Running a morally ambiguous game in a world where Alignment is real

[prosfilaes]

This is, again, incorrect. What you're missing here is that the alignment of their victims DOES MATTER, as this value is NOT AMBIGUOUS. Remember: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

Next sentences: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

If a creature's alignment is "evil" then they are NOT INNOCENT

So if you can construe someone as "NOT INNOCENT", then you can kill them?

as they are INHERENTLY EVIL,

No, they aren't. Most evil creatures in D&D can change alignment.

and killing them for profit is NOT EVIL.

That's "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"? I do not agree, as per RAW, that there is carte blanche to kill evil creatures

Is it not evil to get paid 50 SP a head for human heads, so long as you only take then from evil humans? So you can walk into a city, detect evil, and start killing?

However, if a character kills a GOOD creature for profit, then THAT is evil, as per the official Pathfinder definition of "evil."

Or maybe you can take heads from NEUTRAL humans? Is it okay to kill a GOOD creature for a nonprofit?

 

[Celtavian]

This is, again, incorrect. What you're missing here is that the alignment of their victims DOES MATTER, as this value is NOT AMBIGUOUS. Remember: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." If a creature's alignment is "evil" then they are NOT INNOCENT as they are INHERENTLY EVIL, and killing them for profit is NOT EVIL. However, if a character kills a GOOD creature for profit, then THAT is evil, as per the official Pathfinder definition of "evil."

If you don't understand that a goblin sees himself as the hero of his own stories, I don't know what to tell you. Moral ambiguity exists in D&D. The fact the entire game is built around killing and looting is a prime example of the moral ambiguity of the game.

Or are you one of those DMs that forces paladins to save orc and goblin babies after they wipe their parents out? Or hill giant children on the chance they can be redeemed? Or don't allow slavery in Lawful Good societies because you have a modern day view of slavery as something vile rather than the view of people that didn't have a lot of resources for prisons and thus enslaved other groups as a means of penance for aggression and a show of mercy?

If you want to run alignment hard and fast, go right ahead. I don't agree with you. I find your interpretation far to simple for my tastes and understanding of how the world works. I run my games as I wish to run them. I do not accept your viewpoint in regards to alignment. Good people protect innocent life, but still mainly do so for their own kind just as real humans. Goblins might very well view themselves as innocent victims of evil adventurers who show up at their doorstep, kill their people, and take their stuff.

D&D is by its nature a morally ambiguous world built on the idea of differing natures on an alignment axis based more on what gods you align with than what behaviors you practice. Which is why you see some games where a group of hardcore paladins go around acting as judge, jury, and executioner with very little tolerance for reasons behind a crime.

I play the world that way. I'm going to continue to play the way I enjoy rather than follow some rigid view of alignment.

 

[tylermalan]

I play the world that way. I'm going to continue to play the way I enjoy rather than follow some rigid view of alignment.

Cool, man! It's whatever you want to do!

If you don't understand that a goblin sees himself as the hero of his own stories...

Again, it doesn't matter how he sees himself. The only thing that matters is how the standard of good and evil sees him. If that standard, that universal judge of morality, sees him as evil, then he is evil. Detect Evil will ping him as evil. Smite Evil will work on him. Etc.

You continue to ignore the best point against your position, which is that if there were no objective standard, then these abilities would have no meaning.

Or are you one of those DMs that forces...

I'm gonna quote myself again here:

I don't ever force my players to do anything.

So, no, I'm not "one of those DMs!"

Most evil creatures in D&D can change alignment.

I agree! Notice you said "most." There are certain creatures who CANNOT change their alignment, as there are certain qualities about them that are ALWAYS evil. If there are certain qualities that are ALWAYS considered evil, then I ask you: who does the considering? What thinks about it, and decides that certain actions are ALWAYS evil? I argue that the fact that there are qualities that are always evil means that there is a hard-and-fast, set-in-stone standard upon which these qualities are judged. This is essentially the definition of "objective morals."

slavery in Lawful Good societies...

Once again... if the objective moral standard of D&D views slavery as evil, then Lawful Good societies who practice slavery are NOT Lawful Good. I don't know if it does or not, and my purpose in this thread has never been to debate whether or not certain actions themselves would be considered good or evil by the objective moral standard.

My only point is that there IS an objective moral standard. My PRIMARY supporting evidence, which everyone continues to ignore (instead choosing weaker arguments to fight against that I'm only half-making), is that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to DEFINITIVELY and OBJECTIVELY call a certain creature "evil" or "good" (as in the case of devils) if there were no objective standard upon which to base such a label. The fact that purely, inherently, all-the-time evil creatures exist is definitive proof that there is a universal standard upon which they are considered evil. Smite Evil would NEVER work in a subjective moral universe. Atonement would mean nothing. Detect Evil? Forget about it!

Please argue against this point, and provide something, anything in the way of evidence that supports your position. Remember - asking me if specific actions would be considered evil or good is not actually supporting your position, because I don't know what the objective moral standard would say about every single action. I, personally, am not the objective moral standard. Also, pointing out that some creatures can change alignment means nothing - in fact, the idea that every creature ALWAYS has an alignment of some sort only furthers my point that there is an objective standard which determines exactly what that alignment is. I only know that there is SOMETHING out there that ALWAYS considers Devils to be evil, and I have yet to hear someone mention something that contradicts this point.

 

[N'raac]

If you don't understand that a goblin sees himself as the hero of his own stories, I don't know what to tell you. Moral ambiguity exists in D&D. The fact the entire game is built around killing and looting is a prime example of the moral ambiguity of the game.

If a party of Good characters is based around killing and looting, then I think they have ceased to be Good characters. More commonly, I see them undertaking missions requiring them to kill the enemy for the greater good, and spoils of war come along with that. A slightly different description for the same thing, but if they just wander aimlessly looking for somewhere to wreak havoc, they are not "good" characters.

Or are you one of those DMs that forces paladins to save orc and goblin babies after they wipe their parents out? Or hill giant children on the chance they can be redeemed?

Is it OK to slaughter helpless infants? Is it Good? By the book, Good people make sacrifices to help others. "I can't be bothered to deal with these babies so put them to the sword" seems less than consistent with that ideal. But I also ask "are you one of those DM's who assumes that the orc, goblin and hill giant babies are innately evil, so even if raised by kind, loving surrogate parents to follow the ideals of Law and Good, they will always revert to evil because they are orcs, goblins and hill giants, and orcs, goblins and hill giants are just naturally evil?"

If so, I suggest you have established that these creatures are like demons and devils - paragons of their baseline alignment, and beyond any hope of redemption or saving. In that case, "put them to the sword" seems the only reasonable answer. If, however, we accept that these beings have moral choice, then perhaps the heroic characters who make sacrifices to allow these beings to have a chance at redemption ought to be rewarded with seeing their efforts bear fruit in the form of adult Orcs, Goblins and Hill Giants who follow the tenets by which they were raised, and perhaps even convert others of their kind to a more peaceful path.

Or we can just have a dungeon crawl where we hack and slash, but nothing on a broader basis is ever really changed, much less improved, as a consequence of the characters' actions.

Or don't allow slavery in Lawful Good societies because you have a modern day view of slavery as something vile rather than the view of people that didn't have a lot of resources for prisons and thus enslaved other groups as a means of penance for aggression and a show of mercy?

If the slaves are treated in a manner consistent with the ideals of Law and Good, I could see such slavery existing in a Lawful and Good culture, just as I could see such a culture executing the perpetrators of certain heinous crimes. They would not condone mistreatment of slaves, and just as they regret the need for executions, would regret the need for enslavement or imprisonment. "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Good people protect innocent life, but still mainly do so for their own kind just as real humans. Goblins might very well view themselves as innocent victims of evil adventurers who show up at their doorstep, kill their people, and take their stuff.

And, if those adventurers just go off without provocation slaughtering goblins who have done no harm, perhaps the Goblins are good and the Humans evil.

So when you discuss doing so "for their own kind", how far to we take that? Can the Humans raid elvish encampments, kill their menfolk and sell their women and children into slavery, and be Paladins maintaining their Lawful Good alignment? If we change Elvish into whatever human nation ours may border, do the same rules apply?

Humanity has never had to contend with multiple sentient species, so we have no real philosophy for dealing with the issue. Does "do unto others" apply only to:

- my blood relatives? [pretty narrow scope]
- those who live in my village?
- those who live in my nation?
- those who have the same skin colour?
- those who are the same species?
- player character races?
- all sentient beings capable of moral choice? [pretty broad scope]