Alignment violations and how to deal with them

[Ahnehnois]

Surely you don't believe 'good' sees itself in this way or justifies itself in this way. So this is an outside perspective on good.

Certainly not. As a DM, I do have an outside perspective on it. As do we all really, since we're all outside the game. I'm sure good wants to do the right. I just think it often doesn't.

After all, the real-world anti-D&D crusaders probably fit the D&D definition of Good. (How's that for irony).

 

[Celebrim]

This rings a bell with me. Being a European...

Having been friends with many Europeans and having lived outside the United States, the cultural differences are often sharper than are sometimes recognized. I'm not sure that I believe in 'American Exceptionalism' in the sense of 'America is better', but I very much believe in 'American Exceptionalism' in the sense of 'There is a distinctive and different American culture'. However, I wouldn't necessarily expect to find a lot of 'lawful' mindset among Europeans relative to some cultures.

I worked for a while in a research laboratory. One of the undergrads was Korean, and I was talking with her one day and she said that she wanted to return home to get married. And so I said, "Oh, is there some special boy waiting for you back in Korea?" (or something of the sort), and she said, "No. I just would like to tell my parents that I would like to get married so that they can pick a boy for me to marry."

This is a different (lawful, under my game's conception) mindset. Her own choice in the matter was unimportant to her. What the larger group that she belonged to wanted was important, and she trusted that larger group explicitly and implicitly.

That's a mindset common in many cultures, but relatively lacking in the modern West on either side of the pond. The Western mind, and the American mind particularly, immediately treats this as a form of subjugation and violence. A certain segment would want to condemn that feature of the culture as evil. If a player where to encounter this culture in game, and condemn it as 'evil', I would have to explain to them that while I'm taking no stance on whether or not it is 'wrong', as I've labeled the buckets it is 'lawful' and not evil. But it could be, for the sake of debate and from the viewpoint of a character within the story, that the thing that is most wrong of all is what is labeled 'pure lawful' and that in fact 'pure chaos' is right minded, virtuous, and correct behavior.

Having had a lot of American players, I'd say that the average American gravitates toward (what is in my game) somewhere between CN and CG. There are of course exceptions. I've got one player that is strongly LG in his natural inclinations, so much so that he can't play anything else.

 

[Starfox]

If the truth is that all truth is relative to the person, and there is no specific answers - just your own answers, then you've sided with a particular alignment view point. Essentially you are telling your players, "Forget this malarkey about nine alignments. There is one fundamental truth, and that truth is that there is no truth." If that is the case, when could ever the chips be down? When could it ever matter what the character was doing, if at best the player is the only judge of his own actions?

If you tell a player you feel his character is breaking alignment, and he gainsays you and has a reasonable argument, then this is not a lack of truth - it is a debate on ethics. We humans have had those since the beginning of literature, and happily there is no end in sight. If we ever stopped disusing ethics, then I think we'd have fallen very low.

The question is not if ethics exist, it is whether I believe so much in my interpretation that I am willing to overrule someone else's opinion.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm sure good wants to do the right. I just think it often doesn't.

As I conceive things, this is an attribute of Wisdom. High wisdom characters correctly understand the requirements of their beliefs. Low wisdom characters are frequently misguided and fail to accomplish what they intend. The lack introspection and often in practice incorrectly label their own beliefs or incorrectly describe to themselves and others what adherence to their belief requires.

After all, the real-world anti-D&D crusaders probably fit the D&D definition of Good. (How's that for irony).

I'm not sure that they do.

a) If they do, then they can only have low Wisdoms.
b) Are you sure that they are really motivated to do good, or are they simply zealously adhering to a moral/social code without reflection on the purpose and meaning of the code? This would be lawful.
c) In some cases, the beliefs of some of the crusaders are far outside that of the cultural group they supposedly belong too, to the extent that they would be considered heretical claims by the mainstream of that group. In this case, they may be extolling a moral code that is essentially private to themselves and unreviewable to any recognizable external authority. This insistence that you hold private wisdom that the larger group doesn't have is often chaotic.
d) In some cases, there is good documented evidence that person in question has been deliberately deceptive in order to advance their claims and agenda. This behavior would be normally associated with evil.

So, how can we know for sure? I would argue that we can't really, but that the best estimate would be made by examining other facts about their life to find out if they are sincerely but misguided 'good', pharisaical zealots adhering to the letter of the law but failing to understand or adhere to the spirit, or egotistical fiends enlarging their own importance and creating social turmoil by inventing and promoting stories they themselves know to be falsehoods.

Sometimes it's not easy to judge. People tend to keep their innermost thoughts quite secret.

 

[Celebrim]

If you tell a player you feel his character is breaking alignment, and he gainsays you and has a reasonable argument, then this is not a lack of truth - it is a debate on ethics.

No, it's not. There is not in the categorization of motives, deeds, and so forth into buckets labeled 'law', 'chaos', 'good', or 'evil' any real debate over ethics - any more than if we were shuffling them into 'blue', 'red', 'green' and 'yellow'. If we were having a serious debate over ethics, I might argue that several of those labels have no real value - or at least no real ethical value. Remember, I have from the start insisted that despite the superficial labeling, I'm making no normative judgment in favor or against any belief or mode of behavior. It may be that the NPC espousing the NE ethical code, briefly and oversimplifying, "The world is evil. Good is an illusion. If were it not an illusion, it's nothing that actually exists in this world. Good is as bad as evil, or worse. There is no salvation for this world. If a person does well by opposing evil, then one would do best by opposing the world, life, and existence." Whether you believe that or not, there is a disputable argument involved as to whether that is correct. However, it is not disputable that that code is in the bucket NE, because as DM I'm the one that has decided what each bucket contains.

The question is not if ethics exist, it is whether I believe so much in my interpretation that I am willing to overrule someone else's opinion.

I have no intention of overruling someone else's opinion as to whether something is right or wrong. But for the purposes of a game, the player must accept what bucket contains what beliefs. In their own game if it seems fitting to them, they may arrange things differently and I wouldn't be able to gainsay them.

 

[Starfox]

No, it's not. There is not in the categorization of motives, deeds, and so forth into buckets labeled 'law', 'chaos', 'good', or 'evil' any real debate over ethics - any more than if we were shuffling them into 'blue', 'red', 'green' and 'yellow'. If we were having a serious debate over ethics, I might argue that several of those labels have no real value - or at least no real ethical value.

I still think this is a discourse on ethics. It might be kindergarten level discourse, or just plain bad discourse.

And yes, in most role-playing games the buck stops with the GM. But different GMs and different groups do this differently.

 

[Celebrim]

I still think this is a discourse on ethics. It might be kindergarten level discourse, or just plain bad discourse.

Yep, you've just nailed it. That's what I'm striving for in a game - a bad discourse on ethics given for kindergarteners.

I think we can reasonably distinguish between a framework for discussing ethics in the context of heroic fantasy and the actual exploration of ethics themselves. The framework consists of things like asserting that there exist beings that are incarnate evil or incarnate law, a polytheistic pantheon of gods having a certain character, a world with a particular history, and ideologies that exist as palpable and detectable things, and so for. The later - the actual discussion - involves asking, within in this context, how ought one to behave? What is right and what is wrong? Ought one to obey the gods of good unquestioningly? Are those things which are labeled good, truly right? When one adopts a particular alignment, what is one like and what is the range of character possible within this stricture?

Is this a proper framework for discussing ethics generally? Perhaps not. I'd certainly not bring up D&D in the context of any one's serious questions about their life. But it seems to me to be a suitable one for discussing ethics in the context of heroic fantasy, which I think though interesting has only some tenuous connection to reality. That tenuous connection is part of the attraction for me. If it was really connected to reality, then the format would be too flippant and too frivolous for exploring anything of such weight and importance.

And yes, in most role-playing games the buck stops with the GM. But different GMs and different groups do this differently.

I'm not sure what you mean about that. Ultimately, as DM I'm responsible for being able to translate any given behavior into one of the nine provided alignment buckets. If I can't do that, then I should drop the alignment buckets completely. Many of course do.

However, in my personal experience, those that trumpet how far they've gotten past kindergarten level discourse are seldom or well never as deep and thoughtful on this issue as all that. Those groups that drop the bad framework in favor of no framework, seldom to me turn out to be actually interested in asking any questions at all.

All out on the table and honest, 100% of the time I've seen an alignment framework dropped from a game, one or both of the following was true:

a) They ran evil PC's exclusively or almost exclusively.
b) They preferred to use the PC as a gaming piece rather than treating it as an imagined real life flesh and blood person.

It's left me with a great distaste for dropping alignment systems and calling your game 'grown-up', 'mature', etc. I think I'll take being judged as kindergarten stuff.

 

[Starfox]

What I meant was just that the GM has to be the final arbiter - basically what everyone has been saying.

Thinking on rl alignment discussions, there seems to be two kinds, depening on the player.

A Interested Parties
Discussing alignment among people interested in ethics, which generally is a discussion of trifles and flavors - which is the greater good/lesser evil, killing the dragon or driving it away?

Most of the people doing this ought to have characters of good alignment, but don't always think so themselves. They will shy away from the good-only classes because they fear they will not live up to their own standards.

B Gamists
Hey! Who says I cannot be a paladin just because I cost-optimized my gear over a 10-level span and was behind on the plan? That orphanage was over-funded and hosting potential rogues anyway!

Most of these guys should be neutral or even evil, but may make a fuzz if they are told they cannot get the special bennies for being good.

 

[Celebrim]

Thinking on rl alignment discussions, there seems to be two kinds, depending on the player.

I generally agree with your description, though I'd add a third (probably rarer) care, the (for lack of a better name) Pyschological Explorer.

c) Psychological Explorer: A variation on the Method Actor, the Pyschological Explorer is interested in RPGs strongly for the experience of being someone he is not. To the Psychological Explorer, having a map of mentalities is just as interesting and thought provoking as a map of a dungeon or a world is to the traditional explorer. The Explorer wants to know, "What is it like to be X?" The Explorer isn't for example, being evil or chaotic as a form of escapism. An evil escapist character usually is one that chews up the scenery and exists for its own sake. Rather, to take a modern reference, the Psychological Explorer is like, "Why are their people who believe in this? How did this person come to believe what he does? What does he feel like? Why does he persist in it? Can I make this person interesting and sympathetic, even if it most observers his beliefs would seem tragic or deeply misguided? The Explorer creates a framework for his character, and instead of evaluating what he the player feels about the situation, tries to imagine what his character would feel about the situation. Those vicarious emotions, the thespianism that results from that exploration, and the mental exploration imagining the mind space of his character are part of the reasons he returns to RPGs.

Debate over ethics isn't the goal of this style of play, but it can arise as a result of it - often through interparty conflict. One of the reasons that it is rare is that a lot of players seeking to play an escapist character use this motivation as an excuse for playing like a real jerk. In my experience though, the last thing that an Explorer wants to play is a to type jerk - Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Good Stupid, Evil Jerk, etc. If they want to play a Paladin, the last thing they want is a paladin that no one can believe is motivated by anything but his own jerky need to be a control freak. If they want to play an evil character, the last thing that they want is to play a character that people don't try to justify and excuse away their behavior because the character is just so unlikable and unattractive. That's been done and there isn't much to explore there anyway. Another reason it is rare is that this sort of play often comes in conflict with the two more common types you cite - it's hard to play with Interested Parties if you aren't good and hard to play with Gamists if you aren't neutral or evil. It requires a pretty mature and understanding group to integrate that and allow everyone to keep play (think about the party dynamics of Rich's Order of the Stick, where I think Rich is showing a lot of signs of being this sort of gamer in his narrative).

 

[Starfox]

c) Psychological Explorer:

I agree with all of this, and wish I'd written it. I'd classify myself as a psychological explorer at heart, tough I tend to tune it down because it seems to annoy people, just as you say. I do it a bit more as a GM than as a player, but even then I restrain myself. Sometimes villains need to be stupid evil, not interesting evil.