Running a morally ambiguous game in a world where Alignment is real

[am181d]

This doesn't hold in your standard D&D world, where alignments have objective (not subjective) meaning. Evil is evil, regardless of motivations. So I dunno about alignment being all that ambiguous using the stock setup, aside from whatever ambiguity arises from differing player interpretations of the alignments.

There's nothing in the rules to support that. PCs kill lots of people who they assume are evil. If they turn out to be wrong every once in a while, that doesn't make them evil. It makes them stupid.

The same act (PC kills a man) is either good or evil depending on whether the PC thinks the man is an evil necromancer or thinks he's a kindly baker.

 

[tylermalan]

There's nothing in the rules to support that. PCs kill lots of people who they assume are evil. If they turn out to be wrong every once in a while, that doesn't make them evil. It makes them stupid.

The same act (PC kills a man) is either good or evil depending on whether the PC thinks the man is an evil necromancer or thinks he's a kindly baker.

The first part of your statement is right, but the second part is wrong. What you think does not matter. Evil acts are evil; good acts are good. A PCs perceptions of those acts do not change their inherently good or evil nature. If they kill a baker in cold blood because they thought he was an evil necromancer, that is wrong by the D&D objective moral standard. Again, what they think does not matter.

However, I think the original question was more along the lines of wondering whether or not alignment changes based upon acts that go against the alignment. It is in this light that your first statement is correct. Alignment changes, in most cases, come about because of patterns. Does a PC have a history of killing innocents? Does a PC show a pattern of helping people in need? It is in this light that a normally good aligned dwarf fighter (who is good aligned because of the pattern made by his actions) can steal a gemstone once (out of greed) and NOT immediately have his alignment changed to evil.

As an aside, if he DID have his alignment changed to evil... so what? Nothing happens.

 

[am181d]

If they kill a baker in cold blood because they thought he was an evil necromancer, that is wrong by the D&D objective moral standard.

What are you basing this on?

 

[tylermalan]

What are you basing this on?

Alignment - Pathfinder_OGC

But I mean, I could just ask you. Is it good or evil to kill an innocent man? If you look at the description of Good vs. Evil in the link I posted, you will see that the answer to this question is not, "It depends." The description contains no "maybes"; no grey areas. No talk of thoughts; only talk of deeds. Further, an objective moral standard has been a part of D&D since time immemorial - devils are LE, demons are CE, etc. This distinction is based upon the acts of the creatures in discussion and the requirements for a certain alignment. The man who thinks he's killing demons is not good-aligned if what he's really killing are babies, despite his good intentions. Intention does not alignment make - only deed.

As a final point, and this is probably the most important point to make, here is a quote from the sidebar of the GameMastery Guide in that same link I posted above:

"...there exist creatures in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that are fundamentally good, evil, lawful, or chaotic..."

How would this be possible if there were not a fundamental, over-arching, objective moral standard? If the Pathfinder roleplaying game considered morality to be subjective, this fundamental distinction would not be possible. I said essentially the same thing when I mentioned how demons and devils with their respective alignments have been in D&D for a long time. This just says it more clearly.

Man, I'm just FULL of good points today! Here's another one:

If you read the description of the Paladin class you will see a section on ex-Paladins. This includes a link to the Atonement spell.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/atonement

In this description, you will see the following:

"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly..., atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings)."

The word "unwittingly" implies that a character may commit an evil act without knowing that he is doing it, and this act is still considered evil and would require an atonement spell for a class like a Paladin. This would fit with your example of the guy who thinks the baker is an evil necromancer and murders him in the name of good, only to find out later that this act was an evil act (despite what the character thought at the time).

This is just another example of how "belief" means nothing because there is an objective standard that judges each character based on the actual acts committed. Did the PC kill someone innocent? Did the PC save a town from death? Did the PC catch evil demons? There is no room here for, "how does the PC feel about what he did?"

 

[Thotas]

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, Tylermalan, except I don't interpret the phase "committed the evil act unwittingly" the same way you do. To me, in this context, that means the act that you committed was evil, but you didn't realize it was. The atonement is a form of education, not punishment. Killing an innocent because an illusionist convinced you they were a evil cleric in the act of casting "slay living" on you should bring no penalty to you at all; being a dupe makes you the murder weapon, not the murderer.

Look at the fact that carnivorous animals that would eat a baby in a heart beat are of Neutral alignment. For anything with higher intelligence to take the same tack makes it evil. Because they have greater capacity for decision making. Decision making is where morality comes in, so when your ability to make decisions is impaired, whether it be innate, lack of information, misinformation, your responsibility is diminished accordingly.

And no, it is not possible to do an endrun around the principle by diminishing your responsibility somehow. For example, "But I was drunk!" isn't an excuse since you got yourself drunk in the first place.

 

[tylermalan]

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, Tylermalan, except I don't interpret the phase "committed the evil act unwittingly" the same way you do. To me, in this context, that means the act that you committed was evil, but you didn't realize it was.

Actually, that is [exactly what I'm saying!

So, I think you and I are on the same page moreso than you might think.

 

[am181d]

Alignment - Pathfinder_OGC

But I mean, I could just ask you. Is it good or evil to kill an innocent man? If you look at the description of Good vs. Evil in the link I posted, you will see that the answer to this question is not, "It depends." The description contains no "maybes"; no grey areas. No talk of thoughts; only talk of deeds. Further, an objective moral standard has been a part of D&D since time immemorial - devils are LE, demons are CE, etc. This distinction is based upon the acts of the creatures in discussion and the requirements for a certain alignment. The man who thinks he's killing demons is not good-aligned if what he's really killing are babies, despite his good intentions. Intention does not alignment make - only deed.

Dude. Those words do not mean what you think they mean:

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

"Moral and personal attitudes." Not deeds.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

"Personality types or personal philosophies." Not deeds.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic

Eating people is not evil if you're a viper.

While no real-world humans can say they’re entirely good or law-abiding, there exist creatures in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that are fundamentally good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and some magic depends on judging a character by its alignment.

Some beings are fundamentally good/evil. So if a devil picks a flower and hands it to a little girl, he is still evil.

I don't see anything on this page that supports your point.

 

[tylermalan]

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic."

So... there's that.

Also!

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

This is the Pathfinder official definition of good and evil, yes? Where exactly is the "attitude" portion? Those sound like deeds to me.

Devils are evil because they do not protect innocent life - they debase or destroy it. Picking a flower does not matter either way, really. Further, there is no such thing as a devil who does not do those things. Emphasis on the "do."

But really, I don't even know where the debate lies. "General moral and personal attitudes" ARE deeds. How many people do you know that perform deeds that go directly against their moral and personal attitudes? A person who thinks evil thoughts but who does good deeds is... good. How could you call him otherwise? He either protects innocent life or destroys it... who cares what he thinks?

Remember, this is in a multiverse in which there ARE good creatures. This label is IMPOSSIBLE if there is not a STANDARD of good and evil to which all creatures could be applied. "Evil creatures destroy innocent life" is not ambiguous. There is a definition of "good" in the multiverse of D&D in the same way that there is a definition of the word "innocent" in regards to whether or not you "protect innocent life."

Of COURSE alignment represents a broad range of personality types - see the difference between devils and demons on the evil spectrum. This doesn't mean that they're both evil only because they "think" evil.

Also, you seem to be ignoring my points on the atonement spell... I think those are some of the better points, by the way. If alignment really reflects thoughts instead of deeds, then the atonement spell makes no sense.

But anyway, the only real point you should take away from this is that devils could not be inherently evil without a standard of evil, and the definition of this standard, as per the link I posted, doesn't say anything about thoughts. It only talks about what a creature does or doesn't do.

I leave you with a quote from the bottom of the page, in the section on changing alignments:

"it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment... If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment..."

 

[Celtavian]

re

I have always seen alignment as the general nature of a character's soul. I don't use it to make sure someone roleplays in a particular fashion unless they are getting way out of line like a neutral good character massacring villages during a war or something like that.

Alignment does not exclude personality.

And think about it. D&D is already morally ambiguous. Lawful Good paladins still earn their xp and treasure by wandering around randomly killing enemies and looting them, which if you were to name it properly they are murdering, pillaging, and looting. Hardly a good activity even though it is often evil opponents. What's more morally ambiguous than a game that revolves around the entire group being nothing more than pirates, vikings, brigands, and the like with the only differnce being the alignment of their victims.

 

[tylermalan]

I have always seen alignment as the general nature of a character's soul. I don't use it to make sure someone roleplays in a particular fashion unless they are getting way out of line like a neutral good character massacring villages during a war or something like that.

Alignment does not exclude personality.

I definitely agree, and I don't ever force my players to do anything. I don't take alignment that seriously. The main and ONLY thing that I'm debating in this particular thread - just to be clear - is the point that morality in D&D is objective.

Lawful Good paladins still earn their xp and treasure by wandering around randomly killing enemies and looting them, which if you were to name it properly they are murdering, pillaging, and looting. Hardly a good activity even though it is often evil opponents. What's more morally ambiguous than a game that revolves around the entire group being nothing more than pirates, vikings, brigands, and the like with the only differnce being the alignment of their victims.

This is, again, incorrect. What you're missing here is that the alignment of their victims DOES MATTER, as this value is NOT AMBIGUOUS. Remember: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." If a creature's alignment is "evil" then they are NOT INNOCENT as they are INHERENTLY EVIL, and killing them for profit is NOT EVIL. However, if a character kills a GOOD creature for profit, then THAT is evil, as per the official Pathfinder definition of "evil."