Alignment Question

[Samothdm]

Originally posted by Samothdm.
I understand your point that what is seen as "good" to someone might be seen as "evil" to someone else, and you think that it's the player's interpretation of how his character would view those acts that should count.

No. You don't see it. But it's not your fault. Very few people can look at good and evil or right and wrong with absolute neutrality, so I can't blame you for not being able to.

Well, obviously we disagree about how to handle this (which is why I posted this in the firstplace - I wanted some other viewpoints). But, what am I missing in your explanation. You are viewing this situation differently than I am, so how would you handle it?

Let's put it another way. Let's say I have a lawful good character, a chaotic neutral character, and a neutral character. How would you think they should react to the situation? More importantly, how would/should they justify their actions (as, to your point, all three could slit the throats and have their own reasons for doing so).

I don't want to play in Barbi-happy-go-lucky-world where good and evil are predetermined and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what you, the player, think about it. Personally, I prefer a flexible environment, but that's just me.

That's fine - but could you explain a little more what exactly you mean? How "flexible" can you get? You mentioned that alignment can affect some class abilities (if they're based on alignment) or some spells or what-not. But, what if you're playing a character who isn't going to be affected by those? Let's take this rogue, for example. What should happen to him? Nothing? As a DM, I shouldn't impose a gradual alignment change on him so that he is detectable by a "detect evil" spell?

I can't stress enough how that doesn't matter. A law does not make something evil.

But I'm not talking about a law here. I'm talking about what the average person would think. In other words, would the average person want to associate with this guy on a regular basis, or call him a friend? I'd so "no." Not because he was breaking a law. But, because this "throat-slitting guy" makes the average person feel uncomfortable. He creeps him out. Why? Because he's doing something that's not moral. Why is it not moral? Because, once incapacitated, these brigands are no longer a threat. The threat has been taken out of them due to the sleep spell. Granted, they'll wake up sooner or later. In the meantime, they can be disarmed, chained up, kept alive, and eventually put in prison. Why would the characters do that? Because it's the law? Not necessarily. Because it's the decent, "good" thing to do.

Again, I realize that this is an ideal and utopian ideal. But, that's the world that I portray in my campaign. The characters know that. It's what they can expect from other NPCs. If people are just random in their violence, then the lines between "good" and "evil" are blurred. While that works for some genres of fiction and gaming, it doesn't quite work in IMC.

But, again, I am really very interested in how you would see this played out in a game in which you participate as a player or DM.

 

[Valmur_Dwur]

Hello Samothdm!

I want to get off this wholle alignment thing because as always it gets us nowhere From reading your first post and then down near the end I get 2 differrent impressions. My first upon reading was this: You as the DM made it almost impossible for them to do anything else but kill all of them. Did the cleric ask for surrender of those that were "Mopped up"? Did anyone try to subdue one or more of those that made their save vs sleep? If this has happened before what was the situation then? What I'm driving at is sometimes we as DM's have all these neat plothooks and ideas floating around and we know what we want the players to do but we set it up so that it is impossible to do so. That is what I got out of your original post. Further down I see where you named 5 or so things that the party could have done. One was have an NPC stand guard. Now Did this NPC (who represents those things about your world that the players need to know) remind the party that throat-slitting was not the job hired for? Or that in good concience<sp> they would have to make a report that outlined this most unfortunate mishap that will probably cause the agreed upon fee to be lower or forfeited? My perpective shows that you as DM didn't allow the party to do anything other than slit the throats. Remember you have the duty to allow the pcs as much lee-way as you can in playing, but as you have pointed out, it bothers you to see them do an evil act. Make sure in the future you guide them toward a better resolution for them and you. Please take my ramblings not as an affront to you(you seem to have a great world running ) But as someone who has seen these alignment debates drag on for weeks

 

[Stalker0]

In my mind, a fair and easy way to encourage your players to behave a certain way without throwing down THAT WAS EVIL!!! labels to a whole bunch of things is with the use of a conscience. You as a DM can play the PC
s conscience. This way when something that you feel is an evil act occurs, tell the players they feel a sense of remorse or guilt for the acts they did. The players may argue that what they did was the right thing, and often times it was. We often feel remorse for things we've done, even when it turns out that was the best solution.

This can give a friendly reminder to players without laying down the law. And eventually, if the players continously go against their "conscience" then I would say that's a good indication their slipping into an evil alignment.

 

[Felix]

KarinsDad: Nothing equates with Heroic because all of the alignments are capable of it. Evil much much much less so than Good (Darth Vader was LE, right?), and Neutral a bit less. Lawful and Chaotic don't have terribly much to do with it.

Your words
Heroic is generally defined as helping others, even if it means sacrificing your own life.

So what is not heroic about the near-death CN Barbarian charging the big beastie that threatens his friend the frail Wizard? Or the N Druid that shelters his companions in his grove risking the life of the forest that he loves because the BBEG is coming to get them?

Neutral characters can be as heroic as any Good one; but you cannot justify walking into a town, seeing the bad guys threatening the townies, and then smite them at great personal risk. You cannot do that with a N because those townsfolk just might not be that important to the Neutral guy. There must be other (and in my opinion more interesting) motavations than "Hark! The sound of personal sacrifice wafts to my ears! Let us go SMITE!"

My Neutral characters have saved plenty of towns, with the prereq that he knew them and was friends with them before he did it.

True, when you go running around saving scores of towns, it helps to be Good because that will make it easier to justify your motivations. However, duty, courage, friendship, et al should not be poo-pooed as heroism just because they were not motivated by an overriding urge to do Good.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your words
Heroic is generally defined as helping others, even if it means sacrificing your own life.

So what is not heroic about the near-death CN Barbarian charging the big beastie that threatens his friend the frail Wizard?

No doubt about it.

Other alignments can perform actions which either are heroic, or seem heroic (depending on motivation).

The difference you are missing is that the Barbarian you mention might be at full hit points, be outnumbered by powerful opponents, yell to his friend “Dimension Door out of here buddy.”, and with his fast movement, he leaves.

On the Wizard’s turn, he says “But I didn’t study Dimension Door today.” and the powerful creatures overwhelm him.

Yes, other alignments can act heroically on occasion. But, they also act non-heroically just as often or more often.

However, duty, courage, friendship, et al should not be poo-pooed as heroism just because they were not motivated by an overriding urge to do Good.

Motivation has everything to do with it.

I do not poo poo individual acts of heroism by non-good characters. I poo poo the overwhelming urge of players to play neutral characters so that they do not have to think about what their character should do.

How many players have you known that play various types of neutral characters, especially Chaotic Neutral, just so that if they feel like killing today, that is what they do. If they feel like saving a town, that is what they do. If they feel like a party fight, that is what they do.

Neutral alignments are a poor excuse for non-consistent behavior and inadequate roleplaying. And that is a re-occurring theme for a lot of players who want to play neutral characters all of the time. Hence, I prefer good alignments because it is extremely difficult to justify outright evil actions.

Virtually every player I have seen who wants to do weird, random Chaotic Neutral crap in a good aligned campaign end up doing smaller, less impact type of weird stuff like shaving their heads and eyebrows, getting tattoos, or collecting small body parts from the monsters they kill. It’s still annoying, but not nearly so much as totally random, inconsistent actions to the point that you wonder if the character is a madman.

And, it is not just Chaotic Neutral. We had a campaign where the Chaotic Neutral character always (and I mean always, even when it was not needed) insisted on a party marching order and a Lawful Neutral character wanted to break down the door of a cottage that they just happened to stumble across because the owner didn’t answer. Some people (in fact, a lot of people in my 24 years of experience) have a very difficult time playing neutral alignments. But, they seem to have a lot less problem playing good alignments.

Good tends to be relatively well defined. Neutral tends to be wide open, hence, some players think that there are no restrictions for neutral alignments and then can do whatever they wish. That is not the case, but it is difficult to get them to understand the difference. Hence, one of the reasons for my preference for good aligned characters. People can play them much easier. YMMV, but I doubt by much.

 

[Felix]

Originally posted by KarinsDad

Motivation has everything to do with it.

I do not poo poo individual acts of heroism by non-good characters. I poo poo the overwhelming urge of players to play neutral characters so that they do not have to think about what their character should do.

Of course motivation has everything to do with it. As an actor, that is why I am drawn to DnD so much because you can explore your characters motivations much like you do on the stage. What I was saying is that the "must do good for my friend's sake" and the "must do good for goodness' sake" motivations are at least equals. (If not the former the better of the two.)

But which do you have to think less about: A) do action because it is good. -or- B) do action because of current relationship with other character. I think deciding if something is right or wrong is much easier than doing that and also if the reciever of your sacrifice is worthy of it.

Previously posted by KarinsDad

Neutral alignments are a poor excuse for non-consistent behavior and inadequate roleplaying.

Nonsense. Alignments do not cause inadequate roleplaying, nor do they aid roleplaying per se. LG Paladins and CG Rangers can be roleplayed just as horridly as any others can.

I think I understand where you are coming from saying that some players like N alignments because they feel they have liscence to do what they want on a whim instead of having a moral base for their decisions. I would say that you in your 24 (many more than mine, BTW) years of experience, you have run into more nitwits than me. I would also argue that those people would run a Good alinged character in an equally disappointing manner.

If you disallow N alignments in your campaign, you push your (good?) roleplayers to make moral judgements the way you want them to instead of the way they think their characters would make them. You might also rankle the inexperienced roleplayer who is itching to play the "CN Rogue" that we have all played in our careers; playing that character poorly (I did when I was a CN R) might permit them to see how CN shouldn't be played, how there is a rhyme and reason to what CN PCs do, and how that knowledge makes him a better player. You grow by making mistakes.

But then, of course, I have not been honing my form for as long as you. Perhaps if your players have played as long as you, they have found their nieche in the Good alignments. I have not quite found mine, but I do enjoy the mental exercise of my N characters.

P.S. You lost me on "YMMV". Meaning?

 

[kreynolds]

But, what am I missing in your explanation.

Actually, judging by your previous reply, it looks like you just about got it. Essentially, the player's reasons for doing something are paramount. They actually help you determine his alignment. Above, in your example, the Rogue gave you a perfectly reasonable reason why he was going to/did kill all of the bad guys. There was nothing evil in it. He had no other options:

1) Let them go, fight them again.
2) Untie them now, fight for my life.
3) Leave them here alive, knowing we'll just have to fight them again.
4) End this quickly and quietly, once and for all.
5) Slit their throats and insanely giggle through my own drool.

I know which one I would have picked. Given those options, a good aligned character would probably take there chances with option 3. Note, however, that only one of those options is truly evil, and that would be option 5.

Let's put it another way. Let's say I have a lawful good character, a chaotic neutral character, and a neutral character. How would you think they should react to the situation?

OK. I'll run down the list from above. If a lawful good character chose:

1) Dangerous to alignment, as he is letting loose evil men upon the world, and it makes it worse because he had them under his arm of the law, but he let them go anyway. There is no lawful way to justify this action.
2) His alignment probably isn't in any danger.
3) His alignment very well might be in danger, as he is leaving known evil to run free in the world when he could apprehend them, no matter how difficult.
4) Dangerous to alignment and not an option at all.
5) Dangerous to alignment and not an option at all.

If a chaotic neutral character chose:

1) His alignment is in no danger.
2) His alignment is in no danger.
3) His alignment is in no danger.
4) His alignment is in no danger.
5) Dangerous to alignment and not an option at all.

If a true neutral character chose:

1) His alignment is in no immediate danger (though repeated behavior could cause a shift).
2) His alignment is in no immediate danger (though repeated behavior could cause a shift).
3) His alignment is in no immediate danger (though repeated behavior could cause a shift).
4) His alignment is in no immediate danger (though repeated behavior could cause a shift).
5) His alignment is in no immediate danger (though repeated behavior could cause a shift).

How they react to this situation will be different. A lawful good character probably won't like the idea of slitting their throats, even if they are criminals. A chaotic neutral probably won't care, so long as he doesn't get blood on him. A true neutral probably doesn't give a damn about anything. Who would object? Obviously, the lawful good.

More importantly, how would/should they justify their actions (as, to your point, all three could slit the throats and have their own reasons for doing so).

How do you think they can justify slitting someone's throat? I can't go over every single little tiny possibility with all of the alignments. You have to decide what is good and what is evil. It seems to me that you have already decided that killing bound criminals is evil, but I don't think it is at all. It really depends on the situation.

Half of the reasons why a character's alignment is the way it is are because of you. Your world influences the characters and their alignments. They will react a certain way to your world. They will grow in a certain way within your world. If your world is very "survival of the fitest", then almost all forms of killing are fair game and should not be cosidered evil.

Like I said before, the only time killing is "truly evil" is in a utopian society, which doesn't exist, and shouldn't. There's nothing more boring.

That's fine - but could you explain a little more what exactly you mean?

Don't force unreasonable alignment shifts upon your players. Don't make snap judgements about what is right and what is wrong, good and evil, without having put plenty of thought into it first, as your decision will greatly effect your players and their alignments. That's what I mean.

You mentioned that alignment can affect some class abilities (if they're based on alignment) or some spells or what-not.

Whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa...you're putting way too much importance upon class abilities in regards to alignment. That was not what I was saying. I was simply giving you a list of things that alignment effects. If your class won't be effected, then spells might be, or even magic items, etc.

Let's take this rogue, for example. What should happen to him?

Nothing.

Nothing?

Yes. Nothing.

As a DM, I shouldn't impose a gradual alignment change on him so that he is detectable by a "detect evil" spell?

He didn't do anything inherently evil. If he repeated the activity over and over and over and over and over, then yeah, maybe it would affect his alignment. This act itself is not evil. His motivations were not evil. The act will never be evil. His motivations might one day, and that's when you alter his alignment.

But I'm not talking about a law here.

Yes you are. You posted this...

In this case, based on the rules I've set up for my world (the players know, or at least they should have read from my website, the laws and rules of the country in which they are in) it's quite clear that slitting the throats of these people is evil.

...so you have already established that killing is evil because it is against the laws and rules of the country, which is complete crap. A law never, ever makes something evil. NEVER. People can try to make a law make something evil, but it doesn't work.

You said your players should know about these laws of the lands. You base your opinion that killing in this manner is evil based upon your laws and rules of the country, which don't have a thing to do with good or evil, yet you have done just that. You stated so yourself.

This was the basis of your argument. Has that changed?

I'm talking about what the average person would think.

It doesn't really matter what they would think. That isn't the only factor, and it certainly isn't the biggest. Like I said, you have to look at the action with cold, calculating clarity, void of emotion. If you can't do that, just do your best. It'll probably be enough.

A person thinks they know what's evil. Does it make it evil? No. A country thinks they know what's evil. Does it make it evil? No. An entire world thinks they know what's evil. Does it make it evil? No. What makes it evil or not? You, the DM, looking at it with a fair and impartial eye.

In other words, would the average person want to associate with this guy on a regular basis, or call him a friend?

It doesn't matter. Evil people have friends too.

I'd so "no." Not because he was breaking a law. But, because this "throat-slitting guy" makes the average person feel uncomfortable. He creeps him out. Why?

Good question...

Because he's doing something that's not moral.

Probably.

Why is it not moral?

Why?

Because, once incapacitated, these brigands are no longer a threat. The threat has been taken out of them due to the sleep spell. Granted, they'll wake up sooner or later. In the meantime, they can be disarmed, chained up, kept alive, and eventually put in prison. Why would the characters do that? Because it's the law?

Yes. Because it's the law, and that is the only reason. You already stated, as I showed above, that good and evil in your campaign is defined by the laws of the land. Breakign the law is not evil in and of itself, but you seem to think so.

Not necessarily. Because it's the decent, "good" thing to do.

That's crap. You defined the decent "good" thing to do with the laws and rules of the country and put it in concrete. To put it another way, you railroad your players into a particular style of play based upon alignment. So, in your game, alignment is defined by the laws, which doesn't make any sense.

EDIT: Added a "wink" emoticon. It looked really bad without it.

Again, I realize that this is an ideal and utopian ideal. But, that's the world that I portray in my campaign. The characters know that. It's what they can expect from other NPCs. If people are just random in their violence, then the lines between "good" and "evil" are blurred. While that works for some genres of fiction and gaming, it doesn't quite work in IMC.

But, again, I am really very interested in how you would see this played out in a game in which you participate as a player or DM.

Basically, you're problem is that you are blurring the line between law and morality. You have slapped them together and squished them into a single entity, which doesn't work very well.

Law is only a small part of alignment. Evil is another small part. In your games, law defines morality, which in turn defines good and evil. Thus, if you break the law, you are evil by default. That is not how alignment works.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nonsense. Alignments do not cause inadequate roleplaying, nor do they aid roleplaying per se. LG Paladins and CG Rangers can be roleplayed just as horridly as any others can.

Well, it is not really nonsense. I'm not quite sure if you missed the point, or are focusing on a different point.

Yes, any alignment can be poorly played.

But, the point I was trying to make is that neutral alignments lend themselves easier to poor play.

It's like magical items or gold. If you hand them out like candy, players will start to expect it and act accordingly.

On the other hand, if your players know they have to work for what they gain, they appreciate what they gain more, especially if they lose it.

So, if you allow neutral alignments and allow your players to do things on a whim, they will start expecting that. If you restrict them to good alignments, they themselves will police themselves into proper alignment behavior and will appreciate their gains due to acceptable roleplaying (which is a very wide path, just not infinitely wide). This does not mean that there isn't a lot of different ways to run good characters. There is. But, haphazardly into the realms of evil and/or bizarre is not one of them.

I think I understand where you are coming from saying that some players like N alignments because they feel they have liscence to do what they want on a whim instead of having a moral base for their decisions. I would say that you in your 24 (many more than mine, BTW) years of experience, you have run into more nitwits than me. I would also argue that those people would run a Good alinged character in an equally disappointing manner.

It's not just nitwits. It can happen to almost anyone, although nitwits tend to illustrate the problem more.

It's like any bad habit. Once anyone gets into a bad habit, it's hard to get out. Neutral alignments lend themselves to a lot of bad habits such as doing things on a whim, such as being evil one day and being good the next, as opposed to roleplaying a character concept.

If you disallow N alignments in your campaign, you push your (good?) roleplayers to make moral judgements the way you want them to instead of the way they think their characters would make them.

No. I force them to stick to a character conception. It just so happens that it is a Heroic conception, not a sporadic one.

You might also rankle the inexperienced roleplayer who is itching to play the "CN Rogue" that we have all played in our careers; playing that character poorly (I did when I was a CN R) might permit them to see how CN shouldn't be played, how there is a rhyme and reason to what CN PCs do, and how that knowledge makes him a better player. You grow by making mistakes.

I let people know up front my expectations for the campaign and my house rules. If it sounds like fun to them, they play. If not, they do not.

But, I refuse to allow a campaign to disintegrate for everyone else because one inexperienced player (or experienced player for that matter) is itching to play a CN Rogue and thinks that CN means "Can do aNything".

Same for my Champions (Heroes) campaign. One guy who played with the group did not like the campaign backdrop, so he did not play. It would have been great if he did since he is a good player, but that's life. As long as the people playing are having fun, that is the important thing.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

If killing a sleeping foe is evil, then I ask the following questions:

Is killing a low level creature evil if he has virtually no chance of defending himself?

If you find a lair of orcs and orcs are generally evil, is it okay to attack them without fair warning or provocation?

If you are told by a town that there is an "evil" wizard nearby can you sneak in and attack the wizard while he is unprepared or if he is sleeping?

What about surrounding an opponent and attacking him from all sides? Is it evil to prevent him from running away, flanking him, and then asking/giving no quarter?

I think that you need to think through lots of situations in order to decide what is evil and what is not. Based on the morals of our society (and a general tendency to think that there is no real evil) there are precious few "heroic" acts that remain for a smart, tactics based group.

If you must incapacitate the low level goblin and then bring him to justice, then it is a very restricted view of good.

If you cannot attack evil creatures on sight, then you have increased the difficulty on the characters. The D&D system clearly defines creatures as evil to allow characters the ability to attack without becoming evil.

I think that you can make an argument that killing in anything but self defense is a valid way of playing "good," but I don't think it is the only way of playing "good."

We've all rooted for Clint Eastwood, Arnold S. and Harrison Ford in roles where they killed people from surprise and unfair advantage. Was it evil for Indiana Jones to shoot the man with the sword? At that distance, he might as well have been asleep. He could have held him at gun point and waited for the authorities. That would have been the lawful thing to do, but there were other factors involved. I ask you was that evil? If not, then you should think more carefully about what is good/neutral/evil. If it is, then you need to be very clear that you are playing in a sort of Arthurian legend world, where all of the "good" folks are bound by traditions/codes of honor (all lawful).

By the way, in Champions, I also prefer the characters to be good, but let's face it. Very few vigilantes are lawful good. And Batman as presented by Frank Miller was something of an SOB, but a very effective and cool SOB. Then there is Wolverine, Gambit, Punisher, Nick fury, etc. Heroic does not always mean nice.

 

[KarinsDad]

If killing a sleeping foe is evil, then I ask the following questions:

Is killing a low level creature evil if he has virtually no chance of defending himself?

If you find a lair of orcs and orcs are generally evil, is it okay to attack them without fair warning or provocation?

If you are told by a town that there is an "evil" wizard nearby can you sneak in and attack the wizard while he is unprepared or if he is sleeping?

What about surrounding an opponent and attacking him from all sides? Is it evil to prevent him from running away, flanking him, and then asking/giving no quarter?

There is a difference between attacking a totally helpless creature and a creature that is at a significant disadvantage. In the first case, there is for all intents and purposes, a zero chance of the creature surviving (unless the character doing the CDG is a real putz in combat). In the latter case, the chance may be slim, even very small, but the chance remains. The creature may be able to retreat or get lucky or something. A fine point, but there it is.

Similar to the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter. In either case, the person is dead. It is merely the penalty for killing the person that is different. However, it is not always laid out in concrete in the game what the differences may be.

If you cannot attack evil creatures on sight, then you have increased the difficulty on the characters. The D&D system clearly defines creatures as evil to allow characters the ability to attack without becoming evil.

This is true. Without the "hack and slash" evil vs. good mentality built into the DND system, alignment would be even more difficult to play appropriately. In fact, that is why neutral is such a difficult set of alignments to play. The distinction for it is more blurry.

By the way, in Champions, I also prefer the characters to be good, but let's face it. Very few vigilantes are lawful good. And Batman as presented by Frank Miller was something of an SOB, but a very effective and cool SOB. Then there is Wolverine, Gambit, Punisher, Nick fury, etc. Heroic does not always mean nice.

So, you are equating vigilantism with heroism? Just not in my book.