Should this be fixed
- Thread starter Elf Witch
- Start date
I know in the setting Kingdoms of Kalamar slavery is legal and not necessarily evil. A lot of the kingdoms have slavery as a sentence for a crime.
There is a group of evil slavers and a god who and group who fight slavery.
So its not a black and white issue.
I know modern day ethics see slavery as wrong which is why I think it is considered evil in a lot of games.
Personally I disagree not the real life aspect which is evil but the game aspect. I think it depends on how slavery is used in a game setting if it is evil or not.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
I agree with S'mon and Elf Witch, but with a caveat.
I actually just went through the 2e and 3e PHB and DMG. Slavery is "usually by evil societies". In none of these sources is it actually defined as "evil". Although, every mention of slavery in those sources is usually tied to something evil (is the purview of an evil god, for example).
In the 4e PHB, however, I found this under the description for lawful good: "When leaders exploit their authority for personal
EDIT: Book of Exalted Deeds quote: "Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil."
In regard to the whole "railroading" component, however, my searches for "slavery" and "evil" came up with some very interesting guidelines, which basically tell the DM to do exactly what has been defined by some in this thread as "Railroading". Look into "changing alignment" in either/both the 2e and 3e DMG. Actually, I'll share those quotes in another post.
I actually just went through the 2e and 3e PHB and DMG. Slavery is "usually by evil societies". In none of these sources is it actually defined as "evil". Although, every mention of slavery in those sources is usually tied to something evil (is the purview of an evil god, for example).
In the 4e PHB, however, I found this under the description for lawful good: "When leaders exploit their authority for personal
gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so."
I also found, under the description for evil: "They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them."
Are there societies that view slavery as acceptable/neutral? Sure. Is that core/standard? Maybe marginally in 2e and 3e and, I'd say it is houserule for a 4e game. Though, show me a god of slavery in 2e or 3e and I'll show you a god with an evil alignment.
EDIT: Book of Exalted Deeds quote: "Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil."
The point isn't that morality can't be explored in D&D and the point isn't that it's wrong to develop a society or even a perspective of the gods that changes some of the "standard" moral rules. The point is that it IS a change. That's fine, houserules are great.
My point is that, if I, as DM decide that animate dead or slavery are not evil, or I decide that "aid another always grants +4 instead of +2" then that is a houserule. Again, houserules are fine, and I like Kalamar, but that is a houserule if the behavior is actually considered non-evil. (A cool, reasonable, and excellent/intriguging houserule that I totally approve of by the way...often houserules can be better than the main/original rules).
In regard to the whole "railroading" component, however, my searches for "slavery" and "evil" came up with some very interesting guidelines, which basically tell the DM to do exactly what has been defined by some in this thread as "Railroading". Look into "changing alignment" in either/both the 2e and 3e DMG. Actually, I'll share those quotes in another post.
Last edited:
Aberzanzorax
Hero
From the AD&D DMG, pg 28:
"Sooner or later a player character will change alignment. A character might change alignment for many reasons, most of them having nothing to do with the player 'failing' to play his character's role or the dm 'failing' to create the right environment. Player characters are imaginary people, but like real people they grow and change as their personalities develop...These are natural changes. There might be more cause for concern if no player character ever changes alignment in a campaign."
"There is no rule or yardstick to determine when a character changes alignment. Alignment can change deliberately, unconsciously, or involuntarily. This is one of those things that makes the game fun-players are free to act, and the DM decides if (and when) a change goes into effect. This calls for some real adjudication."
It goes on to talk about unconscious change. "Unconscious change happens when the character's actions are suited to a different alignment without the player realizing it...If the DM suspects that the player is not acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character's alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change should not surprise the player, not completely anyway."
So a CG dwarf could absolutely kill a good necromancer. According to the 2e DMG the DM might advise the player that this is not a good act and his character's alignment might change. The PLAYER would then know. The CHARACTER would not know. The PLAYER would then decide if he wanted to perform the action anyway, and explore how he was now neutral or evil, and the CHARACTER would go on acting much the same as before (though would now be vulnerable if a cleric cast holy word).
From the 3.5 DMG, page 134:
"A character can have a change of heart that leads to the adoption of a different alignment. Alignments aren’t commitments, except in specific cases (such as for paladins and clerics). Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment."
"You’re [i.e. the DM] in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, 'My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,' the appropriate response from you is 'Prove it.' Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players."
And finally, from the 3.5 PHB, page 103-104:
"[Alignment] is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."
"Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions."
Also from the 3.5 PHB, page 103:
"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."
"Sooner or later a player character will change alignment. A character might change alignment for many reasons, most of them having nothing to do with the player 'failing' to play his character's role or the dm 'failing' to create the right environment. Player characters are imaginary people, but like real people they grow and change as their personalities develop...These are natural changes. There might be more cause for concern if no player character ever changes alignment in a campaign."
"There is no rule or yardstick to determine when a character changes alignment. Alignment can change deliberately, unconsciously, or involuntarily. This is one of those things that makes the game fun-players are free to act, and the DM decides if (and when) a change goes into effect. This calls for some real adjudication."
It goes on to talk about unconscious change. "Unconscious change happens when the character's actions are suited to a different alignment without the player realizing it...If the DM suspects that the player is not acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character's alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change should not surprise the player, not completely anyway."
So a CG dwarf could absolutely kill a good necromancer. According to the 2e DMG the DM might advise the player that this is not a good act and his character's alignment might change. The PLAYER would then know. The CHARACTER would not know. The PLAYER would then decide if he wanted to perform the action anyway, and explore how he was now neutral or evil, and the CHARACTER would go on acting much the same as before (though would now be vulnerable if a cleric cast holy word).
From the 3.5 DMG, page 134:
"A character can have a change of heart that leads to the adoption of a different alignment. Alignments aren’t commitments, except in specific cases (such as for paladins and clerics). Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment."
"You’re [i.e. the DM] in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, 'My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,' the appropriate response from you is 'Prove it.' Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players."
And finally, from the 3.5 PHB, page 103-104:
"[Alignment] is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."
"Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions."
Also from the 3.5 PHB, page 103:
"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
The conclusion from all of this is that, insofar as I am concerned, your DM is doing a good job....and you can tell her that from me!
RC
RC
Aberzanzorax
Hero
I ABSOLUTELY agree.
When I DM I give a lot of latitude when it comes to alignments. One act usually is not enough to shift an alignment. Even for paladins.
I know that for my DM in this case her concern was not so much that he doing an evil act. He is lawful neutral. Yes killing a good person is an evil act. But she takes in motivations when judging evil acts. He wasn't killing to be cruel or for power he thought he was doing the right thing.
What she questioned was the lawful part. He acted as judge jury and executioner in a city where he did not have the authority to do so. She felt that he is behaving in a chaotic way not a lawful way the same as when he went behind the back of the party to destroy the skeletons.
I know that for my DM in this case her concern was not so much that he doing an evil act. He is lawful neutral. Yes killing a good person is an evil act. But she takes in motivations when judging evil acts. He wasn't killing to be cruel or for power he thought he was doing the right thing.
What she questioned was the lawful part. He acted as judge jury and executioner in a city where he did not have the authority to do so. She felt that he is behaving in a chaotic way not a lawful way the same as when he went behind the back of the party to destroy the skeletons.
There's a 1e AD&D 'demigod of Thieves & Slavers' IMC from a Roman Empire type culture who is Neutral alignment, maybe Neutral (evil).
Aberzanzorax
Hero
Oh, agreed.
I'd never suggest a single action being the reason for an alignment change (unless it was somewhat secretly the culmination of a number of other actions, that at the time seemed good....like infiltrating a church as a priest and at the last moment killing their good god). Maybe a huge act if the player was trying to intentionally change alignments (like self sacrifice on the altar of their evil god to save the good guys might make them neutral instead of evil in one fell swoop). But single acts should be very rare and very meainingful.
And yeah, I only brought up alignments because others brought up "railroading" and such, and it seemed to be relevant to their points. To the OP, it's not AS relevant, though still relevant, because "out of alignment" and "out of character" are both allowed, but #1 is a DM issue, and #2 is a player issue (the player of the character, mainly, but also the players of other characters who now have to deal with this newish individual).
Sometimes people change. It's the DM's job to record and apply game rules to those changes, and to still provide challenges and consequences to them. But it's not the DM's job to prevent it (though alerting the player is good form if the player is not paying attention, or is sort of uninformed as to how morality fits into the game). It is the player's own job to roleplay these changes, and ideally does so in a meaninful rather than "I'm metagaming and really wouldn't have done that" way. It is the other players' job to determine how to react to this seemingly foreign behavior from the changed individual.
I also give a TON of alignment leeway when DMing, and expect so when playing.
I'm not saying DMs are supposed to trick players or gotcha them...I'm just saying that consistent behavior of a certain type has an in game rule/name applied to it. When the wrong one is applied, the DM's job (after observing consistency and intensity) is to correct it.
To S'mon, I do wonder...is it a god of slavery or a god of slaves?
A god of slaves might be a god of liberation or enduring, and would certainly be good.
I'd never suggest a single action being the reason for an alignment change (unless it was somewhat secretly the culmination of a number of other actions, that at the time seemed good....like infiltrating a church as a priest and at the last moment killing their good god). Maybe a huge act if the player was trying to intentionally change alignments (like self sacrifice on the altar of their evil god to save the good guys might make them neutral instead of evil in one fell swoop). But single acts should be very rare and very meainingful.
And yeah, I only brought up alignments because others brought up "railroading" and such, and it seemed to be relevant to their points. To the OP, it's not AS relevant, though still relevant, because "out of alignment" and "out of character" are both allowed, but #1 is a DM issue, and #2 is a player issue (the player of the character, mainly, but also the players of other characters who now have to deal with this newish individual).
Sometimes people change. It's the DM's job to record and apply game rules to those changes, and to still provide challenges and consequences to them. But it's not the DM's job to prevent it (though alerting the player is good form if the player is not paying attention, or is sort of uninformed as to how morality fits into the game). It is the player's own job to roleplay these changes, and ideally does so in a meaninful rather than "I'm metagaming and really wouldn't have done that" way. It is the other players' job to determine how to react to this seemingly foreign behavior from the changed individual.
I also give a TON of alignment leeway when DMing, and expect so when playing.
I'm not saying DMs are supposed to trick players or gotcha them...I'm just saying that consistent behavior of a certain type has an in game rule/name applied to it. When the wrong one is applied, the DM's job (after observing consistency and intensity) is to correct it.
To S'mon, I do wonder...is it a god of slavery or a god of slaves?
A god of slaves might be a god of liberation or enduring, and would certainly be good.
I think so.
I think that the Forge does a good job in identifying narrativism as an alternative approach to play from challenge/"step-on-up" play and exploration-focused play.
But I think the Forge does a mediocre job of actually elaborating narrativist play. I think that Ron Edwards is an academic biologist. I don't think he's as good at literary criticism, and he offers an overly narrow account of what thematic play can aim at. He talks about human moral questions, but there is a range of other domains of evaluation that a game can focus on - the aesthetic, for example - and "moral" is also a bit overloaded. The narrowness of Edwards' "official" description of narrativism is shown when he describes The Dying Earth as supporting narrativist play - he's right, but not because The Dying Earth address deep moral issues. It's rather because the Dying Earth RPG is written to focus play on a range of aesthetic issues that are't deep mortal questions but are nevertheless fun and amusing.
Like your sign-off suggests, it's relative to player goals. In my experience it will start to become a bug about the time that a player wants to address a thematic question (like the moral and aesthetic value of necromancy) via the medium of play. (Elf Witch has said this didn't motivate the player of the dwarf in her game. She's best placed to know! Like I said upthread, I'm trying to talk in general terms about how an RPG can be played and GMed, and am not intending to offer her or her roommate any targeted advice.)
The reference to Neitszche is interesting. Because in the actual play of a traditional RPG it won't be an actual divinity, nor socially diffused tradition, that enforces alignment. It will be the GM. That's what makes the notion of railroading apposite, in my view.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
