> Furthermore, the advice is genuinely quite difficult to follow in any game that begins with character creation. Character creation is fundamentally a player thinking of what they will do and how they will act in a game.


A related error is the fixation on 'depicting a character correctly' as something of innate value, independent of the experience that the act of playing that character provides for the person or the table.

It's pretty easy to follow the advice - stop worrying about whether you're roleplaying correctly, and just learn what feels natural for that character. If you're playing a character you envisioned as an alcoholic but it never actually feels right to have them go on a night of binge drinking, listen to that intuition and see where it goes.

If you are actually interested in the possibilities of not-yourself things rather than just feeling obligated to depict something sufficiently different, you generally won't just end up playing yourself by doing this. And if you did end up playing yourself, that's not actually a disaster either.




> It's possible to avoid voicing any of it aloud, but in a multiplayer game, there's a clear function to communicating such intent. It's about setting expectations and then showing you can actually follow through. You can't achieve that by doing whatever and letting other people worry about it.


The sort of communication needed to coordinate multiplayer strategies is a metagame need and it can exist entirely at the metagame layer. If needed, the action can pause for that communication to take place.

----------


## Satinavian

> The players around a table are real people, and you have to be willing to talk about their real capabilities if you want to argue what they can or cannot realistically play.


If you want to argue "smart characters are hard to play, dumb brutes are easy to play, so people should play dumb brutes", that is 

a) questionable
b) unrelated to alignment




> What sets these apart is that the latter trope often specifically carries a moral lesson about how evil is self-defeating.


RPGs are not about teaching moral lessons.
In fact, waiting for the evil PC to fail just because "evil is self defeating" or "good always wins" is bound to run in disappointment. Tropes such as those won't happen unless the players themself want to or some heavy railroading is going on.

----------


## Vahnavoi

> A related error is the fixation on 'depicting a character correctly' as something of innate value, independent of the experience that the act of playing that character provides for the person or the table.


Who is making that error? A specific character always provides specific experiences to the person and their table that are dependent on remaining legible, acceptable and playable to the people involved. More often than not, people anguish over depicting their characters correctly because there is genuine value to be had that way, it doesn't matter if it's innate or not.

I do occasionally tell people to not worry about being correct, but 95% of the time that's because there's no benchmark, or because I know they cannot do it. Not a single word about whether correct portrayal has innate value is necessary to explain to a player that nobody is expecting is a flawless portrayal and they can do something else instead.




> It's pretty easy to follow the advice - stop worrying about whether you're roleplaying correctly, and just learn what feels natural for that character. If you're playing a character you envisioned as an alcoholic but it never actually feels right to have them go on a night of binge drinking, listen to that intuition and see where it goes.
> 
> If you are actually interested in the possibilities of not-yourself things rather than just feeling obligated to depict something sufficiently different, you generally won't just end up playing yourself by doing this.


This doesn't really pan out for practical roleplaying, or any other kind of activity either.

If I say I'm going to play an alcoholic, that is the challenge I am setting for myself - playing a character that is recognizably alcoholic both to myself and the other players in that game is benchmark for correctness, that is a tangible thing I can use to tell if I've succeeded. It's the same thing as in kendo, saying I'm going to hit my opponent's head and then actually trying to hit them in the head.

Nowhere is it given that my natural intuitions will direct me in that course. On the contrary, for most things you'd care to name, it takes a lot of conscious practice before the action becomes natural. Most things, especially for the first time you try them, will be counter-intuitive and even uncomfortable before you've had that practice. Changing your course of action at too slight resistance leads to prematurely giving up. In roleplaying games, this manifests as starting a lot of characters and then abandoning them one after another before any of them take off the ground; for the example, it might mean I never end up playing any kind of alcoholic, for kendo, it might mean I flail around and score no points. The self-prescription effect exists to get people over that.

Doing what comes naturally is great for roles a player has already internalized, but most people don't start there, and they need their cheat sheet of set character traits to get there.




> And if you did end up playing yourself, that's not actually a disaster either.


I don't consider playing as myself, or my players playing as themselves, a disaster. I consider it step one of learning how to play. Following rule-like statements of how a different person would act is step two. No-one dies by not moving onward, but it's obviously limiting in terms of scenarios and characters a player can play.




> The sort of communication needed to coordinate multiplayer strategies is a metagame need and it can exist entirely at the metagame layer. If needed, the action can pause for that communication to take place.


Stopping to say what you are going to do before your character does it, either IS concrete description of taking a pause to communicate, or what you call a "metagame" layer here is in fact just part of the game.

For contrast, there are plenty of other games, from co-operative to competitive, kendo and some variations of pool coming immediately to my mind, where announcing what you are about to do is part of the game. That can work for roleplaying all the same, especially when talking about classic tabletop format where game moves have to be processed by a game master anyway.

Either clarify what you mean by "metagame", or accept that you are drawing a distinction without a difference.

---




> If you want to argue "smart characters are hard to play, dumb brutes are easy to play, so people should play dumb brutes", that is 
> 
> a) questionable
> b) unrelated to alignment


I did not argue people should play Evil characters, so the comparison fails. For the comparison to stand, it would have to be "smart characters are hard to play, dumb brutes are easy to play, you can just let people play dumb brutes no problem". Either way, for a) you'd have to specify which claim is the one you hold questionable, and why, since there are three. B) just shows you are unwilling to engage the actual argument I made.




> RPGs are not about teaching moral lessons.


RPGs can be about that as easily as about anything else. Don't try to make statements I can contradict any time I hold a game if I want to. I was also specifically talking about non-RPG fiction in the part you quoted. No argument about what RPGs are "about" can disprove the observation I made.




> In fact, waiting for the evil PC to fail just because "evil is self defeating" or "good always wins" is bound to run in disappointment. Tropes such as those won't happen unless the players themself want to or some heavy railroading is going on.


Uh, the very point under discussion was that how people act in a game frequently reflects what they believe, so it isn't exactly rare for players to want replicate tropes. So, self-own, right there. Likewise, no matter how you feel about "heavy railroading", that is dirt common.

----------


## Satinavian

> I did not argue people should play Evil characters, so the comparison fails. For the comparison to stand, it would have to be "smart characters are hard to play, dumb brutes are easy to play, you can just let people play dumb brutes no problem". Either way, for a) you'd have to specify which claim is the one you hold questionable, and why, since there are three. B) just shows you are unwilling to engage the actual argument I made.


That is just constant goalpost moving. First you claim that evil characters, played correctly, would be impulsive and bad at long term planning and thus would likely not fit in groups. When confronted with that matching neither alignemt descriptions or many evil archetypes, it's suddenly "but players should only be playing the dumb evil archetypes, not the smart ones, because they are not smart enough". When then pointed out that holds for good characters as well and that players who can't play smart evil characters probably can't play smart good ones either, it is now doubling down on equating "evil" with "dumb" for some reason.

So again : Intelligence and evilness are not linked. Shortsightedness or impulsivity and evilness are not linked either. Any argument that boils down to "Allowing evil characters is not a good idea because their shortsighted impulsive behavior tends to hurt the group" is just wrong.



> RPGs can be about that as easily as about anything else. Don't try to make statements I can contradict any time I hold a game if I want to. I was also specifically talking about non-RPG fiction in the part you quoted. No argument about what RPGs are "about" can disprove the observation I made.


RPGs as a hobby are about entertainment and fun alone. Someone who tries to abuse is to get their personal soapbox and "teach" their players about morals is just a toxic individual that should be shown the door.



> Uh, the very point under discussion was that how people act in a game frequently reflects what they believe, so it isn't exactly rare for players to want replicate tropes. So, self-own, right there. Likewise, no matter how you feel about "heavy railroading", that is dirt common.


That is why i said it happens when the players themself want it. It takes active affort to replicate the trope. It is nothing that emerges organically.
And yes, heavy railroading happens. But the kind of GM who tries to railroad the evil PC into failure to start some redemption arc or follow the trope is the same kind of GM who railroads a Paladin into falling for better drama.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> This discussion is only about game alignment, not real life morality. And only about fictional people, be it PCs or figures from other media, but never real people.


 It is useful to stop believing in player-character-separation at about the same time one stops believing in Santa Claus.  There is an overlap, although its degree will vary with a given person's comfort of playing outside of their own experience.  (And FWIW, even among professional actors that separation, or the degree of separation, varies substantially).  



> Arguably post-Azure City character development of Belkar is a case study of someone becoming both wiser and moral moral.


 The author is trying to impart a moral lesson. It becomes rather blatant in Belkars dialogue with Durkon after the great vampire battle late in Book 6.  What is ironic, and amusing, to me is that the message can also be taken as "if you lie to yourself for long enough you'll believe it to be true" as a method of internal change. 



> RPGs are not about teaching moral lessons.


 Unsupported and wrong assertion, given the gigantic landscape (thousands of RPGs) of the RPG hobby.  There are indie games that try that; the only one I am familiar with through play is _Golden Sky Stories_. 



> In fact, waiting for the evil PC to fail just because "evil is self defeating" or "good always wins" is bound to run in disappointment.


 That's a pointless statement. The general RPG framework is that interaction and conflict within the fictional world end up with a resolution.  
You don't actually have a game if you wait for evil to self destruct, wait for the paint to dry, wait for Mr Goodbar to arrive, wait for the good fey spirit to deliver you a magic item, wait for Cthulhu to eat everyone's soul, etc.

----------


## Satinavian

> It is useful to stop believing in player-character-separation at about the same time one stops believing in Santa Claus.  There is an overlap, although its degree will vary with a given person's comfort of playing outside of their own experience.  (And FWIW, even among professional actors that separation, or the degree of separation, varies substantially).


Well, that is why i already pointed out what i think is the biggest hurdle for playing evil characters : Creating one that you actually like enough that playing them is fun, not a chore. I have seen people try evil characters and, even without disrupting the group or adventure, abandon them in disgust eventually.
That is why you get so many barely evil or "technically evil" chars. The utterly despicable characters are not something their own players can stomach.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> ... the biggest hurdle for playing evil characters : Creating one that you actually like enough that playing them is fun, not a chore.


 That is my experience as well.


> I have seen people try evil characters and, even without disrupting the group or adventure, abandon them in disgust eventually.


 I have seen more often the attempt to be evil become disruptive. The fallout from that ranges from group break up, character retirement, player leaving, and other outcomes.  I have seen evil characters played very, very well a few times. It's impressive to me when it is done well because from where I sit, it's hard to do.  (That may be my own limitation).  I've played one evil character in 5e (a cleric, Max Wilson DM) and it worked out well enough but our group was working so hard to succeed at whatever it was we were doing (Max likes to challenge the players, which is great) that alignment rarely cropped up as an issue.  


> That is why you get so many barely evil or "technically evil" chars. The utterly despicable characters are not something their own players can stomach.


 Or you get a monk who plays as a stone cold killer (I have one such player) and all around socieopath yet still asserts that his alignment is neutral.  In that particular group (a beer and pretzels game) it's not worth it to me, as a DM, to make an issue of his alignment, but I have him tracked as between LE and NE for the time being in my notes.  So far, the only close call we've had with alignment rearing its head was the White Plume Mountain adventure - but Blackrazor wasn't interested in him.

(Insofar as alignments being used descriptively, per Tanarii's position, I find it hard not to cast Monk PCs in D&D as lawful, or lawful something, based on the kind of self discipline and philosophy that the archetype is originally built from. But I won't die on a hill for that).

----------


## Keltest

> Or you get a monk who plays as a stone cold killer (I have one such player) and all around socieopath yet still asserts that his alignment is neutral.  In that particular group (a beer and pretzels game) it's not worth it to me, as a DM, to make an issue of his alignment, but I have him tracked as between LE and NE for the time being in my notes.  So far, the only close call we've had with alignment rearing its head was the White Plume Mountain adventure - but Blackrazor wasn't interested in him.
> 
> (Insofar as alignments being used descriptively, per Tanarii's position, I find it hard not to cast Monk PCs in D&D as lawful, or lawful something, based on the kind of self discipline and philosophy that the archetype is originally built from. But I won't die on a hill for that).


You can be a stone cold killer and be neutral, unless youre trying to imply that he regularly kills people unprovoked. Neutral is willing to go pretty far in defense of their immediate circle of things they care about.

----------


## Vahnavoi

> That is just constant goalpost moving. First you claim that evil characters, played correctly, would be impulsive and bad at long term planning and thus would likely not fit in groups. When confronted with that matching neither alignemt descriptions or many evil archetypes, it's suddenly "but players should only be playing the dumb evil archetypes, not the smart ones, because they are not smart enough". When then pointed out that holds for good characters as well and that players who can't play smart evil characters probably can't play smart good ones either, it is now doubling down on equating "evil" with "dumb" for some reason.


I'm not moving goal posts - you aren't even playing on the field, your disagreement being over something I didn't claim. My claim was that in real life we have abundant examples of people who are impulsive, short-sighted (etc.) and who are considered immoral for those very reasons. I then pointed out that how this affects how people interpret and play "Evil" characters, and argued that most players will play their most realistic "Evil" characters in this type. Again, the argument from game rules debunks nothing of this. The fact that, say, "evil genius" exist as an archetype allowed by game rules, does not mean "evil genius" is more realistic depiction of evil, nor that people are better at playing it realistically.

I haven't said a word about what I think about how well people play realistic "smart Good" characters. In fact, double-checking the argument, it doesn't seem like even came up until now. Unsurprisingly, I have little faith in most people's ability to play "smart Good" realistically either, but that's different from saying they shouldn't play them. Your biggest error is, again, reading a "should" statement where there is none.




> So again : Intelligence and evilness are not linked. Shortsightedness or impulsivity and evilness are not linked either.


Strictly in terms of game rules, you can be correct. In terms of what people actually think and how they act? Not so much.




> Any argument that boils down to "Allowing evil characters is not a good idea because their shortsighted impulsive behavior tends to hurt the group" is just wrong.


I specifically argued for allowing "Evil" characters who are short-sighted and impulsive whose behaviour tends to hurt their group, because a game can just be built around the conflict the cause, and a game doesn't have to be about a "group" to begin with. There are other arguments in this thread that boil to what you outline, but mine is not one of them, so stop pretending it is.




> RPGs as a hobby are about entertainment and fun alone. Someone who tries to abuse is to get their personal soapbox and "teach" their players about morals is just a toxic individual that should be shown the door.


Roleplaying games, even traditional tabletop roleplaying games where you go in a dungeon to kill monsters, can and have been used for serious pedagogic purposes. The hobby evolved from a genre of wargames that was originally made for instruction of military officers. "RPGs as a hobby are about entertainment and fun alone" is an empty mantra hobbyists chant to themselves, it's not and has never been a serious argument for keeping roleplaying games from other uses. That you can only imagine a toxic person standing on a soapbox doing this is a failure of your imagination. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be making this argument about books, movies, or video games - or if you want to stay in the realm of small group hobbies, scouting, martial arts, or Olympic sports, _all of which_ have their own morals and ethical guidelines that are taught by hobbyists to hobbyists.

The truth of using roleplaying games for morality tales is closer to scouts telling campfire stories, than anything you're thinking of. On that note, people tell morality tales to each other for fun and entertainment, you know? These aren't 100% mutually exclusive uses that never meet in practice.




> That is why i said it happens when the players themself want it. It takes active affort to replicate the trope. It is nothing that emerges organically.


On that level, nothing in a roleplaying game happens without effort, none of it emerges organically. That's a triviality, it's not an argument for or against anything specific. What does happen naturally is that people take their beliefs and existing personality into a game - as in, it's in nature of all exercises involving people. Cultural and narrative tropes are very much part and parcel of that, it is contrary to reality to argue that people don't set up their games specifically to replicate familiar tropes, including tropes pertaining to morality.




> And yes, heavy railroading happens. But the kind of GM who tries to railroad the evil PC into failure to start some redemption arc or follow the trope is the same kind of GM who railroads a Paladin into falling for better drama.


This is both unsubstantiated and a red herring. Whether or not the same kind of game masters do both is immaterial to the claims I made.

----------


## Tanarii

Making impulsive not-considering-consequences decisions without first considering pre-envisioned motivations should only lead to regular in-game-evil associated behavior on the part of the PC if the player's natural instincts when there are no real world consequences would lead to it.

Yes, that's classically/ stereotypically how you often end up with murder hobos.  But that's definitely going to a YMMV table specific thing. :)

----------


## NichG

> Who is making that error? A specific character always provides specific experiences to the person and their table that are dependent on remaining legible, acceptable and playable to the people involved. More often than not, people anguish over depicting their characters correctly because there is genuine value to be had that way, it doesn't matter if it's innate or not.


You are currently. You're using arguments that assume an agreement in core values - that roleplaying properly, or roleplaying 'well' in some abstract sense, or doing what the game tells you to are their own reward.

Whereas I'm saying that for those who still have a choice about their core values when it comes to tabletop RPGs, its better to choose to follow the path of joy and let discipline emerge if you find it joyful, than to follow the path of discipline and hope that joy will emerge as a result of 'doing it right'. Not that someone who follows the path of discipline is wrong to do so - you value what you value, in the end. But if you don't know yet and are still deciding, joy leads to a smoother experience, a nicer culture, and generally avoids this sort of dead end state where gaming ends up feeling like an obligation or a job.

You can prioritize joy and still develop skills and improve in things and so on. But you'll do so specifically in the directions where pushing those skills feels inherently good to do. And yes that means you won't learn skills that feel miserable to you work on. The mistake of talking about innate value is to assume that everyone should consider that enough of a shame to care, rather than saying 'alright, so I won't develop those skills, but I'm still having fun'.

----------


## Vahnavoi

> You are currently. You're using arguments that assume an agreement in core values - that roleplaying properly, or roleplaying 'well' in some abstract sense, or doing what the game tells you to are their own reward.
> 
> Whereas I'm saying that for those who still have a choice about their core values when it comes to tabletop RPGs, its better to choose to follow the path of joy and let discipline emerge if you find it joyful, than to follow the path of discipline and hope that joy will emerge as a result of 'doing it right'. Not that someone who follows the path of discipline is wrong to do so - you value what you value, in the end. But if you don't know yet and are still deciding, joy leads to a smoother experience, a nicer culture, and generally avoids this sort of dead end state where gaming ends up feeling like an obligation or a job.
> 
> You can prioritize joy and still develop skills and improve in things and so on. But you'll do so specifically in the directions where pushing those skills feels inherently good to do. And yes that means you won't learn skills that feel miserable to you work on. The mistake of talking about innate value is to assume that everyone should consider that enough of a shame to care, rather than saying 'alright, so I won't develop those skills, but I'm still having fun'.


I was specifically criticizing you for neglecting self-motivation as the source of the obligation you mentioned, as well as disagreeing with you on the idea that such obligation inevitably leads to problems.

The way you're trying to decouple self-motivation from feeling "inherently good" does not make a lick of sense. That sensation is the same thing that makes playing a self-chosen character correctly it's "own reward". It is concrete part of the experience playing that character brings to a table, not an abstraction. (Also, there's a children's movie, and accompanying real psychological theory, about how simple following joy and joy alone is a naive idea that isn't even healthy in the end. But that's another discussion.)

Given that, it does not make sense to talk of it as an error. More, you are trying to offer one aspect of self-motivation as solution to another aspect that you see as inevitably causing problems. But as I pointed out, often the self-obligation part only causes problems when it rams into external expectations. This can, and does, happen if there is no feeling of obligation and you're just going with the flow, doing what is joyful. So your solution does not actually solve anything, save for the cases where a person's misery is purely self-caused.

----------


## NichG

> I was specifically criticizing you for neglecting self-motivation as the source of the obligation you mentioned, as well as disagreeing with you on the idea that such obligation inevitably leads to problems.
> 
> The way you're trying to decouple self-motivation from feeling "inherently good" does not make a lick of sense. That sensation is the same thing that makes playing a self-chosen character correctly it's "own reward". It is concrete part of the experience playing that character brings to a table, not an abstraction. (Also, there's a children's movie, and accompanying real psychological theory, about how simple following joy and joy alone is a naive idea that isn't even healthy in the end. But that's another discussion.)
> 
> Given that, it does not make sense to talk of it as an error. More, you are trying to offer one aspect of self-motivation as solution to another aspect that you see as inevitably causing problems. But as I pointed out, often the self-obligation part only causes problems when it rams into external expectations. This can, and does, happen if there is no feeling of obligation and you're just going with the flow, doing what is joyful. So your solution does not actually solve anything, save for the cases where a person's misery is purely self-caused.


Never said inevitably.

But a lot of the problems I see with dysfunctional groups, bad gaming experiences, people making themselves miserable, hostile or even toxic group cultures, etc stem from an attitude of treating roleplaying as some sort of obligation, treating 'roleplaying correctly' as virtuous, or taking a deontological stance relative to the rules that 'the important thing is that we respect and follow the rules correctly'. Those stances don't 'inevitably' lead to problems, but they do tend to be brittle because they don't critically approach the question of 'Why am I doing this? Why do I actually care?'. For people already in that position of having received their values about roleplaying games externally, it can be hard to extricate themselves from that because it means actually changing how sense works - all the implicit assumptions about what constitutes an end, versus a means. 

For people who haven't gone off that cliff yet, I think its better by far to start from the feeling of the activity and to discover what the activity means to them - what's rewarding, what's unpleasant, etc. Then 'Why am I doing this? Why do I actually care?' becomes a comfortable question to live with, and when other things are pushing and saying 'no, you should do it this way' even when that's making things break, they'll be equipped with that 'why?'.

----------


## Satinavian

> I haven't said a word about what I think about how well people play realistic "smart Good" characters. In fact, double-checking the argument, it doesn't seem like even came up until now. Unsurprisingly, I have little faith in most people's ability to play "smart Good" realistically either, but that's different from saying they shouldn't play them. Your biggest error is, again, reading a "should" statement where there is none.


It came up when i talked about how your argument does not have anything to do with alignment. But yes, my bad, you didn't advise against short-sighted characters.

Ok, so let's boil it down again :
_
People have problems playing smart characters. Playing dumb ones is easier. They should go for it because those feel more realistic and the problems they cause are just a welcome source of conflict.
_
Is that the gist of it ? If yes, do you see how that is not about alignment ?




> Strictly in terms of game rules, you can be correct. In terms of what people actually think and how they act? Not so much.


Rules are something we can look up. "What people actually think" is not a foundation for a discussion because we both don't know and probably disagree if we guess. But that so many "smart evil" archetypes in fiction exist, hints pretty strongly againgst people actually thinking evil is dumb.



> Roleplaying games, even traditional tabletop roleplaying games where you go in a dungeon to kill monsters, can and have been used for serious pedagogic purposes.


I know. And that is exactly why i specified "as hobby" to exclude all this stuff.

In the hobby Roleplaying players should treat each other with respect and as equals. Someone thinking he has to teach the others something through the game is assuming to be superior in some aspect and trying to make that aspect a central, highlighted part of the common experience. That is already a red flag. Whenever someone in this forum asks how to teach their fellow players i always advise against even trying unless they explicitely asked.
Now, if the subject to be taught is morals, it gets even worse. Then we have someone assuming he is better than the other players at knowing how to be a decent person. That is incredibly insulting and i don't tolrate it at any table.




> On that level, nothing in a roleplaying game happens without effort, none of it emerges organically. That's a triviality


Sure, so let's go back to what the argument was about. Namely who makes this particular trope happen or not.

Meaning if a player of an evil PC does not actively pursue the "evil is self defeating" trope, the evil of his characters probably won't be self defeating at all. And that is fine and that is still evil. And any expectation that everytime or even somewhat often the trope gets invoked for evil PCs is just misplaced. And that is not "playing those characters wrong."

Now, could a GM try to force "evil is self defeating" even if the player does not act in the way ? Sure. By heavy railroading he can make any character fail for contrievances if he really wishes. But that is both not normal and pretty much frowned upon. And it is the very same thing as the forced paladin fall.

----------


## gbaji

I'm going to back up to what you said earlier, because I think there are some holes in there.




> The idea that characters of differing alignments can act in ways that perfectly align is still false, though, it is so both in practice and by definition. Any argument of that sort requires equivocation or recasting of alignment differences as something else. Shortly: any case where two characters act in perfectly aligned manner is an argument for those two characters being of the same alignment. Duh. Any case where two characters end up in conflict because their behaviors and values are opposed is an argument for those characters being of different alignments. Also duh. These are actual basics of the system. They are what the plain English word of "alignment" imply even outside D&D context.


I knew when I used the word "align", that someone would conflate that with "alignment" and then silliness would ensue. All I meant was that "at the time in question, the actions and decisions align". That's it. If an evil and a good person are both sick with an illness, and the cure requires obtaining some rare herb, guess what? Both are going to do the exact same thing in order to cure themselves, right? Now, the good person might want to obtain the herb and help others cure their illness as well, and the evil guy maybe only cares about curing himself, but if both cases require someone going and getting the herb, both characters will facilitate that happening. Similarly, an evil character can absolutely exist in an adventuring group and find that his own interests align with those of the rest of the party. I'm not sure why you'd assume they could not ever be the case.

Motivations are not the same as actions. Similarly, two characters of the same D&D alignment can absolutely not be "aligned" on something as well. Lawful good  paladin fighting for KingA meets lawful good paladin fighting for KingB. Both are paladins. Both are in the services of a "good king". Both sides, for some reason are in a conflict over something. Could be anything. Clearly, it's possible for them to be not just not aligned in their actions, but in direct opposition in their actions, yet both be the same alignment. Not all conflicts are "good vs evil".




> The funny thing is that this mindset has an alignment in D&D terms, but it is not Good as opposed to Evil. It is Lawful as opposed to Chaotic - organized group versus the individual. A lot of the ideas commonly thrown around about how players and their characters should behave demand that players toe the Party line like it's 1984.


Agree completely. Most of the examples of an "evil" character causing disruption in a party were actually describing "chaotic" actions, not evil ones. Recall that I was directly responding to a claim that it was impossible for a player to play an evil character in a group without causing disruption, because to fail to do so would be to fail to play their alignment correctly. That's the "extreme" I'm saying "no" to. I'm not at all presenting an opposite extreme though.




> This dances around the issue of self-motivation and self-prescription. If I am the one who made a character and I am the one who described them as Evil, then I have an emotional self-obligation for them to act Evil. Not doing so means I never actually achieve playing the character I said I would play.


Sure. Evil, not chaotic. Evil, not dumb.




> The issue is compounded by demand for contrast. That is: Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos or any other juxtaposing pair) is defined by and made visible through opposition. So if a Good character backs up a plan to do a thing explicitly because it is the right thing to do, then that alone give player of an Evil character a reason to oppose them, because Evil is defined by by backing up the wrong thing to do.


This is where you lose me though. Evil does not automatically mean "I do the opposite of what good people do". Good people eat food, right? So clearly to be evil you must never eat? That doesn't make sense. Ok. You restricted this to just caeses where the reason the good person is doing something is because "it is the right thing to do". Ok. But again what motivates the evil person is not just to oppose other actions taken via the motivation of "doing good". What motivates an evil person is self interest. Otherwise, you have literally defined "evil" as "contrarian", which circularly supports the initial assumption (evil can't be played without being disruptive), but is meaningless due to that cicular reasoning component.

You really can't imagine cases where two different people might desire to do the same thing, but for two very different reasons? A good person avoids speeding because he doesn't want to endanger the lives of other motorists and pedestrians. An evil person avoids speeding because he doesn't want to get a ticket. In a gaming situation, it's entirely possible (quite reasonable in fact) for an evil character to travel with a "good party", and be perfectly ok with going along with all their plans, despite them being motivated by "it's the right thing to do ", because for him the motivation is "I get a share of the treasure I'd not be able to get any of by myself", and "I get to gain reputation and contacts among the nobles/king/whatever that may benefit me in future endeavors", and even just "I'm gaining experience, items, and levels with these folks in a much safer way than any other method I might use". Heck. There's also the "I can use these saps to eliminate my rivals while enriching/empowering myself".

And yeah, we could argue that to be "evil", you should backstab the party, steal the treasure, whatever. But that's tricky. Can you actually kill the entire party and take all the treasure for yourself? That's high risk. If you fail, you've made enemies and they'll come after you. If you steal the treasure and don't kill them all, that's just as bad. Also, what are your alternatives? Join up with an adventuring group full of "evil" party members? Those people are going to try to steal from you and/or kill you at the first chance they'll get! That's dumb. Hook up with a good group, and you don't have to constantly watch your back. Seriously, any semi-smart evil character should be always choosing to join a good party and do everything they can not to mess that up (and also make sure they are the "only" evil person in the party if they can).




> This naturally leads to people playing Evil as impulsive and short-sighted - that is, as "impatient" or "stupid", because in the real world around us there is a widespread conflation between morality and thinking in the long term, or "acting smart". Having reviewed a lot of arguments on the issue, I have to conclude that hobbyists who fight against his instinct are purposelessly tilting at windmills. "Evil" is not rational self-interest. Even in real life, high-functioning psychopaths who can put up a front of being respectable members of society while secretly committing atrocities are a minority rare. Most immoral and amoral people are, by contrast, insufferable and poorly tolerated by others. The groups they form between themselves are often toxic, dysfunctional and kept together by threats and use of violence. The evils they commit frequently are impulsive and lead to long-term detriment of both themselves and others. They actually do the kind of things that would lead to themselves being killed, or jailed, or exiled etc., because they don't think that far ahead or just don't care about the consequences on themselves. Their "whys" are often extremely straightforward and intuitive: why did they do the "dumb" thing? Because it felt good in the moment. Why did they hurt you even if it will hurt them as well later down the line? Because they hate your face and don't give a damn about "later down the line".


Why? Yes. These are the evil people in our society. Um... They're also the ones *who get caught*. These are the people with poor impulse control and just can't help stealing something, or getting high and doing something violent, or otherwise thrashing their own and other people's lives. The real world also doesn't fit into alignment systems either, but if we were to insisst on it, that would also be "chaotic" behavior, not merely "evil".

And yeah. You are correct that groups of evil people will behave that way, but that's largely because they all know that any one of them could turn on the others. Again though, the real world doesn't have alignment like D&D. Once we make the mental shift to what that actually means for a game like D&D, those assumptions kinda have to disappear as well. Evil in an RPG does not (should not) express itself the way evil does in the real world. If for no other reason than the rules we live by are very different.




> Most players play the most realistic "Evil" characters they can when you just allow them to play normally, without thinking or caring too much about the consequences for their fictional characters, nevermind "the party". It just so happens that this natural, banal Evil is not conductive to 100% unproblematic smooth-sailing party play.


Again. I disagree 100% You are describing "chaotic" play, not evil. What you describe is not playing evil "normally". It's playing a very very narrow band of basically chaotic evil and assuming that's what all evil must be like.




> This is not, however, an "inevitable" problem. It doesn't have to be a problem at all. Again, there's more than one way out of the trap. In this case, the simplest way is for a game master to simply pass the ball to the players themselves and tell the players that if they want their characters to function as a group, each and every one of them must individually play in a way that is conductive to functioning as a group, and they live or die by that. That involves characters punishing each other for breaking conduct, or rewarding each other for jobs well done, so on and so forth, as opposed to a game master babysitting them and trying to make them conform to external expectation of group play above and beyond what the game rules require.


This also confuses me, because you seem to be saying initially that all evil must be played as chaotic evil, but now saying that the players should react to and punish that form of play, but also saying it doesn't have to be a problem? is it not a problem because the other players will just automatically reject any "evil" character? Or because the other players should just accept disruptive play as "normal"? Or something else?

I agree that disruptive play should be discouraged at a gaming table. It's very rarely actually "fun" for more than maybe one or two people, and usually extremely "unfun" for everyone else. What I disagree with is any suggestion that this means that you can't play an evil character under such rules. It is quite possible to do so. I've provided several examples of how you could do this, complete with motivations and rationale the evil character could apply/follow to act in this way while still being "evil". Maybe I've been completely misreading you, but it certainly seems like you are arguing that playing "evil==disruptive" is somehow the natural normal way to play evil, and there's no other way to do it.

If that's not what you are saying, then great, we're in agreement. If it is, then I'd need more specific reasons why the sorts of characters I've outlined either aren't actually "evil", or would somehow not possibly be able to play without causing disruption at the table. So far, I haven't seen anything close to that.

----------


## Tevo77777

> An evil character can be okay with, or even enthusiastically argue for, the prisoner being escorted to jail.
> 
> 1) Evil characters can, and often do, make moral judgements. For example they can believe: The law enforcement system is an important foundation of society. Sure sometimes it is inconvenient to do things by the law, but having a strong law enforcement system is worth the inconvenience due to the undesirable behaviors it oppresses. (Hopefully you noticed the authoritarian vibes)
> 
> 2) Evil characters can have standards. Just because a cruel murderer has standards that they only hunt wild prey, it does not make them non evil. If the prey successfully achieves asylum with the party (becomes captured) then they will be sent to jail.
> 
> 3) Evil characters can compromise. They can accept prisoners going to jail if they benefit from associating with the party. Up to and including "I don't want the world to be destroyed. That's where I keep all my stuff.".
> 
> 
> No. A character that is evil has many appropriate responses to the party wanting to jail a prisoner, including taking the prisoner to jail.


Are we really at a point where one person felt the need to explain Lawful Evil to another? I thought we all understood that?




> I'm not moving goal posts - you aren't even playing on the field, your disagreement being over something I didn't claim. My claim was that in real life we have abundant examples of people who are impulsive, short-sighted (etc.) and who are considered immoral for those very reasons. I then pointed out that how this affects how people interpret and play "Evil" characters, and argued that most players will play their most realistic "Evil" characters in this type. Again, the argument from game rules debunks nothing of this. The fact that, say, "evil genius" exist as an archetype allowed by game rules, does not mean "evil genius" is more realistic depiction of evil, nor that people are better at playing it realistically.
> 
> I haven't said a word about what I think about how well people play realistic "smart Good" characters. In fact, double-checking the argument, it doesn't seem like even came up until now. Unsurprisingly, I have little faith in most people's ability to play "smart Good" realistically either, but that's different from saying they shouldn't play them. Your biggest error is, again, reading a "should" statement where there is none.


Considering the BoA I am about to finish is for History, I have to agree with it. The people who are most remembered for their cruelty, demonstrate a lack of long term planning, or intellectual ability.

----------


## gbaji

> Are we really at a point where one person felt the need to explain Lawful Evil to another? I thought we all understood that?


I think we already established earlier in this thread that it's impossible for people to disagree on what an alignment actually means or how it can or should be played, so clearly this didn't actually happen at all. Just a figment of your imagination. Nothing to see here...

----------


## Tevo77777

> I think we already established earlier in this thread that it's impossible for people to disagree on what an alignment actually means or how it can or should be played, so clearly this didn't actually happen at all. Just a figment of your imagination. Nothing to see here...


There are concepts that are abundantly clear and simple, and people still get confused about them. Case in point, the most distant extremes leftism and rightism.

This does not make any specific thing illegitimate or flawed, as the flaws exist within the people who do not understand what is easy to understand.

----------


## gbaji

> There are concepts that are abundantly clear and simple, and people still get confused about them. Case in point, the most distant extremes leftism and rightism.
> 
> This does not make any specific thing illegitimate or flawed, as the flaws exist within the people who do not understand what is easy to understand.


In my experience, when people disagree over things like this, it's almost always because of a disagreement (or confusion I suppose) over the definitions of the words used to describe the things, and not the things themselves.

And sometimes, the definitions presented to people are wrong, or inconsistent, or just not useful in all cases. Saying they somehow just "don't understand" the thing itself is not terribly helpful in those cases. And honestly, it really doesn't matter what is behind it. Anything that generates that much debate, discussion, and disagreement, whether you really do believe that those people are all just confused or something, is clearly not a "good rule". Good game rules are clear and unambiguous. Alignment rules clearly aren't. Proof is in the number and degree of disagreements themselves.

At some point, we do kinda have to conclude that the D&D style alignment system is, in fact, flawed. Disagreement doesn't always mean the thing is flawed, but this much? Yeah. I think it is.

Doesn't mean you can't still use it. Just acknowledge the flaws, pick the "best way to play it out" and move on. But let's not stick our heads in the sand, sing the one that goes "tum te tum tum", and declare that the island is not really sinking, or something. Cause that's just being silly.

----------


## Witty Username

> You can, probably, find Rich commenting on the strip and this very idea somewhere on these forums.


I dont know about the forums, but is a think he brought it up in the physical comic books, Start of Darkness has some stuff on how to differentiate evil characters (mostly why avoiding sympathethic traits is important for Xykon's writing but less so Redcloak's) I think the Azure City book had a character study for Belkar, which selfish and short-sighted is why he is Evil, and that D&D Evil is primarily selfishness.

----------


## Tanarii

Oots comic views on morality and several other divisive topics are edge case versions driven by the author. They're basically the diametric opposite of an axis that has "nits make lice" author mindset as one endpoint of an axis, and "oots author mindset" as the opposite endpoint.

----------


## Tevo77777

> Oots comic views on morality and several other divisive topics are edge case versions driven by the author. They're basically the diametric opposite of an axis that has "nits make lice" author mindset as one endpoint of an axis, and "oots author mindset" as the opposite endpoint.


I almost understood what your point is, but there are a few words that are misspelled or a sentence or few commas are missing or something.

----------


## NichG

> I almost understood what your point is, but there are a few words that are misspelled or a sentence or few commas are missing or something.


I had to look it up, but its a phrase that was used historically to justify a massacre of children at one point - e.g. 'kill them when they're young so they don't fight us when they grow up'. Probably intended to suggest a deep end of the pool of human attitudes that OotS doesn't actually ever get anywhere close to even when depicting evil?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I had to look it up, but its a phrase that was used historically to justify a massacre of children at one point - e.g. 'kill them when they're young so they don't fight us when they grow up'. Probably intended to suggest a deep end of the pool of human attitudes that OotS doesn't actually ever get anywhere close to even when depicting evil?


Supposedly Gygax took that opinion: killing an evil creature was always good. And evil races were all evil, to the point that killing orc or goblin children was a good act because they'd grow up to be evil. Ugly.

----------


## Tanarii

> I had to look it up, but its a phrase that was used historically to justify a massacre of children at one point - e.g. 'kill them when they're young so they don't fight us when they grow up'. Probably intended to suggest a deep end of the pool of human attitudes that OotS doesn't actually ever get anywhere close to even when depicting evil?


Gygax was one outlier due to author beliefs, and OOTS portrays an outlier in the opposite direction.

----------


## Satinavian

> Gygax was one outlier due to author beliefs, and OOTS portrays an outlier in the opposite direction.


I don't know. The way OotS handles it seems pretty close to how most groups handle it imho. Of course that makes Gygax only even more of an outlier.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> You can be a stone cold killer and be neutral, unless youre trying to imply that he regularly kills people unprovoked. Neutral is willing to go pretty far in defense of their immediate circle of things they care about.


 Yes, but he does kill NPCs out of hand now and again ...and also in the other game where he's a wizard. I have shared my experience with that previously, where my life cleric had to do an emergency use of her channel divinity on three NPCs that got killed out of  hand : DM allowed that two of them were healed/not dead, but one had taken enough HP to where 'dead is dead' and a few members of our party, NOT the monk, collected some dough and went in search of his family to pay a weregild. Good RP, all in all, and a bit of a surprise to the DM that I got three of the other players (we had 7 total players at the time) to go along with me on that mission. The Wizard was the only one who did not donate. 



> Are we really at a point where one person felt the need to explain Lawful Evil to another?


 Probably, given how limited the description of that is in most editions, and how people overlay other story forms on top if it. [/quote]  The people who are most remembered for their cruelty, demonstrate a lack of long term planning, or intellectual ability.[/QUOTE] Patently false on both counts.  I'd suggest you broaden your research.  (And I better stop there, forum rules and RL stuff)  



> Supposedly Gygax took that opinion: killing an evil creature was always good. And evil races were all evil, to the point that killing orc or goblin children was a good act because they'd grow up to be evil. Ugly.


 I am pretty sure that you are over stating the case, but the anti hagiography in re EGG has become a pathetic meme in the WoTC era.  So I'll stop there.

----------


## hamishspence

> I am pretty sure that you are over stating the case, but the anti hagiography in re EGG has become a pathetic meme in the WoTC era.


Gygax _did_ use the "nits make lice" comment over on the Dragonsfoot forums.


https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...11762&start=60




> Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies.
> Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good.


He also suggested that paladins can be "judge and jury" for prisoners, as well as hinting that it might be OK for a LG force to kill "humanoid noncombatants" (I.E. non-human children and the like).




> Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.





> A paladin is qualified to be judge and jury--assuming he is acting according to the oath he took to gain his status.



https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...11762&start=90



> The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving.

----------


## hamishspence

Even the Book of Exalted Deeds, which hammers home the idea that to be Good, you _must_ be _somewhat_ forgiving, merciful, and treat prisoners well, concedes that _execution_ for "serious crimes" (players and DMs may have varying opinions on what constitutes "serious" in this context) is Not Evil.

But at the same time, clarifies that_ torture_ for serious crimes is _always_ evil.

So, a character who extends "eye for eye" justice to _include_ torture, _cannot_ be Good by those standards.

----------


## OldTrees1

In case it is helpful, here is a friendly reminder that your group can set alignment to be whatever you want. You are not beholden to some author's RAW.

----------


## gbaji

I think we also have to remember that Gygax and his generation of RPGers were heavily influenced by wargamming (that was the original basis for their RPG games after all). In that mindset, "evil" was one "side" with "good" on the other, and they were basically fighting a "war" against eachother. So in that construct, applied to individuals, it was really about fighting for the "side of good", and less whether you were exhibiting moral qualities that we might associate with "good" or "evil".

This paradigm falls apart once we start creating game settings where maybe the orc tribes up in the mountain are "evil" alignment wise, but actually attack or raid human Kingdom A less often or seriouesly than the rival human Kingdom B does. And maybe the local bandits are also "evil", and/or "lawless", but they have families and mouths to feed that maybe motivates them far more than some grand "conquer the world in the name of evil" sort of thing. The moment you introduce more complex social and policial interactions, many of those older alignment assumptions just don't work anymore. And I suspect that most players and GMs no longer run games in the very simplistic "evil are on one side, good on the other" paradigm. So a lot of the stuff Gygax said about what LG paladins might do in the "enforcement of good" comes off as pretty harsh and, well... evil.

And I think what's ironic is that we can also somewhat flip things around a bit when we actually do have "sides" being expressed. Take Redcloak. He's defined as having a lawful evil alignment. But are the goblins themselves actually "evil". He's fighting for them, but they certainly seem to be able to form larger communities, work together for common causes, and as far as we've seen there's no more internal conflict among them than we've seen in human socieites portrayed in the work (less actually). So his "evil" isn't really because of his plans or work for goblinkind, nor his attack and conquest of Azure City. Frankly, the only thing that actually makes him evil at all is his treatment of the prisoners. Everything else he's done we might ascribe to any leader fighthing for the betterment of his people against a larger existing socio-political structure which treats them as outsiders to be killed on sight.

That certainly makes him evil enough to be "evil", but puts some things in perspective. Those are the same actions we might imagine a human leader doing, which pretty firmly destroys the whole "sides" concept. Heck, the Elf commander engaged in pretty "evil" actiions himself. We don't know if he'd have tortured captured goblins if he had them though, so hard to say where that actually falls. But outright killing a goblin who surrendered and offered to help work for them because he was a goblin is certainly speciest, and falls directly into the socio-political structure that the goblins (somewhat legitimately) are fighting against. Doesn't justify Redcloaks own actions against captured humans, but does put that in perspective I think.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I think we also have to remember that Gygax and his generation of RPGers were heavily influenced by wargamming (that was the original basis for their RPG games after all). In that mindset, "evil" was one "side" with "good" on the other, and they were basically fighting a "war" against eachother. So in that construct, applied to individuals, it was really about fighting for the "side of good", and less whether you were exhibiting moral qualities that we might associate with "good" or "evil".


It think that it goes a little deeper than war games. My dad, and Gary Gygax (who was 7-8 years younger than my dad) grew up during World War II which was a very real case of us-versus-them. As they grew a bit older the Korean War started and lasted for 3 years. This was also a very clear case of us-versus-them for the people who experienced them as current events rather than as a topic in a book of history.  I am pretty sure that they were both exposed to news reels when they went to the cinema, at the very least, as well as newspapers and radio broadcasts.  The environment one experiences can inform a world view where there very much is an existential struggle as a baseline assumption.

As to your orc example, in the original game orcs were neutral or chaotic, while goblins were chaotic. (And they were most typically minions of {insert evil enemy leader here} rather than stand alone creatures, but over time that got a bit more complex and nuanced).

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Even the Book of Exalted Deeds, which hammers home the idea that to be Good, you _must_ be _somewhat_ forgiving, merciful, and treat prisoners well, concedes that _execution_ for "serious crimes" (players and DMs may have varying opinions on what constitutes "serious" in this context) is Not Evil.
> 
> But at the same time, clarifies that_ torture_ for serious crimes is _always_ evil.
> 
> So, a character who extends "eye for eye" justice to _include_ torture, _cannot_ be Good by those standards.


I agree.  :Smile:

----------


## Quertus

> Supposedly Gygax took that opinion: killing an evil creature was always good. And evil races were all evil, to the point that killing orc or goblin children was a good act because they'd grow up to be evil. Ugly.


Its only ugly if you assume human moral variance. I dont let a baby thistle grow up, hoping itll become a welcome part of my lawn. Its only ugly to murder baby thistles in a world where theyre capable of growing up to be money trees.




> In my experience, when people disagree over things like this, it's almost always because of a disagreement (or confusion I suppose) over the definitions of the words used to describe the things, and not the things themselves.
> 
> And sometimes, the definitions presented to people are wrong, or inconsistent, or just not useful in all cases. Saying they somehow just "don't understand" the thing itself is not terribly helpful in those cases. And honestly, it really doesn't matter what is behind it. Anything that generates that much debate, discussion, and disagreement, whether you really do believe that those people are all just confused or something, is clearly not a "good rule". Good game rules are clear and unambiguous. Alignment rules clearly aren't. Proof is in the number and degree of disagreements themselves.
> 
> At some point, we do kinda have to conclude that the D&D style alignment system is, in fact, flawed. Disagreement doesn't always mean the thing is flawed, but this much? Yeah. I think it is.
> 
> Doesn't mean you can't still use it. Just acknowledge the flaws, pick the "best way to play it out" and move on. But let's not stick our heads in the sand, sing the one that goes "tum te tum tum", and declare that the island is not really sinking, or something. Cause that's just being silly.


As much as I agree that Alignment is flawed, I cant agree with your line of thought to get there. Heres an example of a perfectly reasonable idea that engendered mass confusion that I pasted in 2016 (ugh, I used to talk like that?):

*Spoiler: background*
Show

 In college, one of my professors saw me sitting in the back, by the door (the total slacker's spot). He noted the open books (novel and gaming books), dice, and snacks. And I noticed him take note of these things as he walked in the door, first day of class. When I never more than glanced up at him during his lecture, he made a point to call on me - quite literally half the time he asked a question about his lecture, he specifically addressed that question to me.

When, without fail, I would give a complete and well-reasoned answer, without ever looking up from my gaming books, after two weeks he came to understand that was just how I am.

Teachers have to teach to the slowest member of the class. If you want me to stay engaged, my mind has to be occupied - and teaching to the slowest member of the class just won't cut it.

One of my fellow students (in another class) brought a coloring book to class every day. It wasn't just me.

Actually, this same professor came to appreciate how much I paid attention, and how well I understood what was going on.


*Spoiler: Story Time*
Show

One day, well into the semester, my professor was trying to explain token ring LAN topography.

*Spoiler: Token Ring*
Show

For those of you that don't know, originally, computers just communicated on their network whenever they wanted to. Well, whenever anyone else wasn't already talking, that is. In order to deal with the problem when two computers started talking at the same time, they simultaneously listened to what they were saying - if what they heard want the same as what they were saying, they would just scream random gibberish for a bit, to make sure that the other computer(s) knew that 2+ computers had been talking at the same time. Then (to keep them from starting back up at the same time), whenever anyone heard gibberish, everyone would go silent for a random amount of time before talking again.

This worked well for a few, usually quiet computers. But the more computers you added, and the more frequent the traffic, the less efficient this technique became.

So someone invented token ring. The network has a "token". Only the computer with the token is allowed to talk. It is only allowed to talk for so long before it has to pass the token to the next computer. A computer with the token does not need to keep the token for the full duration - it may pass the token as soon as it is done talking.

Yes, there is some inefficiency in passing the token around, but for large, active networks, this is much more efficient than the time lost due to multiple computers speaking at once.


The class didn't get it.

*Spoiler: the class's response*
Show

Nobody seemed to get it. Everybody was asking questions about how you knew who had the token, complaining about the complicated time-sharing algorithms that would have to be dynamically updated whenever you added a new computer to the network, etc.

It was a total train wreck. And none of my professor's perfectly reasonable responses seemed to sink in. They just didn't get it.


Then I raised my hand. This never happened. You could just see my professor's heart sink. Having boldly tried, to no avail, to fend off every question and misconception from my classmates, he seemed to lose hope at the idea that I, too, was lost. He hesitantly called my name.

*Spoiler: my response*
Show

It's just like smoking a joint. You take the joint, you take your toke, you pass it on. If you don't want a toke, you just take the joint, and pass it on. If someone joins the group, all you gotta know is who's passing to them - there is no complicated time sharing algorithm.


The class was silent. After a few moments, the professor asked if anyone still didn't understand token ring. The class was silent.


So even a perfectly reasonable idea can cause confusion with a suboptimal presentation.




> In case it is helpful, here is a friendly reminder that your group can set alignment to be whatever you want. You are not beholden to some author's RAW.


Although true, it only adds to the confusion when there isnt a clear right answer. I would say, and invites no wealth 3e levels of breaking the game in the name of improvement, except that Alignment isnt really that useful or integrated.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Originally Posted by OldTrees replying to the thread getting bogged down about the opinions of specific authors
> 
> In case it is helpful, here is a friendly reminder that your group can set alignment to be whatever you want. You are not beholden to some author's RAW.
> 
> 
> Although true, it only adds to the confusion when there isnt a clear right answer.


Yes, what I said was true. I don't see how the 2nd half of the sentence relates to what I said. I agree that confusion is confusion, but I don't see it relating to "People playing _insert_RPG_here_ are not required to be beholden to the author's morality. Here is a reminder that we can set alignment based on our group rather than based on an author. This reminder might undermine some of the bickering."

Groups that exercise their awareness that they are not beholden to an author's RAW about alignment, can still have clear answers about alignment. They clearly disagreed with the author, which means whatever the group chooses to set alignment as will be at least as clear as what they are discarding. (assuming the group finds value in and uses alignment in the first place)

----------


## Quertus

> Yes, what I said was true. I don't see how the 2nd half of the sentence relates to what I said. I agree that confusion is confusion, but I don't see it relating to "People playing _insert_RPG_here_ are not required to be beholden to the author's morality. Here is a reminder that we can set alignment based on our group rather than based on an author. This reminder might undermine some of the bickering."
> 
> Groups that exercise their awareness that they are not beholden to an author's RAW about alignment, can still have clear answers about alignment. They clearly disagreed with the author, which means whatever the group chooses to set alignment as will be at least as clear as what they are discarding. (assuming the group finds value in and uses alignment in the first place)


Hilariously, I was just discussing something like this IRL, but... it'd take too many words to explain.

So, instead... point is, when there's not enforced standardization, when everyone is allowed to do as they please, it's really danged hard to get together (say, on a forum) and have a meaningful discussion, when there isn't a right or wrong answer to how the rules work.

So, yes, it makes it easier for the individual table... but harder to have a productive cross-table conversation, when I "do as I please", and add my Strength score to all my saving throws, and then come to the forums and complain how Strength-based characters are OP.

It's why the... "lingua franca" of the Playground is RAW, because being able to assume that common baseline unless specified otherwise is tremendously helpful to clear communication.

That's what I was getting at with that second part - understanding the _costs_ involved in promoting leaning on the lack of enforced standardization of terms.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Hilariously, I was just discussing something like this IRL, but... it'd take too many words to explain.
> 
> So, instead... point is, when there's not enforced standardization, when everyone is allowed to do as they please, it's really danged hard to get together (say, on a forum) and have a meaningful discussion, when there isn't a right or wrong answer to how the rules work.


Enforced standardization communicates to me the concept of policing playgroups. I think you just meant standardization.

True, but in this context recognizing the random author of a random RPG has no authority is very worthwhile. Especially when the standardization required for this thread (game agnostic thread talking about alignment systems) does not require standardization of "good" to mean what a specific random author thought.

If a random author's opinions on alignment are ill suited for a specific playgroup, there is no benefit to pretending that random author has any say at all. This is a reminder that it is okay and expected for a playgroup to know that they are free to ignore the author's opinions if they are ill suited for that playgroup.


It also did not need to be converted into a subthread. I gave the reminder. I am not going to continue a subthread explaining it.

----------


## Satinavian

> Its only ugly if you assume human moral variance. I dont let a baby thistle grow up, hoping itll become a welcome part of my lawn. Its only ugly to murder baby thistles in a world where theyre capable of growing up to be money trees.


That could kinda work if alignment was something by humans and for humans. If only humans had alignment and were judged by the rules and demihumans, abberations, angels, demons etc were all non-aligned or got their completely separate code. And even then, "kicking a puppy" is literally the clicheé evil action, so even human alignment condiders behavior towards and emphasizing with other species.

But this is not what alignment has ever been in D&D. Instead it is always a cosmic forcee based on "one size fits all" and every sentient being and its morals is included. This requires some form of reciprocity and universality.

----------


## Quertus

> That could kinda work if alignment was something by humans and for humans. If only humans had alignment and were judged by the rules and demihumans, abberations, angels, demons etc were all non-aligned or got their completely separate code. And even then, "kicking a puppy" is literally the clicheé evil action, so even human alignment condiders behavior towards and emphasizing with other species.
> 
> But this is not what alignment has ever been in D&D. Instead it is always a cosmic forcee based on "one size fits all" and every sentient being and its morals is included. This requires some form of reciprocity and universality.


Im confused. Suppose

A baby Demon will always grow up to be a Demon, will always enjoy kicking puppies and making other sentient beings miserable. A baby orc will always grow up to be an orc, will always enjoy kicking puppies and enforcing their will over others through as much force as is necessary to do so. A baby vampire will always grow up to be a vampire, will always be completely emotionless, and will coldly evaluate kicking puppies, murder, and taking the last slice of pizza with the exact same cost/benefit analysis, completely devoid of internal moral considerations. A baby thistle will always grow up to be a thistle, never a money tree.

In this scenario, which of these do you shy away from applying a label of evil to, and why?

----------


## NichG

> Im confused. Suppose
> 
> A baby Demon will always grow up to be a Demon, will always enjoy kicking puppies and making other sentient beings miserable. A baby orc will always grow up to be an orc, will always enjoy kicking puppies and enforcing their will over others through as much force as is necessary to do so. A baby vampire will always grow up to be a vampire, will always be completely emotionless, and will coldly evaluate kicking puppies, murder, and taking the last slice of pizza with the exact same cost/benefit analysis, completely devoid of internal moral considerations. A baby thistle will always grow up to be a thistle, never a money tree.
> 
> In this scenario, which of these do you shy away from applying a label of evil to, and why?


Well for one, in terms of real-world morality, I don't particularly think a moral system that tries to maximize the amount of good people and minimize the amount of bad people in the world would be a good system to live with.

The moral weight of a person isn't whether it becomes useful to me or aligned with my morality, its that they're a person. And I don't mean specifically 'human' here, but more like sapient agents capable of participating in a shared society with me. Thistle basically can't do that. A vampire who is always completely emotionless and amoral but is able to be compelled to behave themselves by social pressure? As deserving of existence as any person.

----------


## Quertus

> Well for one, in terms of real-world morality, I don't particularly think a moral system that tries to maximize the amount of good people and minimize the amount of bad people in the world would be a good system to live with.
> 
> The moral weight of a person isn't whether it becomes useful to me or aligned with my morality, its that they're a person. And I don't mean specifically 'human' here, but more like sapient agents capable of participating in a shared society with me. Thistle basically can't do that. A vampire who is always completely emotionless and amoral but is able to be compelled to behave themselves by social pressure? As deserving of existence as any person.


Ok, I think I follow, but suppose we decide vampires are deserving of existence, and demons are not. Suppose we encounter another sentient race that we can coexist with, despite the fact that they have completely different values than we do. Suppose theres a race they can coexist with just fine (say, demons) that we cant. They, otoh, with their different values, cannot coexist with Vampires.

How would your method evaluate which species(es) were deserving of existence in such a scenario?

(Of course, humans arent exactly uniform in their tendencies to cave to social pressure to conform, and neither their values, not their skill at picking and choosing their battles, are uniform, either. So Im worried how this method would evaluate humanity instead of these fictional, uniform races. _Some_ members of Humanity deserve to exist?  :Small Eek: )

----------


## NichG

> Ok, I think I follow, but suppose we decide vampires are deserving of existence, and demons are not. Suppose we encounter another sentient race that we can coexist with, despite the fact that they have completely different values than we do. Suppose theres a race they can coexist with just fine (say, demons) that we cant. They, otoh, with their different values, cannot coexist with Vampires.
> 
> How would your method evaluate which species(es) were deserving of existence in such a scenario?
> 
> (Of course, humans arent exactly uniform in their tendencies to cave to social pressure to conform, and neither their values, not their skill at picking and choosing their battles, are uniform, either. So Im worried how this method would evaluate humanity instead of these fictional, uniform races. _Some_ members of Humanity deserve to exist? )


For myself, I'd say there's no guarantee that there is a morally acceptable answer to 'what to do?' in a given situation. You can just be stuck with bad options or ambiguous questions.

I can't speak for others on this, but the 'ends' such as they are that I think moral consideration serves are to take into account those things you cannot directly account for - how others will respond in their behaviors to your actions and to eachothers' actions, how behaviors create space or eliminate it that others may want, how to generally create shared understandings that allow groups to move past things like mutually assured destruction as mechanisms for coexistence.

So the exclusion of something from having moral weight in its own regards isn't a metaphysical statement, its also a pragmatic one. An agent that knows it could coexist with you, but sees you reject that coexistence, has no reason to hold back from treating you as an enemy as well. They have no reason to act in a way that considers your needs or benefits. But if coming to a compromise is possible, then its possible to avoid mutually harmful conflicts and possible to realize mutually beneficial co-operations.

This isn't either a strictly utilitarian 'make the number as big as possible' view either. Or at least, the 'utility' here isn't any single state function but rather considers the set of possibilities across the subjective viewpoints of each participant in that society, including 'ways that things could be' rather than just 'ways that things are'. In order to be useful as a morality - a heuristic for 'how to behave' in absence of detailed calculation - rather than a 'strategy' it has to generalize even to cases where you don't know much or anything about the other entities, their values, etc. 

That's just my preferred method of derivation of a moral system of course. Others will vary on that. But part of the point for me is to make something that is actually robust against 'others will vary', even if they vary in ways I can't understand.

And as for whether or not 'only some humans deserve to exist', yeah, that could happen with this kind of system. Or rather than talking about 'deserve', you could have situations in which including one human's preferred way of being would exclude a million others from being able to continue existing, and where practically speaking trying to deny that preferred way of being leads to that person actively trying to destroy the rest of society unless they themselves are rendered incapable of it. In which case, this particular moral system is not one in which 'not being responsible for doing harm' is more important than the harm.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Im confused. Suppose
> 
> A baby Demon will always grow up to be a Demon, will always enjoy kicking puppies and making other sentient beings miserable. A baby orc will always grow up to be an orc, will always enjoy kicking puppies and enforcing their will over others through as much force as is necessary to do so. A baby vampire will always grow up to be a vampire, will always be completely emotionless, and will coldly evaluate kicking puppies, murder, and taking the last slice of pizza with the exact same cost/benefit analysis, completely devoid of internal moral considerations. A baby thistle will always grow up to be a thistle, never a money tree.
> 
> In this scenario, which of these do you shy away from applying a label of evil to, and why?


I am not NichG but this sounded like a great opportunity to mention Moral Agency and drop some links.

If an entity is not a Moral Agent then I view them as unaligned on the moral axis*.

If an entity lacks the capacity to choose what they ought to choose or lacks the capacity to choose what they ought not choose, then they do not have the capability to make choices with moral weight. If an entity does not have the capability to make choices with moral weight, then they are not a Moral Agent. If an entity is not a Moral Agent then I view them as unaligned on the moral axis.

A baby thistle is unaligned. In my campaigns, demons have alignment. With all the necessary requirements of moral agency such a descriptor entails in my campaign. Your demons, on the other hand, might not be moral agents and thus I might describe them as unaligned.


*Although they could still have an alignment on the celestial/fiend axis if you are using that amoral axis instead of a moral axis.


Relevant articles (deep and shallow respectively) about the concept of moral agency. There are differing views on what the necessary and sufficient conditions of moral agency are. I answered above using my views of one of the necessary conditions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/m...esponsibility/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_...al_patienthood

----------


## Satinavian

> Ok, I think I follow, but suppose we decide vampires are deserving of existence, and demons are not. Suppose we encounter another sentient race that we can coexist with, despite the fact that they have completely different values than we do. Suppose theres a race they can coexist with just fine (say, demons) that we cant. They, otoh, with their different values, cannot coexist with Vampires.
> 
> How would your method evaluate which species(es) were deserving of existence in such a scenario?


Simple : All sentient species deserve to exist unless their pure existence can only be sustained by killing other sentient beings.



> (Of course, humans arent exactly uniform in their tendencies to cave to social pressure to conform, and neither their values, not their skill at picking and choosing their battles, are uniform, either. So Im worried how this method would evaluate humanity instead of these fictional, uniform races. _Some_ members of Humanity deserve to exist? )


Do humans need to kill other sentients ? No ? Then they deserve to exist.

Generally a lot of species can coexist. And nearly all settings that have them and have them existing for a long time kinda prove the ability to coexist. "Can't coexist" is hardly ever really a thing. "Really don't like each other"or "don't get along well" is. But going from there to genocidal rampage is usually classified as evil. Unless you are playing very very old D&D editions.

As for moral agents i agree with the post above. It is also something that has made it into RAW in some editions even if it was not followed through every time.

----------

