Should this be fixed

[Doug McCrae]

Very interesting discussion.

Yeah, I think we need to stop using the term railroading because it absolutely fails at describing what is being talked about.

I think what pemerton is describing is what it is to railroad in a narrativist game. Railroading in such a game is quite different (at least in terms of what the GM restricts) than railroading in a traditional game, hence the confusion. I'm not totally clear on this yet myself, though, as my understanding of narrativism is limited.

 

[LostSoul]

In games like 1e-2e AD&D You can't eat babies, rape cabin boys, sacrifice puppies to Satan and still be classed as Good. That may be Railroading by Ron Edwards & Vince Baker's Forgeist definition, which seems some kind of Nietszchean "I am my own value-creator" idea, but not by mine or I think any reasonable definition.

You are not classified as "Good" - there is no "Good" to be classified by! You are judged by the other people playing the game. That's the point.

We could talk about why Sorcerer has a Humanity score, if that interests you.

 

[S'mon]

We could talk about why Sorcerer has a Humanity score, if that interests you.

No thank you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here, the information is metagame information (about the effect of the betrayal on player-to-player harmony). My objection is to (i) the GM sublimating that into an ingame matter, and thereby (ii) using the GM's authority over ingame stuff -however subtly and non-determinatively - to try and push the player's play of the PC in one direction or another.

So, let me get this right.

You think that the player was in the right, because the GM failed to provide enough information for him to make a meaningful decision. You also think that the GM providing meaningful information is railroading.

I am not at all sure what you mean here by "an ingame matter". Are you suggesting that the GM providing additional information as it becomes relevant during actual game play is somehow worse than providing all possible relevant information before the game begins?

Again, take a look at the OP. The GM wanted to ensure that the player understood the value of the objects, and understood that there was no moral dilemma present a priori from the game world. In D&D, at least by RAW, "evil" is more than a metaphysical concept. It is "real", and it can be detected. Whether or not something is "evil" in that sense can be a known factor within the context of the world.

Whether or not that context is the sole definition of "evil" is, of course, then open....leaving lots of space for grey matters. In RCFG I solved this, and opened up more grey area, by simply declaring that "Evil" within the metamagical context merely means "connected to the lower planes".

But, be that as it may, "evil", in the sense of the Detect Evil spell, is not an open question. And, within the tradition of D&D, necromancy is, far more often than not, considered "evil" in that sense. It would have been irresponsible of the GM not to have ensured that the player understood that things were different in her campaign milieu before he destroyed the artifacts.

Had the GM not made sure that the player understood the context, the entire group would have been (rightly) upset.

Why is that the decision? Rather than the decision to destroy the artefacts? Or to betray the party?

Not at all certain what you are after here.

Clearly, there was a decision to destroy the artifacts.

Perhaps (depending upon how you look at it), there was a decision to betray the party.

But no decision is meaningful without both context and consequence.

It seems to me that you are trying to claim that context and consequence -- the things that make decisions meaningful -- are railroading. In fact, from your posts on this thread, I am at a loss how one can have a GM and not be railroading.....it seems as though depriving the players of any decision related to context or consequence is too much of a straight jacket for you.

Which is cool, if you and your players enjoy that. However, not everyone rolls that way!



RC

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Objective alignments.

This appears, in large part, to mainly address "railroading" as alignment decisions.

The problem is that in D&D alignments ARE. (I'm not the first to bring this up.)

Falling and gravity aren't (except in very strange circumstances, perhaps) matters of theme and evaluation. Good, evil, freedom, duty, honour, expedience, etc are. That's the difference.

Good and Evil ARE.

If you want to be something other than good or evil, you CAN! That's what neutral is for.

But from the moment I create a character and write "chaotic good" on his character sheet, he IS good. If I then, from the moment of first playing, start worshipping devils, killing babies, etc, etc, I'm going to switch to evil. From that first moment, I detected as good. I would be immune to damage from holy word, but blasphemy would affect me. And over time, those words on my character sheet would change. Ideally, it would be my responsibility to change the game rule "keyword" on my sheet to neutral and then to evil on my own, when I, as a player believe I've done sufficient evil to counteract my good actions, and I believe that my outlook/philosophy has become one that compromises my goodness.

But what if I didn't? What if I somehow decided that in my view of the world devils were the "good guys" because they "rebeled" from the tyrranical strictures of the gods? I decide that I'm going to keep the keywords "chaotic good". Sure I'm doing things for lawful evil beings, things that they endorse and aprove of, but I don't beleive them to be lawful evil...they're rebels, and they're good because they sought their own freedom!

A good dm and group that don't mind exploring players doing evil things (rather than a "no evil pc's rule" that many groups have because they've agreed to play a heroic game and not a backstabbing game) will allow this player to do every one of these things. Every one, except for not changing that rule "keyword". Because, the player IS now evil. They can believe that they are not, roleplay as such, etc. But they are. There IS an objective answer. They are now vulnerable to holy word and immune to blasphemy. They detect as evil. I can't fathom a group that would go along with them being Chaotic Good, though I can fathom a group whose characters might also be under the same delusions as the CG/LE character I'm describing.

Worshipping devils is evil. Period. That is part of the rules, not a railroad, not a dm decision, it is as linear as "you drop something, it falls".


But then there are greys. Lots of greys. That is where things can get interesting and this exploration can occur. Just how much devil worship is required to become evil? Is worshiping a devil that you don't know is a devil evil? What if it is only the lawful tenets that you hear for the first year? Not evil then, (but lawful). What if you only call upon the devil once in a time of great need, and then seek to atone (the spell atonement is useful here, but again, it depends on the deed if it's even needed)?

What if, for the slavery example, is a world in which "slavery is evil". (It IS by the way, for D&D RAW). I can play a character who is neutral, really loves his slaves like brothers, treats them kindly, and believes himself to be good, particularly if I do other good things to counteract this evil I am doing, and I am doing as much as I can to mitigate). Heck, I might even be able to push my official alignment to good if I own only one slave, he's more like a hireling, we do lots of good actions together, and that's the only evil thing I do. Because, there is the objective fact "slavery is evil" and then there is the rest of the actions of the character. No evil character exists that never, ever, ever does a good thing. No good character exists that never, ever, ever does an evil thing.

There is still room for exploration, there is still room for dm consequences, both in the world (arresting characters for killing babies) and in the rules (you've killed every elven child below the age of 10, amounting to attempted genocide...guess you're not "chaotic good" on your sheet anymore).


And then we get to "houserules". Necromancy not being evil (or devils, or slavery) would be a houserule. (Actually necromancy is more debatable, as there are some spells that are not evil and some that are, such as animate dead...but animate dead not being evil would be a houserule). Houserules are generally created by a dm and then accepted by the group (whether they like them or not, there is a tacit acceptance by playing at that DM's table...they agree to play by the rules of the table). Now their characters don't have to believe the truths of the world, but the truths are truths. They are in the same way that my character doesn't have to believe he missed when the numbers don't add up to AC, but I did, in fact, miss and will do no damage. (I could even see roleplaying this event, especially with a bow).

That is not to say there can't be some pretty stupid houserules. I would not play with a dm who stated that devils were actually good, unless the actual nature/behavior of devils was far different from the usual expectations. If it were simply a rule change (like changing their alignment on their entry) but they did everything else the same, it would be as bad as my CG/LE player character mentioned earlier. It would be a world in which the game didn't make sense to me. If the dm were to rule that devils were thought of as good, then that's an entirely other manner.

But changing animate dead to being a neutral act is a matter of refluffing it. Instead of desecrating remains, the gods view remains as just a shell, animating it is no different than animate objects. It's just somewhat easier because it was an object that was previously animate on its own. Conversely, creating golems is not evil, but a dm could refluff that as well. Instead of magical animation, it is the process of stealing someone's soul and binding it to slavery in clay (or stone or iron, etc) form.



The overall point is that the DM does need to determine what is a good act and what is an evil act as a truth. A DM that does not do this HAS HOUSERULED THAT THEY ARE NOT USING OBJECTIVE ALIGNMENTS IN THE GAME whether he is aware that he's housruled it or not. It's part of the system. What the character believes, how they act, etc. is not up to the DM. I'm not saying it's WRONG for a dm to houserule that they are not using objective alignments, but as part of RAW they exist. If someone doesn't like that in their game, they certainly SHOULD houserule them away.


Wow, that was long. If you're still reading, you're a trooper!

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't understand how you can play a game where you want to delve into moral dilemmas without some kind of guideline. If everything is ambiguous then there is no dilemma.

In DnD you have alignments but I also play Shadowrun where there are none but there are laws and violate enough of them it can go bad for you.

For example our group does not do wetworks nor do we use lethal force on corporate assets like wage mage's and their security forces when we are doing a run. We may be thieves for hire but we are not murderers.

Part of this reasoning is because we have several runners who are basically good guys who have been screwed by the system. But we also have some who really don't have any compunction about killing. They just realize that you are more likely to live longer if you don't totally piss off the big corporations, stealing information is one thing killing their people takes it to a whole new level.

In the Angel and elemental example it would depend on why the paladin took the the elemental side if he would face any kind of penalty. Paladins are allowed to work with evil for the greater good at least they are in my game.

It could be like in Supernatural where Dean takes on heaven to protect the human race.

When you choose to play a paladin or a cleric then you are choosing to take on extra responsibilities. The alignment matters more than say for a rogue. At leas this is how we play the game. As I have said before we lean more to role playing than roll playing.

I believe that gaming is cooperative not just between the players but also with the DM. Before I DM I talk to my players find out what kind of game they are interested in. If they wanted a game filled with moral ambiguity I would try to run that kind of game.

When we started the game we are playing right now the DM asked what we wanted and we discussed having a more gray world less black and white. So everyone sitting at the table agreed that we would not be playing your typical DnD game by the RAW.

 

[RedTonic]

To speak to the aforementioned example of a slave-owning do-gooder, http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/251423-rose-wind-saga-halmae-updated-may-26-2011-a.html

Within the story hour there's a major character who is a cleric of a good-aligned deity of healing. I believe the character's alignment is actually "good." She owns a slave.

That's a fabulous story hour, btw, and a pleasure to read, which I find isn't often the case with retellings of campaigns. (IME they usually devolve into "you have to have been there!")

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Right.

A good person can do an evil thing, so long as they do many, many more good things, and they also do what they can to mitigate that evil thing.

 

[S'mon]

To speak to the aforementioned example of a slave-owning do-gooder, http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/251423-rose-wind-saga-halmae-updated-may-26-2011-a.html

Within the story hour there's a major character who is a cleric of a good-aligned deity of healing. I believe the character's alignment is actually "good." She owns a slave.

BTW, when did "slave owning = Evil Act" come into D&D? The last thing I remember was a Dragon piece probably ca 1990 which suggested that raiding for slaves was Evil, but owning slaves within a slave-owning society was at DM's judgement. So Scarlett O'Hara wasn't necessarily Evil - at least not for that. Having Slavery = Evil can make running an Ancient World themed campaign difficult, pre-Christianity this was a pretty rare view at best.

 

[S'mon]

Right.

A good person can do an evil thing, so long as they do many, many more good things, and they also do what they can to mitigate that evil thing.

Kinda depends what that Evil thing is, though. I can think of plenty of evil acts that would get somebody labelled with Evil alignment by me, no matter what else they did. Maybe genuine repentance as well as mitigation might make a difference.