D&D General Rethinking alignment yet again

[Cadence]

In my latest game I made "alignment" only show up in the cosmic sense. It's detectable for some particular kinds of beings (angels, archons, aberrations, undead, and demons) and their servants and associated items. The forces of "Law" are split into Order, Justice, and Mercy, the forces of "Chaos" into Aberration, Immortality (aka Undeath), and Temptation. And a lot of "people" just wishing they'd leave them alone.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, I can't help when I read comments like that reading them as if they are super bitter and angry, and I think it would greatly help me understand your position and sympathize with your feelings if I just understood why. I realize this is a personal question and of course, no judgment if you don't want to answer, but some personal anecdotes would help here. Like did you really have a aecetic, teetotalling, vegan health-nut GM that said your Paladin had fallen because he drunk a beer or ate a roast chicken without explaining to you ahead of time that in his world all good character's shared his real world ascetic and pacifist principles? Or is that situation purely theoretical and you are just trying to poison the conversation?

It as an attempt to provide a non-political example of the very real issue people want to bury and ignore: that alignment's primary effect is to impose a morality over the game.

It is a vector by which the DM or the designers harshly judge your character and by extension you for making that character's choices.

"This thing you think is perfectly fine or amoral is, in fact Evil. Objectively so."

Is there any other situation where people want to hear that from some random dude on the street (game designer) or even an actual supposed friend (the DM) or even try to foist that on a friend?

 

[Celebrim]

It as an attempt to provide a non-political example of the very real issue people want to bury and ignore: that alignment's primary effect is to impose a morality over the game.

I'm not ignoring that. As ought to be clear, not only do I think that's the point of alignment I don't think it's an issue at all. When I play Star Wars I don't get too hung up on the fact that "Light" side characters have a moral system imposed on them that differs from my own. That's part of the setting.

It is a vector by which the DM or the designers harshly judge your character and by extension you for making that character's choices.

"This thing you think is perfectly fine or amoral is, in fact Evil. Objectively so."

So? I don't understand how this is a problem unless in real life you are morally opposed to being judged even in the context of a game.

Is there any other situation where people want to hear that from some random dude on the street (game designer) or even an actual supposed friend (the DM) or even try to foist that on a friend?

Sure. I can think of a few. If I'm being immoral I would want my friend to confront me. I might not take it the same way from a stranger, because no one likes being called on their vices, but a friend absolutely should be trying to gently tell you that you are out of line because they are a friend. Like, "Hey friend, I notice you've been really throwing it back lately, and that much drinking, I really don't think it is good for you.", is a very friend thing to say.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So? I don't understand how this is a problem unless in real life you are morally opposed to being judged even in the context of a game.

Yes. I am opposed to being morally judged in a game.

Because it is a game. I am here to have fun, not be proselytized to.

Sure. I can of a few. If I'm being immoral I would want my friend to confront me. I might not take it the same way from a stranger, because no one likes being called on their vices, but a friend absolutely should be trying to gently tell you that you are out of line because they are a friend. Like, "Hey friend, I notice you've been really throwing it back lately, and it's that much drinking, I really don't think it is good for you.", is a very friend thing to say.

"Drinking is not good for you" is not a moral judgement. That's just a medical fact.

"Drinking means you are an evil degenerate" is.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes. I am opposed to being morally judged in a game.

Good for you. I'm glad we are now clear on that because it ends the discussion in a place where everyone understands everyone and we can just agree to disagree.

I know people who are morally opposed to having demons and devils even in the context of game. The correct behavior for those people is to not play in games with demons and devils. I know also of people who are morally opposed to having magic even in the context of a game. The correct behavior for those people are to not play Dungeons and Dragons. Those people should probably not show up on EnWorld and tell everyone how bad D&D because of demons or magic unless someone asks about it and shows actual curiosity in the subject.

"Drinking is not good for you" is not a moral judgement.

Oh, no, absolutely it is. There is a very close relationships between statements like "Drunkness is a sin" and "Drinking is not good for you", with the only real difference being that "for you" specifies why. When it reaches the level of Drunkness we probably wouldn't need to limit that to "for you" as others would be effected as well.

That's just a medical fact.

"Drinking means you are an evil degenerate" is.

There is from my perspective basically no difference between the two statements except one is trying to be gentler than the other (for better or worse). But they mean exactly the same thing.

So let me sum up and I'll not bother you again in this thread. You seem in the real world to have a set of beliefs that would be strongly Chaotic Neutral in my D&D campaign. That is you seem to believe that all morality is personal, that each person should decide for themselves how to best act in a moral fashion, that the meaning of life to the extent that it has meaning is found in self-actualization and seeking ones goals and happiness, and that all the evils of the world ultimately result from other people not minding their own business and telling people what to do. To the Chaotic Neutral, the good in life is doing what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. To the Chaotic Neutral, authority and ideologies are the source of the evils in the world, "All wars are caused by religion" sort of thing. And that's fine. It's a common set of beliefs in the modern culture.

But what you are doing here being angry and passive aggressive and snarky about the existence of alignment while posting on EnWorld is therefore not really any different than someone who sees a discussion about demons getting up in everyone's face whenever the topic comes up. You are in fact the one proselytizing your moral position that even in a game no one should be judged by someone else for their morality. And some of us also aren't really interested in being proselytize too, least of all by someone who does it by being insulting continually.

 

[RuinousPowers]

I'm not ignoring that. As ought to be clear, not only do I think that's the point of alignment I don't think it's an issue at all. When I play Star Wars I don't get too hung up on the fact that "Light" side characters have a moral system imposed on them that differs from my own. That's part of the setting.



So? I don't understand how this is a problem unless in real life you are morally opposed to being judged even in the context of a game.



Sure. I can of a few. If I'm being immoral I would want my friend to confront me. I might not take it the same way from a stranger, because no one likes being called on their vices, but a friend absolutely should be trying to gently tell you that you are out of line because they are a friend. Like, "Hey friend, I notice you've been really throwing it back lately, and it's that much drinking, I really don't think it is good for you.", is a very friend thing to say.

Having a person force you to deal with their interpretations of morality in what is supposed to be a leisure activity, and having the ability to punish you, through your character, is not fun. A DM who strongly believes in Gygax's alignment definitions and demands you either kill goblin children or you lose your character that required a great deal of luck to get, is not fun. Or in 5e having everyone just treat you as evil for not killing goblin children would not be fun either.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Good for you. I'm glad we are now clear on that because it ends the discussion in a place where everyone understands everyone and we can just agree to disagree.

I know people who are morally opposed to having demons and devils even in the context of game. The correct behavior for those people is to not play in games with demons and devils. I know also of people who are morally opposed to having magic even in the context of a game. The correct behavior for those people are to not play Dungeons and Dragons. Those people should probably not show up on EnWorld and tell everyone how bad D&D because of demons or magic unless someone asks about it and shows actual curiosity in the subject.

Are we re really trying to invoke the Satanic Panic to try to 'win' the argument over the value of alignment?

Oh, no, absolutely it is. There is a very close relationships between statements like "Drunkness is a sin" and "Drinking is not good for you", with the only real difference being that "for you" specifies why. When it reaches the level of Drunkness we probably wouldn't need to limit that to "for you" as others would be effected as well.

There is from my perspective basically no difference between the two statements except one is trying to be gentler than the other (for better or worse). But they mean exactly the same thing.

This isn't an issue of perspective.

Excessive drinking literally is harmful to someone's health. Stating that says nothing morally.

This is like saying that telling someone they're worried about them going skydiving because it's dangerous is a moral judgement. You're not telling them it's wrong , just that it's dangerous.

So let me sum up and I'll not bother you again in this thread. You seem in the real world to have a set of beliefs that would be strongly Chaotic Neutral in my D&D campaign. That is you seem to believe that all morality is personal, that each person should decide for themselves how to best act in a moral fashion, that the meaning of life to the extent that it has meaning is found in self-actualization and seeking ones goals and happiness, and that all the evils of the world ultimately result from other people not minding their own business and telling people what to do. To the Chaotic Neutral, the good in life is doing what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. To the Chaotic Neutral, authority and ideologies are the source of the evils in the world, "All wars are caused by religion" sort of thing. And that's fine. It's a common set of beliefs in the modern culture.

But what you are doing here being angry and passive aggressive and snarky about the existence of alignment while posting on EnWorld is therefore not really any different than someone who sees a discussion about demons getting up in everyone's face whenever the topic comes up. You are in fact the one proselytizing your moral position that even in a game no one should be judged by someone else for their morality. And some of us also aren't really interested in being proselytize too, least of all by someone who does it by being insulting continually.

I mean you just explicitly, and in insulting detail demonstrated the exact issue.

I don't need you to tell me what and who I am morally and ethically. I don't want you to do that. But you're doing it anyway.

That is what it's like to play at a table that cares about alignment: just sitting here, getting judged and insulted and needled at with absolutely no recourse.

 

[Celebrim]

Having a person force you to deal with their interpretations of morality in what is supposed to be a leisure activity, and having the ability to punish you, through your character, is not fun. A DM who strongly believes in Gygax's alignment definitions and demands you either kill goblin children or you lose your character that required a great deal of luck to get, is not fun. Or in 5e having everyone just treat you as evil for not killing goblin children would not be fun either.

For you. Being forced to deal with issues of morality is part of what makes the leisure activity fun for me. By all means, ignore alignment if you think it is badwrongfun to have it in a game. Just don't expect me to care much when you demand I take it out. Once again, "Alignment definitions don't conform to my real world morality and so alignment isn't good.." isn't a particularly interesting discussion. "Assuming we play with alignment, how do you avoid degenerate game states where people aren't having fun..." is an interesting discussion. But the position "Alignment is inherently bad" isn't really interesting conversation any more than "pretending to use magic is inherently bad". For one thing, both positions end up depending on subjects that we aren't really allowed to discuss freely and in great detail at EnWorld.

 

[RuinousPowers]

For you. Being forced to deal with issues of morality is part of what makes the leisure activity fun for me. By all means, ignore alignment if you think it is badwrongfun to have it in a game. Just don't expect me to care much when you demand I take it out. Once again, "Alignment definitions don't conform to my real world morality and so alignment isn't good.." isn't a particularly interesting discussion. "Assuming we play with alignment, how do you avoid degenerate game states where people aren't having fun..." is an interesting discussion. But the position "Alignment is inherently bad" isn't really interesting conversation any more than "pretending to use magic is inherently bad". For one thing, both positions end up depending on subjects that we aren't really allowed to discuss freely and in great detail at EnWorld.

But the conversation isn't about dealing with issues of morality. It's one person dictates what constitutes the defining of alignment and everyone has to adopt it. There is no "dealing" with issues of morality when there is an objective correct answer that is determined by the DM, and is different at every table.

 

[Celebrim]

There is no "dealing" with issues of morality when there is an objective correct answer that is determined by the DM, and is different at every table.

I am baffled by this statement as it seems to be straight up nonsense. Yes, in D&D there is an objective answer to what is meant by "Good". But having an objective answer for what is good does not solve many or even any moral dilemmas. So this is fundamentally obvious and I've explained why it doesn't solve any moral dilemmas so much in this thread that I'm at a loss how you can assert your claim axiomatically without any attempt to defend it. I feel like you are fighting over the label and not any normative, ethical or moral claims. Are you just offended that something is called "Good"? Is the label so important to claim?