D&D General The child stealing food to survive scenario, for alignment

[Cadence]

Even if I grant that the in game morality should work the same as real world morality, that doesn't mean that the knowledge and capabilities and physical repercussions in the game world work the same as the real world (see, for example, the thread on falling damage).

The character cant possibly know that!

Maybe the heavily armored dwarf has tried sprinting after people before and is virtually certain they'll lose the race? Do you randomly add values to the speed of players you DM when they're running to simulate them never being sure how fast they are, or are the characters all just oblivious to how running has always worked for them in that world?

Drop the game talk.

How much game talk goes on at tables seems like a by the table thing. I'm fairly certain one-true-waying is not LG.

But ok -- even if it was just the Dwarf being 100% certain they couldn't catch the child and the Dwarf being 100% certain the child wouldn't be injured... doesn't that just make it a question of the Dwarf's judgement and/or sanity and not of their alignment?

Is the real issue the lack of verisimilitude or with the player giving the character game mechanic knowledge, and not with the morality?

 

[DammitVictor]

If people were overwhelmingly fundamentally NE as a majority, why did the permission go away, and why did the atrocities stop?

In both of those examples, externally-imposed regime change for economic reasons-- combined with the perverse human need to claim that their actions are motivated by a higher moral purpose. Remember, in World War II, whom we were allied with against the Nazis and what we allowed them to do to the Germans after the war.

As for our other example, the atrocities didn't stop, and we're still fighting that war. You can literally watch everything I am saying here playing out in real-time on any forum or comments section that doesn't outright ban the anti-BLM arguments. Ask yourself... what are these people even gaining from extrajudicial violence against black people? What actual, tangible objectives are they trying to achieve?

I think people are overwhelmingly Neutral as a base line, but can be led to embrace evil by social pressure, consensus and authority, just like they can be led to embrace good by the same forces.

Maybe. But there is far more Evil than Good. And when you look at what social pressure, consensus, and authority actually reward? It is rarely Good. Look at what our society tells us is best in life.

 

[Flamestrike]

Even if I grant that the in game morality should work the same as real world morality, that doesn't mean that the knowledge and capabilities and physical repercussions in the game world work the same as the real world (see, for example, the thread on falling damage).

Falling works the same in real life as it does in the game. Long falls tend to kill you.

If a player intentionally leapt off a cliff knowing they had the HP to survive the fall, they're metagaming player knowledge of the rules, into their characters knowledge.

Maybe the heavily armored dwarf has tried sprinting after people before and is virtually certain they'll lose the race? Do you randomly add values to the speed of players you DM when they're running to simulate them never being sure how fast they are, or are the characters all just oblivious to how running has always worked for them in that world?

I dont need to 'randomly simulate' anything. Maybe the Dwarf that won gold was a high level Monk, or had some feat or other ability that increased his speed. Beats me.

It's just from an in game perspective, you dont know those things with any degree of certainty.

But ok -- even if it was just the Dwarf being 100% certain they couldn't catch the child and the Dwarf being 100% certain the child wouldn't be injured... doesn't that just make it a question of the Dwarf's judgement and/or sanity and not of their alignment?

The dwarf cant be certain of either thing. The player can be more confident; the dwarf cant be.

Is the real issue the lack of verisimilitude or with the player giving the character game mechanic knowledge, and not with the morality?

No, the Dwarfs player decided (as the Dwarf) that throwing a warhammer at a child (which will at the very least hurt the child, and in game to the best of the Dwarf and other observers POV, possibly even injure or kill the child) was a reasonable thing for that Dwarf to do.

Other options were available to the Dwarf that did not involve harming the child, or putting the child in danger of injury or death. They may have been more difficult, less certain in outcome, or whatever, but they were morally superior choices.

 

[DammitVictor]

I'm taking this to PM, @Flamestrike

 

[Flamestrike]

Maybe. But there is far more Evil than Good. And when you look at what social pressure, consensus, and authority actually reward? It is rarely Good.

Good people (charity, mercy, compassion and altruism) do get rewarded. When i help a little old lady across the street, I feel good. That is a reward in and of itself.

Evil people (rapists, murderers, torturers, people who assault others etc) get punished. Generally with lengthy prison sentences. How are they being 'rewarded' by the State?

Look at what our society tells us is best in life.

Being happy, in your own corner of the earth, without being a douche to others.

 

[Coroc]

....

Nazi Germany and the Antebellum South didn't suddenly develop a mysterious surge in neurological disorders. They were full of normal human beings who loved their families, enjoyed the fellowship of their communities, and considered themselves deep-down good people. Some of them felt terrible guilt after their monstrous regimes were destroyed, but most of them didn't because they were only doing what everyone else was doing, only doing what they thought was right.

As soon as the excuses went away, as soon as the permission went away, the atrocities stopped. In Germany, at least.
...

Yes but many people only suppressed their worst guesses on what would happen with the deported people, and several really did not know. And if they did they could not do much on it, to lean up would have been suicidal.

You see, back then you did not have modern means of information and the few media, radio, newspapers and weekly shows in cinemas were heavily censored. So the regime had easy play in keeping the truth secret and twisted. They told the people that the deported were given a new area to live in the conquered lands. Who could have checked if this was true except those who took part directly?

Also it was a like a religious cult, and people also nowadays do stupid stuff because they think their god demands it.

But you might have a point, there were several psychological experiment, the one where the people were told they are allowed to apply electric shocks labeled as slight, potentially damaging and potentially lethal to other subjects, and not all would outright refuse to apply pain to others and some would even apply the (of course fake!) lethal dose.

So there is a psycho in every human given the condition is right, and one of the conditions which seems to work is taking away responsibility by authority.

 

[ccs]

Falling works the same in real life as it does in the game. Long falls tend to kill you.

If a player intentionally leapt off a cliff knowing they had the HP to survive the fall, they're metagaming player knowledge of the rules, into their characters knowledge.



I dont need to 'randomly simulate' anything. Maybe the Dwarf that won gold was a high level Monk, or had some feat or other ability that increased his speed. Beats me.

It's just from an in game perspective, you dont know those things with any degree of certainty.




The dwarf cant be certain of either thing. The player can be more confident; the dwarf cant be.



No, the Dwarfs player decided (as the Dwarf) that throwing a warhammer at a child (which will at the very least hurt the child, and in game to the best of the Dwarf and other observers POV, possibly even injure or kill the child) was a reasonable thing for that Dwarf to do.

Other options were available to the Dwarf that did not involve harming the child, or putting the child in danger of injury or death. They may have been more difficult, less certain in outcome, or whatever, but they were morally superior choices.

You sure do like to go on about what a character not your own, in a game you weren't in, DMd by someone else knows/doesn't know.

 

[Coroc]

You sure do like to go on about what a character not your own, in a game you weren't in, DMd by someone else knows/doesn't know.

I do not understand what part of the post of @Flamestrike implores some extraordinary knowledge he could only have, if he were said player or DM?

Unless the actual Player and DM are psychos IRL there POV should be exactly what @Flamestrike describes. And unless in game the Dwarf is a psycho, this is exactly what knowledge he would have. I mean those are things so basic, like that you need air to breathe. That the sky is blue, in or out game is more ambivalent than that.

In D&D some character got hit points. If it is more than the max fall damage this character survives. Is that clear to the player? Yes. Is that clear to the in game character? Absolutely no!

Someone gets hit by a warhammer? He probably gets injured or dies. Applicable in game and IRL

 

[Flamestrike]

You sure do like to go on about what a character not your own, in a game you weren't in, DMd by someone else knows/doesn't know.

Based on information given to me by that person. Dont forget that information there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

OK. As I see the alignment system:

LG: If a child needs to steal a loaf of bread to eat the problem is the law. The law needs fixing. Try to fix it - but in the mean time pay for the bread - and for a dozen other loaves for urchins. And try to change the law to create an effective welfare state.
NG: The first concern is to increase wellbeing and prevent harm. Let the kid go, possibly buy a loaf and don't haggle hard.
CG: The primary concern is that the kid gets to eat. Let the kid go, creating a distraction if necessary. Don't turn him in - ACAB.
LN: The priority is to uphold the law. Stop the child as long as you can do it without breaking the law yourself or threatening to seriously injure the child.
TN: Not my loaf, not my urchin, not my business.
CN: Cause confusion that will help the kid get away. It's a good excuse.
LE: Stop the child by any legal means necessary. Make sure he is turned over to the cops - they know what to do with this sort of kid.
NE: Use the urchin as a distraction to rob the bread merchant. After all the kid doesn't have anything worth stealing.
CE: How can this be escalated to leave someone dead?

Throwing a warhammer at a kid's legs comes under the LE heading - possibly moved to LN by checking with the DM that it wouldn't harm the kid.