Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 03-15-06, 01:53 PM	We know that evil people can do good things in Eberron and a lawful good person can choose to do a bad thing. Plus, its possible to do a couple of bad things in one life surprisingly without changing alignment. But what is the REAL role of good and evil in your games. I think it boils down to the fact that it depends on whether or not you actually see there is a universal morality to your universe or not. If you don't see there a universal morality then a Paladin is a person who "believes" in an absolute good and evil and that one should behave like a Crusader or starry eyed Zealot. It actually had a serious problem for my game because my players were surprised at the portrayal of Paladins because the fundamental heart of a Paladin was that they were NOT zealots. The campaign depiction of them was that a Paladin in order to be chosen by the forces of good was an individual whom had to be caring, understanding, compassionate, and wise. In other words, they were individuals whom were often considered to improperly lacking in the graces of their faith because they held sympathy for their enemies and as often as not tried for redemption as destruction of evil. The sources were monks of wuxia films and the Jedi Knights more than sword swinging crusaders. Also, Arthurian knights of legend than the actual. A lot of players felt somewhat cheated by the realization that 'Good' in my campaign was built on the principles of moderation. However, the story I wanted to tell was one where the Good guys were clearly in the right rather than the idea that moderation was the province of Neutrality and "Balance" was something that was looked after by all of the alignments being necessary for a functioning society.
DwarfPcfan 03-15-06, 02:38 PM	I see your point but I think you're wrong about the concept of good and evil in Eberron. Point and simple even if eberron works in a world of shades of grey there is evil and there is good. If not paladins would keep their powers when they fell from grace. In the same logic, holy smite and unholy smite would not work because they target alignements. The real issue with eberron is that the world works like the real world and in the real world, doing the best thing is never easy. A group of dwarven warriors can't simply slaughter their way through an orc camp because they are orcs. What truly makes an act evil is the motive and the method. Doing a good deed for selfish purposes is not a good act, doing an evil deed for good reasons is not a good act either. See the paradox. That's good in the real world and that's good in Eberron. While we all have different concepts of evil and good. Sane people have concepts we all agree on on what is evil or good. 1- Murder is evil 2- Rape is evil 3- Soul eating is evil 4- Theft The best example on deciding what is evil is to look at the seven deadly sins and the ten commandements. This is not a religious opinion. The fact that D&D is a fantastic world with good/evil entities and VERY strong religious beliefs (cleric spells) is enough to make a relation between these. Plus I think we all agree even without faith that the definitions of evil in those representations is close to our concept of good and evil.
TheBuddist 03-15-06, 06:32 PM	I think this is something you can really explore with Ebberron, i would tend to agree with Charles Phipps, Paladins should be thinking about there actions rather than following blind faith, organisations from Ebberron like the Silver Flame make this even more interesting. even if u ignore the possibility that the demon may sometimes come through to speak, the interpretations of the clergy could be a major point for debate. The best example is probably the purge of the Lyncrothopes (sp). Even if you say that the purge was wrong or even evil, does participating in the purge make the cleric evil if he thought he was doing good? And how exactly do spells like smite determine alighnment, would it be possible for somebody to believe that they were good but unwittingly be evil? Wow i could discuss this for ages but i think id just confuse myself so im gona stop. i typed this pretty quick so i hope it makes sense :P
maollelujah 03-15-06, 07:40 PM	This is a difficult question to answer, because in Eberron 'faith' is more important than alignment IMO. If you believe you are doing good, and have faith that you've done good, then by god you've done good. The paladin in my game was probably 'Lawful Evil', but I let him continue being a paladin because he was roleplaying a paladin that was following the tenents of his faith, the Silver Flame. He was always ready to help those in need "say a prayer with me brother", gave good advice "the Silver Flame helps those that help themselves, so pick yourself up by your bootstraps and quit complaining...", was never afraid to fight against the minions of evil. Plus he had a lot on his plate. He was caught in the middle of an archibishop fight for the heart of the Church faithful in Wroat, and another man with the same name as him doing good deeds allover Wroat. Even the press was ridiculing him for exorcising possessed cows.
CarrotColossus 03-16-06, 12:53 AM	This is a difficult question to answer, because in Eberron 'faith' is more important than alignment IMO. If you believe you are doing good, and have faith that you've done good, then by god you've done good. The paladin in my game was probably 'Lawful Evil', but I let him continue being a paladin because he was roleplaying a paladin that was following the tenents of his faith, the Silver Flame. He was always ready to help those in need "say a prayer with me brother", gave good advice "the Silver Flame helps those that help themselves, so pick yourself up by your bootstraps and quit complaining...", was never afraid to fight against the minions of evil. Plus he had a lot on his plate. He was caught in the middle of an archibishop fight for the heart of the Church faithful in Wroat, and another man with the same name as him doing good deeds allover Wroat. Even the press was ridiculing him for exorcising possessed cows. Except when you look at the alignments given in the book for people like that, and the text which talks about alignment, it says that a person who is like that is evil. In Eberron, morality is the same as standard D&D (which is arbitary) but the vast majority of monsters (except angels/archaons/devils/demons/etc) and clerics are not bound by what the book says. So you can have a evil gold dragon and a good black dragon. Otherwise the morality and alignment system is exactly the same.
ArcTan 03-16-06, 01:17 AM	Believing that good is an absolute and believing that good means trying to serve the best interests of everybody is not inconsistent. It can be absolutely required by the forces of Good that everyone who can be saved or helped be saved or helped, and Evil can be defined as the selfishness of only seeing one's own interests or point of view (and that can be absolutely wrong). A lot of D&D mechanics don't make sense unless you have some idea that Good and Evil are absolute or, at least, can be objectively defined -- that there's a feeling of "good" that alignment-dependent spells and effects like _detect good_ or _protection from evil_ can identify. I would say that that absolute force of Good is the absolute force trying to nurture and maintain a diversity of life in the universe, and that it is possible for magic to identify that and sort it out. The deities' existence may be questionable, but it's not questionable that the good-aligned deities are good-aligned because they represent concepts we can all agree fit the idea of Good. And Good doesn't mean "good" in the sense of something you think ought to be done -- I doubt most Evil characters actually think of what they do as "bad". They probably think what they do is justified, or necessary, or only fair, or whatever. In that context they would think that what they do is good, but acknowledge that what they're doing is what is labeled by the (misguided, deluded, arrogant) mainstream societies around them as Evil. They recognize that there's some commonality between them and the great powers the mainstream religions have identified as Evil -- between them and the Dark Six or the Rajahs or whatever -- and on some level they embrace that, and think that they're the ones who are right and the forces of Good are wrong -- that conflict or destruction or selfishness are inherently necessary for the universe to exist and people who insist on nurture and respect and such as absolute values are deluded fools.
RagingDemon 03-16-06, 09:46 AM	I' ll agree with ArcTan up to some point. Yes, some mechanics work better if you believe in an absolute idea of good or evil. When I DM in real life though, I do not let my players to choose an alignment. I let them play as they like for a level and then according to their play I announce what I' ve seen and put that as their alignment. The reason I do that is because most players that play alignment X try to measure their moves according to it and most of the time, that destroys their roleplay. For example someone who is lawful (I' m taking about MY players) will think it over and over again before do something that is pretty obvious that although it may be against his or the "law" it' s a natural thing to do and does not change his alignment. Unfortunately many players (talking in general here) do not understand that the alignment should not guide you during your play and it must not tie up your "hands". It' s your play that defines your alignment... That said, I try and play alignments and good or evil ideas to a wider and more open aspect, as to make someone which is hit with the alignment syndrome to take it more lightly and enjoy the game more. I' ve got problems with paladins that act like total jerks, like lamps before slaughter, who sit to battle even if everyone else has fleed and when they know that all the odds are against them and end up falling for nothing just because "they are paladins"! (yes, it happened to have played with a player who had that idea). I think that a paladin is above everything else a person and to die for something, it should be something worth dying for. He should still protect himself and/or flee to live and fight another day, it' s no shame, epsecially if everyone else has done the same. I may got carried away too much, sorry, but these things really bother me so as the fact that many players try to absolutely define good and evil. What' s good for me might be evil for you and vise versa. I agree that some things bend towards one of those axis but then again I believe that nothing is that absolute...
TheBuddist 03-16-06, 11:58 AM	Theres some really good points being made and i dont want to nessarsarily disagree with anybody so far but im still reluctant to accept that good and evil can be truely absolute. Im not really talking about the whole "shades of grey" thing here. If u take an absolute point of view then surely a god or heavenly / demonic entity would be like the most absolute example of there relevant alignment. But as a quick example il refere to the film Constantine - the angel Gabrial was working with Satan to ravage Humanity, surely not corresponding with her alignment (lawful good?). Its made more complicated by the fact that she thought she was doing Gods work, but im just trying to make a point. The only Ebberron example i can think of is the Radiant Idol, i dont have the city of towers book to hand but from what i remember i was along the lines of a fallen angel that may or may not have turned evil, but it shows that even in Ebberron entitys from Syrania (which is equivalent to a kind of heaven in a way) are fallible and have free will and therefore capable of evil, not absolutly good.
Charles Phipps 03-16-06, 04:39 PM	I believe creatures without free will can't have any alignment actually. Ergo, that means that Gabriel working to ravage humanity with Satan would be Lawful Evil unless it was done as the absolute last resort to stop a greater evil.
TheBuddist 03-16-06, 07:21 PM	Thats a good point about the free will thing, i was just trying to say that nothing in existance is incapable of doing the opposite of there alignment, a good being can still do evil so alignment isnt absolute.
Beleriphon 03-16-06, 08:21 PM	Thats a good point about the free will thing, i was just trying to say that nothing in existance is incapable of doing the opposite of there alignment, a good being can still do evil so alignment isnt absolute. A creature's alignment isn't absolute and unchanging, but the metaphysical forces that define that alignment are. If they aren't objectively defined, absolute concepts, Good and Evil are worthless to introduce into D&D as a way to help define character behaviour. You can't have the character define Good and Evil by their actions, the only thing that character actions can define is what alignment they fall into, those alignments never change definition. For all definitions the capitalized word is meant to represent the conecpt as a whole, at metaphysical force if you will. A lower case good or evil is there to help describe characters or actions, and while directly related to the metaphysical force that shares its name it is not the same thing. Good and Evil are a dichotomy, they are two opposing view points on morality. An Evil person doesn't think of themselves as evil, they think of themselves as being justified in their actions, or they just don't care that their actions hurt other people. A Good person believes that they are also justified in the actions they take, the good person does care about the fact that actions could hurt others.
ArcTan 03-16-06, 09:34 PM	Saying that no free-willed creature can be absolutely incapable of "breaking" alignment -- that everyone can make choices between Good and Evil -- in my mind strengthens the absolute nature of Good and Evil rather than diminishing them. Good isn't a person or an organization or even a written code -- it's a hard-to-describe, ineffable but very real *thing* that doesn't change. All that free-willed creatures can do is try to conform to it, and even the best ones are going to fall short or do it imperfectly and distortedly at times. A person's alignment cannot be absolute -- no one is completely Lawful Good -- but the axis of alignment itself can be and probably has to be. In my mind this makes Good a bigger deal than if there were some specific code of Good or, worst, if Good just meant some particular race of celestials and everything they did was Good and the definition of Good could be changed by a majority vote or something. This is why, despite people saying the gods have less of a place in Eberron, I think of Eberron as a far more "religious" setting than Forgotten Realms. Gods who walk around, make decisions and interact with mortals aren't as god-like as gods who merely represent abstract concepts that all of us have to struggle to live up to. This is all very philosophical, of course. In an actual campaign I think the idea should be that a player should decide what their alignment is and *describe* it as a general philosophy, and discuss with the DM how the alignment should work -- if the DM decides that it does fit in the paradigm of Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral or whatever, then the player and DM should be able to keep a decent rapport over whether or not anything the player does is a major deviation from their own, original proposed value system. Alignment shifts, in my opinion, ought to always reflect a deviation of character -- you should always be free to act out of alignment, but it should only *be* out of alignment if it's clearly doing something you wouldn't normally do. But a Good-aligned character definitely does have to fit with the DM's conception of what "Good" in the world really means; someone who rapes and steals and kills is not Good just because they don't see anything wrong with it, or their religion teaches that raping and stealing and killing is noble and right. (After all, that *is* what religions like the Mockery teach, and that is a philosophy that has been held by many real-life evil people -- it's not wrong if you do it in revenge, or to the hated enemy, or to advance a nobler goal, etc.) Good, as D&D defines it, does have to involve some fundamental, objective principle of looking out for others' interests and trying to decrease the world's suffering and increase happiness, fulfillment, fairness, freedom, and all that jazz. Just as with Law and Chaos, you can't play games like "In my society the law says we have to randomly overturn furniture!" -- Law means an *absolute* idea of order, predictability, integrity, etc. and Chaos means an *absolute* idea of randomness, freedom, living in the moment, etc. Alignment should, in that sense, be a restriction -- and if class-dependent abilities come from it, it should be more restrictive. A Catholic priest has to be a "better Catholic" -- adhere to more rules and focus his life more on his faith -- than an average Catholic worshipper; a Buddhist monk has to be a "better Buddhist" than an average Buddhist. An LG paladin *should* find his actions far more constrained than an ordinary LG fighter -- that's part of the flavor of being a paladin, that you get transcendent powers by being far closer to the ultimate ideals of Law and Good than an ordinary fellow ever could. The Lawful Good paladin should, at least, very seriously consider that he has to sacrifice his own life to do the right thing (even if the benefit to be gained from it is very small) because the urge to do the right thing and defend law and order is so deep in his blood. Utilitarian folks who adhere to Good in a hazy way but are more or less willing to cross lines in order to uphold it should be Chaotic or Neutral weakly-aligned Good fighters, or, in Eberron, clerics (who still can use clerical powers even if their own personalities deviate from the deity's alignment, as long as they *understand* and *espouse* the principles of that deity -- like a government lawyer who doesn't really believe in the US Constitution deep in his heart but must know the Constitution well and argue strongly and consistently from it to wield political power).
Master_Musashi 03-16-06, 10:05 PM	You can always do what I'm doing, say that alignments are mostly guidelines, and eliminate all spells and effects that work against specific alignments (Or alter them completely...)
Charles Phipps 03-16-06, 10:22 PM	Well my opinion is that Good if its performed by people who aren't capable of being evil aren't good at all. They're automatons. An Angel is thus not a person and frankly not worthy of any form of moral consideration or a god because they don't have any form of moral understanding. They're like Abraham Lincoln at the Epcot Center, giving a speech about moral values. You can't look up to them because they're inferior to you in every possible way. What you're describing is essentially moral relativism and that has no actual relationship to free will. In the 'Angelic' example, an Angel can be perfectly capable of Free will but choose because of their enlightenment to hold themselves to a strict and unbending set of morality that allows them to be Good in All Things as a function of their wisdom. In fact, for any God of Good or Angelic Being to be considered "Sentient" at all, that choice must exist.
yossarius 03-16-06, 10:55 PM	This thread suggested an interesting question to me: how does a DM adjudicate alignment without foisting his own moral views on his players? So, as a person, you believe this or that is how to be a moral person. Fine. Isn't that a matter of opinion? It is in real life, but not in the game. DM's don't get to have opinions, where the rules are concerned. They are FACTS. ULtimately, it's probably best to judge characters by criteria it's player sets. I can't think of any other way to be truly fair. Of course, unscrupulous players will take advantage of this, so some moderation is needed, but most players, no matter how unscrupulous, will eventually admit that they are just trying to get there own way.