D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

Stealing bread and fruit to not starve is absolutely not a negative moral action, and any system that supposed that it is, is objectively and egregiously wrong.

Nor are they positive, though. I see those acts as neutral, but the rest of his personality shows that he is both independent and good and that + neutral = good. Either NG or CG, I lean CG.

 

[Helldritch]

There are canonical examples of mind flayers of good alignments you realise?

I know. An exception is not the rule. Afterall there are reformed demons too. If the narrative needs a reformed demon/devil/mindflayer/beholder or whatever, so be it. Heck, there were lawful Good ogres in an official Greyhawk adventure! But exceptions are just that. Exceptions. The general rule still apply.

 

[Hriston]

This paragraph makes me think of Moorcock. And, to an extent, REH Conan (read a certain way).

But what drives the conflict?

In the game? It's me making things up. The PCs have goals, and NPCs oppose them for "reasons". The fights aren't over alignment in the fiction, they just happen more often when opposing alignments are involved because it puts a negative modifier on the reaction roll. Then I make up a reason the NPC is standing in the way of the PCs getting what they want (or just have them do so and see what happens).

To the extent that it's a type of aesthetic disagreement - neither side can cope with the world being shaped in the image of the other - then it's hard to see either side as good, being prepared to kill and sponsor killing in pursuit of their own ideal of a pleasing world.

Alignment in my game isn't something a character subscribes to or advocates for. It's an outgrowth of a character's actions which then shapes their place in the drama somewhat. I guess it could be likened to an invisible aura that affects those with whom the PC interacts.

Whereas this makes me think of alignment as personality descriptor. There's no deep conflict between Manwe and Ulmo. They're on the same side, and both are agents of good.

Sure, Tolkien isn't so much about Law against Chaos. Usually when someone goes off by themselves, especially to some dark place, like Melkor or Gollum, it's considered a bad thing, but then we have Ulmo living in isolation from the other Valar at the bottom of the Outer Sea as an example of someone doing just that and having "strange thoughts" (at least from those of Manwe) that end up saving the day. He was a common voice of dissent at those councils of the Valar which he attended (he was originally against bringing the elves to Aman, for example), and I can think of two times when Ulmo seems to have acted against the wishes of Manwe. First, he anchored the isle of Tol Eressea off the coast of Aman to keep the Teleri within his domain. And secondly, he went against the judgment of the Valar (and thus Manwe) by violating the Doom of Mandos and coming to the aid of and giving council to the Exiles in their war against Morgoth, so there's a bit of conflict there in the subtext. Who best to interpret the will of Iluvatar? Manwe is the chosen King of Arda, but Ulmo knows the Music better than anyone.

 

[Flamestrike]

I know. An exception is not the rule.

No, but it does prove the rule is wrong.

 

[Hriston]

Stealing bread and fruit to not starve is absolutely not a negative moral action, and any system that supposed that it is, is objectively and egregiously wrong.

Ah, no, of course not. I wasn't reading "steals to survive" as "steals only to survive", but I agree that's the natural reading. I wouldn't say a predatory animal is evil because it must kill to survive either.

 

[pemerton]

Many choose Good alignments, because they want to see themselves as a heroic protagonist.

They then start torturing and murdering people, relying on 'justifications' as to why this is 'morally good' (justifications that make sense in their own minds).

I have heard of this. Seems sad a table would dissolve into that.

How common is the phenomenon of players asserting that torture is good?

And given that we're talking about game play and not just dinner table debate, what sorts of situations are arising in games that even put this onto the table?

Stealing bread and fruit to not starve is absolutely not a negative moral action, and any system that supposed that it is, is objectively and egregiously wrong.

Theft to survive is not evil. He was an otherwise good person, who didnt harm/ rape/ torture/ murder others, and was kind and altruistic.

If he was stealing for himself, pleasure or for wealth, then sure. If he's forced to steal to eat and is just taking what he needs to survive what society has done to him, then I don't see it as intent to harm.

In real life, systems of private property produce consequences that are objects of controversy. And the moral analysis of them is contested: for instance, Thomas Aquinas argues that there is a sense in which stealing for survival is not really theft because the goods that are taken don't really belong to their owner, because the only justified property claims are those that don't contradict the purpose of having material goods in the first place, which is (according to Aquinas) to satisfy human needs. Obviously there are many libertarians (eg Robert Nozick) who don't agree.

In the fantasy context, though, it seems incumbent on a table which wants to avoid real-life controversy to frame things in such a way that those controversies don't arise. Eg Robin Hood robs from the rich to give to the poor, but the background context of the story (at least in its Errol Flynn version) is that the poor are only poor because of oppressive taxation, and that systems of nobility and honourable leadership (eg by King Richard) are possible without oppressive taxation, and hence the need for robbery to ensure justice is only a temporary need resulting from King John and his underling's evilly perturbing what is, in its underlying structure and operation, a fair social system.

I've never seen a Disney version of Aladdin, but I am going to guess that it's presentation of economic justice and oppression is similar to Robin Hood.

If we are talking about the contribution of the alignment system to RPG play, we have to consider what sorts of questions the fiction gives rise to. If you want to run a game where overthrowing the feudal order and replacing it with a cooperative of small land-holders is a serious object of consideration, then I think the alignment system will just get in the way, given that it presupposes (for instance) that feudal rulers of lands like Cormyr (sp? I'm not a FR buff) and Furyondy can be LG paladins.

 

[Scott Christian]

And given that we're talking about game play and not just dinner table debate, what sorts of situations are arising in games that even put this onto the table?

It is smart to not let that come in. That said, sometimes it just happens.

 

[pemerton]

In the game? It's me making things up. The PCs have goals, and NPCs oppose them for "reasons". The fights aren't over alignment in the fiction, they just happen more often when opposing alignments are involved because it puts a negative modifier on the reaction roll.

<snip>

Alignment in my game isn't something a character subscribes to or advocates for. It's an outgrowth of a character's actions which then shapes their place in the drama somewhat. I guess it could be likened to an invisible aura that affects those with whom the PC interacts.

What you describe here seems to be a departure from canonical D&D, in which Law and Chaos are opposed, and hence (among other things) affect reactions; rather than the conflict between them being simply the result of poor reactions.

Sure, Tolkien isn't so much about Law against Chaos. Usually when someone goes off by themselves, especially to some dark place, like Melkor or Gollum, it's considered a bad thing, but then we have Ulmo living in isolation from the other Valar at the bottom of the Outer Sea as an example of someone doing just that and having "strange thoughts" (at least from those of Manwe) that end up saving the day. He was a common voice of dissent at those councils of the Valar which he attended (he was originally against bringing the elves to Aman, for example), and I can think of two times when Ulmo seems to have acted against the wishes of Manwe. First, he anchored the isle of Tol Eressea off the coast of Aman to keep the Teleri within his domain. And secondly, he went against the judgment of the Valar (and thus Manwe) by violating the Doom of Mandos and coming to the aid of and giving council to the Exiles in their war against Morgoth, so there's a bit of conflict there in the subtext. Who best to interpret the will of Iluvatar? Manwe is the chosen King of Arda, but Ulmo knows the Music better than anyone.

There is a very strong providential element in JRRT's work: everything always, in the end, tends back towards good because the creator is supremely powerful and all seeming discordance is in fact incorporated back into the music of creation. Gollum is the most obvious exemplar here, but even Morgoth's theft of the Silmarils bends back towards good - among other consequences it creates opportunities for the cultivation and display of deep virtues, it allows Earendil to become a star, and it ultimately leads to the birth and triumph of Aragorn which allows just government to be restored among human beings.

But Ulmo is not an instance of this. He is, himself, good. He never falls out of grace. And so when he goes against the Doom of Mandos he is not doing evil which ends up being re-subsumed within good. He is doing good directly. So if Manwe or Mandos were to attempt to stop him, they would be doing evil.

This is why I think that JRRT is not just unconcerned with Law vs Chaos; in his work they don't appear as fundamentally opposed means. This is a difference from Moorcock or REH's Conan.

In a game that was JRRT/LotR oriented, I don't think there would be any use for the Law/Chaos aspect of alignment. It wouldn't capture anything meaningful. It might be helpful in such a game to label people as good or evil, as a reminder of which side of the conflict they are on.

 

[Flamestrike]

How common is the phenomenon of players asserting that torture is good?

Common enough. Same with slaughtering captured prisoners, murder and similar.

They write down Good, and then start acting very Evil. When called out on it, they provide a ton of justifications.

Personally, I dont tolerate that crap. I'll explain my take on alignments, how they're viewed by the 'Gods' and that's that. I'll indicate to a new player if I think he's stepping outside his alignment and eventually I'll note the PC's actual alignment on my own records, and if there is a game effect that triggers on alignment (a unicorns lair, a talisman of ultimate evil etc) then it works off the alignment they've been playing, not what is written on their character sheet.

 

[pemerton]

Common enough. Same with slaughtering captured prisoners, murder and similar.

They write down Good, and then start acting very Evil.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely to me that very many D&D players are actually psycho- or sociopaths. It seems more likely that there is something about the game setup that creates distorting incentives.