D&D 5E Evil Vs. Neutral - help me explain?

[Mephista]

But this doesn't automatically mean that the GM gets to unilaterally decide what the alignment consequences are of a given PC's behaviour.

Actually, it does. Because the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. They're the ones that get to define what, exactly, alignment means in a game, just as they get to decide what elven culture is like in any given game, or how a rogue's stealth works.

Here's the problem. Good and Evil (with a capital G and E) are objective forces in the D&D universe. From a game standpoint, 100% non-subjective. That doesn't mean that D&D Evil is the same thing as real world evil, however. That's why we have rules and the DM to make hard lines between the different forces.

Now, lets say we have a setting where we take the Lawful Evil devils and make them a kind of necessary evil, where they involve things like sin-eating and focusing on only fighting / punishing evil in the world instead of causing it everywhere. You have people that worship the devils not for power, but making sacrifices for penance. Asmodeus recruits clerics and paladins that work as bounty hunters, condemning souls and sentencing them to torment in the old Biblical style. One can argue that they're a necessary Evil that is needed for Good to thrive. Entirely valid.

Its an objectively Evil force in the D&D world, but I don't know if I could call it evil in the real world sense.


Furthermore, the only times PC alignment comes up in play? It comes when interacting with NPCs and some magic items. Interactions with non-PCs is the domain of the DM. That's his job. Players don't get to dictate how NPCs see or react to their characters.


Yes, some players take it personally. Which is a problem on the player end, in my opinion - what happens to a character in a game world should never be taken personally. It is, after all, a game. That doesn't stop people, however. Sometimes, its best to avoid the discussion in the interests of everyone playing and having a good time (the most important part of the game).

That does not, however, mean the player has juristiction over how the world sees the character. He's (or she's) already had input on how his/her character should be seen by the actions the PC took and choices the PC made. Its well within the DM's rights to declare certain actions Evil. If the player persists anyways, even after they know, the choice was made, and now they're complaining about consequences.

 

[Dragonsbane]

You are the DM. Make a list, perhaps an exhaustive one, that shows evil acts. THis way it is black and white, no questions.

I ran an online server a while ago, and to solve this issue we had alignment points. You could get good, evil, law, and chaos points dependent on the DM handing them out during sessions. Killed the good NPC to steal this things? 3 evil points. Changed sides in the battle? 2 chaos points. Turned in your friend for breaking the law, even though your friend? Law points. Subjective, but effective.

If you become evil via points, the DM could remove you from play (unless it was an evil-themed campaign or something) or remove class abilities. At times a Paladin would fall for too many evil points, or a Monk might not progress because of chaos points . . .

This of course is a very generalized example, but could be tailored to your campaign. As DM, you got final say. Make sure the player knows that lol.

As a side note, we also had a funny script that would do some math and give an evil point if someone started casting a large number of spells that have necrotic damage, to simulate the lure of evil by the dark side of magic muuahahaha! THat was some damn fun RP, really great players who went with it and created a whole inner struggle type plotline.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd start with some simple questions, myself.

1. "Is there anyone you would not kill, under any circumstances, no matter how much money you were paid?"
Yes: Go to 2
No: (After *confirming* this is what they mean.) "You are Evil. This is not negotiable: you are willing to kill the old, the infirm, and the very young, as long as you get paid. That you expect to be paid for it does not make it Neutral."

2: "Exclude your direct relatives, close friends, and people directly valuable to you and your interests. Is there anyone left?"
Yes: Go to 3
No: Go to 4

3: "Are any of these people 'stereotypical' off-limits targets? E.g. random young children, the elderly, the infirm, etc.; that is, targets that are clearly of no political or military worth?"
Yes: "You're treading an *extremely* fine line between Neutral and Evil, but I'll let you call yourself 'Neutral' for now. People will probably still find it reprehensible that you are a killer for hire who will kill *almost* anyone."
No: "You are Evil. This is not negotiable: you are willing to kill the old, the infirm, and the very young, as long as you get paid. That you expect to be paid for it does not make it Neutral."

4: "Is the reason you wouldn't kill them simply because they matter to you, or is it because they are morally off-limits? E.g. if your lover broke off your relationship, would he or she become an acceptable target?"
Yes: "You're Evil (etc. as above)"
No: "You're treading an (etc. as above)"

And this is without even considering stuff like, "Do you expect to be able to spend every penny of the money you earn on yourself and/or your relatives/friends/lover(s)?" Because killing an innocent, "unimportant" child, but ONLY if you would earn an assload of money doing it? That's pretty ing Evil. I could see a twisted mockery of logic that could argue "well if I had ENOUGH money I could fix the lives of millions of children and thus completely outweigh the loss of a single life in the grand scheme," but that would require spending most or even all of the money on other people.

As it stands, it sounds to me like your player has...very divergent understandings of what "Chaotic" and "Neutral" mean. Someone who has precise standards of when they will and won't perform particular acts, and who expects others to form binding contracts in order for him to perform those acts, is not someone I would consider "Chaotic." At best, it's Neutral--doesn't give a about "traditional" codes of conduct, the "proper" thing, etc. but at the same time has specific personal standards that he expects to be upheld. Similarly, being a killer-for-hire is already leaning toward Evil on the G/N/E axis; given that the character will do 'whatever' job is put before him, as specified, it sounds a lot more like Lawful Neutral to me, with leanings toward Lawful Evil.

Alternatively, instead of just saying, "Look dude, you SAY your character is Chaotic Neutral, but he's pretty clearly Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil," consider putting together a character very much like him but actually Chaotic Neutral--at least as you would define it. Have this character be interested, to one degree or another, in the player's allegedly-CN character--they are, after all, in similar lines of work. Make the differences of philosophy obvious; perhaps even have the actual-CN character challenge the allegedly-"CN" character on those grounds. That will create a ripe RP opportunity, and (if you're lucky) actually get the player to stop and ask: am I really playing the character I described, or am I saying one thing and doing something else?

 

[pemerton]

Actually, it does. Because the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. They're the ones that get to define what, exactly, alignment means in a game, just as they get to decide what elven culture is like in any given game, or how a rogue's stealth works.

From the fact that the GM is the final arbiter of the application of the rules in the game, it doesn't follow that the GM gets to determine exactly what everything is in the game, and certainly not unilaterally.

This goes to both mechanics - I don't think the GM is allowed to unilaterally decide that my wizard PC can't cast spells because spells are too broken - and story/fiction - I don't the the GM is allowed to unilaterally decide that my PC is an orphan who murdered his parents.

Here's the problem. Good and Evil (with a capital G and E) are objective forces in the D&D universe.

Even suppose I grant that, so what? The question of whether or not my PC is an orphan who murdered his parents is an objective matter of fact, too. That doesn't mean the GM gets to unilaterally decide that my PC is an orphan who murdered his parents.

That does not, however, mean the player has juristiction over how the world sees the character.

If the GM unilaterally decides that my PC is an orphan who murdered his parents, and that therefore the whole village hates me an I'm on the run, I would have some problems with that.

I would go further, and say that, as a player, I am allowed to write some friends and family who are fond of me into my backstory.

If the GM decides that everyone in the gameworld reviles my PC for reasons that I, the player, think do not really make sense - especially if they're reasons based around abstract and game-mechanically-driven notions of abstruse concepts like law and chaos - I would have a problem with that too. I should be at least allowed to use the social resolution mechanics to persuade the NPCs that I'm right!

As it stands, it sounds to me like your player has...very divergent understandings of what "Chaotic" and "Neutral" mean.

My default assumption would be that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is correct, and that the player has no particular interest in what chaotic and neutral mean from the point of view of moral theorising, and much more interest in what they mean from the point of view of gameplay conventions: namely, it's a way of saying to the GM "Hand off my character! - I'm CN, and so whatever I choose to do is the thing that it's OK for me to do, because I'm CN and so prioritise personal choice over all else,"

 

[Mephista]

From the fact that the GM is the final arbiter of the application of the rules in the game, it doesn't follow that the GM gets to determine exactly what everything is in the game, and certainly not unilaterally.

This goes to both mechanics - I don't think the GM is allowed to unilaterally decide that my wizard PC can't cast spells because spells are too broken - and story/fiction - I don't the the GM is allowed to unilaterally decide that my PC is an orphan who murdered his parents.

One, yes, the DM does get to unilaterally decide that there's no spells in a game, but its something they should decide from the start. There are games out there that don't involve spells. Deciding mid-game that there isn't is generally a breach of trust that will involve breaking up a game.

Even then, its well within DM right to say that something is overpowered (say, the Contagion spell or the sorlock build) and make houserules to prevent it from breaking the game. It is not a player right to have access to things like that if the DM says no.

Two, Alignment has a set of rules. Its objective - there can be differences between tables, but within the game, we're talking something that's as universal a force as gravity or magnetism. And the DM has final say over what that is, and how its interpreted in the game. That's part of the whole DM schtick. Yes, players get to decide their own actions to take. That doesn't mean they get to say what the rules mean. A player has no more power over what Evil means than he does what Fireball does, just because he has it on his sheet.

Even suppose I grant that, so what? The question of whether or not my PC is an orphan who murdered his parents is an objective matter of fact, too. That doesn't mean the GM gets to unilaterally decide that my PC is an orphan who murdered his parents.

What's with this "DM controlling my actions!?!?!" strawman tactic? Has nothing to do with the discussion. If you're confused, I'd be happy to clarify.

The DM has absolute authority to decide if certain actions are Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, etc at his table. If the DM says that contract killing is a Neutral Evil aligned action, then repeatedly choosing to have your character work as a contract killer makes that PC Neutral Evil. The DM isn't forcing anyone to be a murderer - that's a player choice. What a player is not allowed to do is to override the DM and say that being a contract killer is not Evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

Mate, no one is saying the DM controls the players actions. We're saying the DM is free to assign an alignment to a player based on the players actions and decisions made in character.

If a CN player in my campaign murdered someone, I'd seriously consider changing his alignment then and there on the spot.

That player would detect as evil, and would have magic and so forth interact with him accordingly.

 

[the Jester]

Yep. Kind of my point. You have gods and characters that embody everything that the CE Abyss does, but they're labeled as CN, because they didn't want to call them "Evil." Example - gnome god Geld. And this is from official D&D books and characters.

Never heard of him. Where's he from?

 

[the Jester]

There have been several posts equating "alignment is descriptive" with "the GM gets to determine what alignment the PC is". But those two things are not equivalent.

It's true that, in D&D, for PCs, alignment is descriptive. For instance, Gygax on p 23 of his DMG says that "The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment."

But this doesn't automatically mean that the GM gets to unilaterally decide what the alignment consequences are of a given PC's behaviour.

If a player takes the view that his/her PC is not evil (eg because not purely selfish, or not always disregarding the wellbeing of other people), it is a strong thing for the GM to unilaterally decide that the player is wrong. It's the player's game as well as the GM's, and the PC is the core vehicle for the player to interact with and interpret the shared fiction of the game.

I think avoiding table conflicts, and being sensitive to the fact that reasonable people can have different interpretations of the moral signficiance of actions (especially in the context of escapist fiction), are important considerations. And they suggest at least a degree of caution in relation to GM unilateralism.

Hm. Playstyle thing, I guess.


I don't care how much a player claims his killing a farmer and burning down the house was neutral because he did something nice for the orphans yesterday. That's an evil act. I don't give a dingo's kidneys what a player thinks; the DM adjudicates the actual in-game reality of things. If a player in my group wants to act evil without being treated as evil, he's at the wrong table. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are real forces in D&D, with entire planes of existence composed of them and dedicated to them. The DM is the game's final arbiter and referee, and alignment is one of those things that is absolutely under his purview. (At least, in my playstyle.)

Suggesting that a character's alignment shouldn't reflect his behavior seems to me to be the same thing as dispensing with alignment entirely. Which is fine, if that's how you want to play, but if you're going to have it in your game, you might as well actually have the alignments of pcs match their behavior.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Hm. Playstyle thing, I guess.


I don't care how much a player claims his killing a farmer and burning down the house was neutral because he did something nice for the orphans yesterday. That's an evil act. I don't give a dingo's kidneys what a player thinks; the DM adjudicates the actual in-game reality of things. If a player in my group wants to act evil without being treated as evil, he's at the wrong table. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are real forces in D&D, with entire planes of existence composed of them and dedicated to them. The DM is the game's final arbiter and referee, and alignment is one of those things that is absolutely under his purview. (At least, in my playstyle.)

Suggesting that a character's alignment shouldn't reflect his behavior seems to me to be the same thing as dispensing with alignment entirely. Which is fine, if that's how you want to play, but if you're going to have it in your game, you might as well actually have the alignments of pcs match their behavior.

I had a player that did a whole song and dance about punished and bat man...and at the end it just come down to... Actions don't make alignment .. Look if they did we could go through and label every character from literature try starting with game of thrones

 

[pemerton]

What's with this "DM controlling my actions!?!?!" strawman tactic? Has nothing to do with the discussion.

I don't really see how the GM authoring the PC's backstory is controlling the PC's actions. But if you think the GM isn't allowed to do that, then you're conceding that the player gets to control some NPCs' actions: because I can't write a backstory for my PC without saying some things about what NPCs did in my PC's past, which - by your apparent definition - is my controlling those NPC's actions.

But I think this whole "controlling actions" thing is a red herring. Writing backstory isn't controlling anyone's actions - it's not actually playing the game.

Alignment has a set of rules. Its objective

Lots of things are objective but subject to dispute. What was the true cause of the First World War? There's probably an answer, but clever historian disagree over what it was. Is such-and-such a fundamental particle divisible or not? Reasonable phyisicists might disagree over the answer.

Is killing one person to save ten good? Reasonable people disagree over the answer - Gygax in his DMG at least suggests that this is what LG people might think, given that he describes LG using the Benthamite formula of the most benefit to the greatest number.

The fact that alignment adjudication generates any number of disagreements, both at tables and online, to me just reinforces that insisting on objectivity doesn't take the debate any further. The issue isn't about objectivity, it's about reasonable disagreement and maintaining a cooperative endeavour at the table.

within the game, we're talking something that's as universal a force as gravity or magnetism. And the DM has final say over what that is, and how its interpreted in the game.

Final say isn't equivalent to unilateral say, nor to anything goes.

A player has no more power over what Evil means than he does what Fireball does, just because he has it on his sheet.

I would never advise a GM to make unilateral changes to how Fireball works at a table with an invoker. For more-or-less the same reasons that I think it's a mistake for the GM to make unilateral determinations about the moral meaning of a PC's actions.

Suggesting that a character's alignment shouldn't reflect his behavior

Who is suggesting that?

What a player is not allowed to do is to override the DM and say that being a contract killer is not Evil.

Gygax asserted that assassins must be evil, but the reasoning is not very persuasive.

The most basic D&D campaign assumes that the PCs are mercenaries to some degree, who will fight goblins and orcs in exchange for reward and the right to keep the loot. The reasoning given for supposing that the PCs aren't evil is that the orcs and goblins are legitimate targets. If the contract killer only kills legitimate targets - say, people who aren't deserving or aren't innocent (eg greedy merchants, corrupt mayors, vicious slave-masters etc) then I don't see why, within the basic D&D alignment framework, s/he has to be evil at all.

The OP says that:

If the job is to assassinate someone, he will assassinate them. If it is to save a kitten then he'll save the kitten. This is all done for the right price.

<snip>

Everyone in the group agrees that contract killing is an evil thing amd the his excessive motivation by greed is evil as well.

There's not a lot of information there about the targets of assassination, or who is supplying these jobs, or what role the GM has in having NPCs approach the PC to take on the jobs (or is the player having the PC hang out his shingle as a killer-for-hire? - we haven't been told).

To me this seems like the majority of the group don't like how this one player is playing his character. I would suggest that the group should talk about that real issue, rather than try to sublimate it through a discussion of ingame questions like which group of gods does or doesn't approve of the PC's actions.