Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Alignment, Good Fun and Unnecessary Evil
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 7401898" data-attributes="member: 6775477"><p>It really depends on how you prefer to view morality in the game. Originally, the game had a static morality, which fit the original concept of medieval Europe fantasy. Law and Chaos were absolute concepts, with most creatures naturally fitting into one of the three camps. Good and Evil were added in AD&D, expanding the nuance to a 2 axis setup. Evil creatures were evil because they were inherently evil, so killing orc infants was not inherently evil. Good creatures were good because they were inherently good, so killing a unicorn was inherently evil, unless maybe in self defense. Most PCs in this environment were not expected to be absolutes in their axis point (Paladin and Druid were an exception), but simply tried to keep to their alignment as best they could. Deliberate violations could change alignment, with a loss of level in penalty.</p><p></p><p>Modern gaming has moved towards a relativistic morality, mostly I believe, because society has become more accepting of things that would have been considered "evil" not that long ago. In such a setup, alignment does not serve much purpose, because Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are relative terms. Creatures are not inherently tied to an alignment, even if the majority follow that path. Thus killing infants can be considered evil, even those of an evil race, because they are not necessarily evil. Other settings have found better methods of determining relativist character morality.</p><p></p><p>In 5E, alignment has little to no meaning. I've played characters without bothering to define an alignment until after a few sessions, because I wanted the character to define itself, rather than the other way around. However, because alignments exist, a DM could very easily incorporate static morality in 5E, setting limitations to fit their style of game. This is the best approach IMO, since it doesn't really hurt either style of play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shiroiken, post: 7401898, member: 6775477"] It really depends on how you prefer to view morality in the game. Originally, the game had a static morality, which fit the original concept of medieval Europe fantasy. Law and Chaos were absolute concepts, with most creatures naturally fitting into one of the three camps. Good and Evil were added in AD&D, expanding the nuance to a 2 axis setup. Evil creatures were evil because they were inherently evil, so killing orc infants was not inherently evil. Good creatures were good because they were inherently good, so killing a unicorn was inherently evil, unless maybe in self defense. Most PCs in this environment were not expected to be absolutes in their axis point (Paladin and Druid were an exception), but simply tried to keep to their alignment as best they could. Deliberate violations could change alignment, with a loss of level in penalty. Modern gaming has moved towards a relativistic morality, mostly I believe, because society has become more accepting of things that would have been considered "evil" not that long ago. In such a setup, alignment does not serve much purpose, because Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are relative terms. Creatures are not inherently tied to an alignment, even if the majority follow that path. Thus killing infants can be considered evil, even those of an evil race, because they are not necessarily evil. Other settings have found better methods of determining relativist character morality. In 5E, alignment has little to no meaning. I've played characters without bothering to define an alignment until after a few sessions, because I wanted the character to define itself, rather than the other way around. However, because alignments exist, a DM could very easily incorporate static morality in 5E, setting limitations to fit their style of game. This is the best approach IMO, since it doesn't really hurt either style of play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Alignment, Good Fun and Unnecessary Evil
Top