Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rhomphaia 04-19-06, 01:22 PM	There is an alignment argument that I see over and over on these boards, especially when the thread pertains to Paladins. It is virtually guaranteed to come up if the thread goes on for more than a page and in my eight or nine months on these boards, every single Paladin thread and damn near every alignment thread has had at least one person spouting off this garbage. Stop injecting modern morals and laws into Dungeons and Dragons. Say wha...? Let's take a basic look at some of the laws of a 'midieval' culture, shall we? Particularly from fuedal Europe. *It was not rape for a husband to force sex on his wife. *Anyone who was not caucasian was not considered 'human'. *When 'mistreating' a prsioner, it was not considered torture to cause them pain if you employed methods that did not disfigure them or break the skin. *Even though a noble was accountable for people living on his land, and took care of them out of his own self-interest, he was basically free to do whatever he wanted to them and could suffer no repurcussion for it. Now tell me, exactly how many of these do you (anyone) regularly employ as common sense moral ethics and social laws of D&D? The basic game has modern morals in the very alignment system. It also has some very old morals as well. It is fantasy, it is a mix of things that are incongruous with each other, but are there simply because they are fun to have. This includes (sometimes odd) mixes of moral codes, even within the basic game set. More importantly, D&D is NOT real life, it is a role-playing game. That means that it doesn't have to conform to any one person's standards. It is built to conform to everyone's standards on an individual basis. This makes these comments about keeping modern morals out of D&D absurd and irritating at best. The way I see it, these comments translate from; Stop injecting modern morals and laws into Dungeons and Dragons. To; I am right, but I can't prove it so I am just going to belittle your argument in a way that sounds perfectly reasonable and logical unless there is a halfway intelligent person out there. Unfortunately, you get this kind of thing on internet forums. Just like you get things like flamebait, trolls, spam and (fortunately not on these boards) child porn. Of course, this isn't to say that anyone who runs their game with a set of laws that is racist, sexist, needlessly brutal and heavily favoring the upper tiers of society runs their game wrong. I just want them to stop saying that their way to run D&D is the only right way to do so.
malignor 04-19-06, 01:29 PM	Exactly. The SRD is meant as a universal set of rules for any setting which is in print or may one day be in print. The only universal set of morals for every setting is that of the players of said gaming product.
Eightbitmage 04-19-06, 01:31 PM	I think I posted something about this earlier and it dissolved into an argument... heres hoping you have better luck.
Krug_the_smasher 04-19-06, 01:37 PM	I would haveto agree. There are some people on these forums who, it seems, they have a notepad stash on their computer of their opinions, and when a topic comes up that they feel strongly about/against, every time they post, it is the exact same thing. To name a few, Monkeygrip+powerful build, Huge @ss weapons etc. As for the Morals, I, and every DM i have ever played with, uses modern morals and ethics in their games. Sometimes there might be a race/culture of people that are subjugated, but that happens all the time, in every time period. Today, in south africa, the Native africans are the lower class. In Canada, where I live, it is the Native indians that are subjugated. But this is something that happens everywhere you go. So, those people who say crap like that should think long and hard and compare the two. But, their style of DMing might be totally off-the-wall compared to what I have seen.
Tormsskull 04-19-06, 01:42 PM	There is an alignment argument that I see over and over on these boards, especially when the thread pertains to Paladins. It is virtually guaranteed to come up if the thread goes on for more than a page and in my eight or nine months on these boards, every single Paladin thread and damn near every alignment thread has had at least one person spouting off this garbage. Stop injecting modern morals and laws into Dungeons and Dragons. I have seen variants of this argument, and I believe even used it once. However, when I tell people to stop trying to inject real world morals into D&D, what I mean is that you as a player shouldn't try to put your beliefs (religious or otherwise) into the game. If you as a player think stealing is wrong or evil (as we can all agree has been discussed a multitude of times) it doesn't make it so in D&D. It can be, but that would be up to the DM. People try to argue using information such as "You're going to make another player not have as much fun if you play as a greedy rogue." Or, "Everyone who plays CN is just doing it to screw over their party and then say it is justified by their CN alignment." To this I'd say the same. Stop trying to inject your real world morals into D&D. One key thing to remember is that D&D is a ROLE playing game. You create a character, a ROLE to play. Your responsibility is then to play that ROLE. If someone's ROLE is a jerk, then they should be a jerk IN CHARACTER, not out of character. Also, the players affected by that CHARACTER that is acting like a jerk should not be upset IRL at the player behind the character. So that's a couple of reasons I'd say the not injecting real world morals into the game. As far as laws go, those are set by the DM based on culture and such, and I don't think anyone can realistically try to ROLE Play a law that never existed in the first place just cause it existed in real life. That would be bad ROLE playing IMO.
Arganis 04-19-06, 01:55 PM	In the Gran March (Greyhawk) it is illegal to be an orc. Paladins there enforce this law regularly. To address the original "pet peeve" directly, that the following statement is worthless: Stop injecting modern morals and laws into Dungeons and Dragons. When I read this statement I ascribe it to certain "societal" constructs. In particular, things like: Criminals must stand trial. (law) Criminals deserve a trial. (moral) In my opinion, Paladins are not servants of justice, they are agents of it.
kelvinaw273 04-19-06, 01:59 PM	I agree. And if you want historical reasons, look at some of the Greek philosophers who predate the medieval period. Basically, morals and ethics in a game depend pretty much on what the DM says they depend on, and how you play your character can vary accordingly. Just make sure you and the DM are singing fromthe same songsheet ...
Athos 04-19-06, 02:12 PM	I think the point here is that Alingments are tuned to todays morals, but todays morals are so loose and sujective that thats what you end up with in DnD, everyone knows there right, and thats that. basically whats evil, whats good, whats lawfull chaotic, is in the end up to the DM, but hey, be nice about it, if that pladin, does something he thinks is good and its evil, let him know don't drop him like a hot potatoe, thats unfair. run your game as you see fit, to agrue with others of how to play theres is a waste of time without carpeltunnelsyndrom (that is the wrong spelling I am sure of it)
malignor 04-19-06, 02:17 PM	But there is a difference between A and B, where... A - Imprinting modern morals on your role(s), such as refusing to play in character properly when your character would see or do something morally different from you. Or just refusing to, as a DM, have the evil guys do evil things when the character knows they can get away wth it. If you're playing a role, play it properly. B - Imprinting modern morals as a model for structuring what acts and beliefs are evil, good, lawful and chaotic in the metaphysical definitions. This is fine. Ignoring our own morals and coming up with some inhuman moral system for what actions are good or bad defies intuition. = Here's an example regarding B = No mention of the worst acts, those of rape or child molestation, exists in the SRD alignment system. It's evil, and we all know it, so label it as evil! I've seen some argue that, because theres nobody killing anyone in even the worst sex crimes (as per their understanding of the SRD), it's not an evil act but neutral. This is a horrible and ignorant view, as I see it, but they claim that labelling monstrous acts like these as "evil" is against the word and spirit of the game.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-19-06, 02:22 PM	Your translation is wrong. It actually means: "I have a deep seeded need to act evil in character, but have too much pride not to call my characters good."
pres_man 04-19-06, 02:32 PM	Well the reason why those particular acts are not described in the Core books, is because the game is theoritically available for younger children. These topics are not appropriate for young child, so they are left out. The text that these acts might be appropriately discussed in, BoED and BoVD, are understandable labeled "mature". As for if these concepts are covered in the core rules at all. Well one could argue they would fall under, "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." The core rules on alignment are written very abstractly and broadly to allow a wide range of different views on alignment. It is possible that stealing when not necessary is always evil, as determined by one DM. Another DM may determine that stealing is by default a chaotic act, and in and of itself has no leaning towards good or evil. I think where people start saying things like, "Leave modern stuff out." Is when people start trying to say that to be good one must follow the rules of our current societies. Especially political correctness. D&D is essential a game where people get sharp pointy pieces of metal and hit other creatures with them, or they get magic that blows things up. To try to force some kind of code of behaviour, where every life has to be spared, where every creature has some inherent value, just creates a silly framework. You have a sword, what, you're not going to use it? Lethal measures are the natural course of things in D&D. There is certainly nothing wrong with playing a more "moral" character, but really people like Ghandi, wouldn't survive their first encounter with a typical group of orcs. They'd be torn to bits and cooked over a fire. DMs should not be trying to force their players to play with kiddie-gloves if they are being faced on a regular basis with things that are intent on killing them.
malignor 04-19-06, 02:32 PM	Your translation is wrong. It actually means: "I have a deep seeded need to act evil in character, but have too much pride not to call my characters good."Solid. Remonds me of when I started gaming, which is coincidentally when I started puberty, complete with the emotional imbalances and questionable maturity that accompany it.
malignor 04-19-06, 02:44 PM	Well the reason why those particular acts are not described in the Core books, is because the game is theoritically available for younger children. These topics are not appropriate for young child, so they are left out. The text that these acts might be appropriately discussed in, BoED and BoVD, are understandable labeled "mature".Yup! Still, some folks say if the SRD doesn't spell it out, it doesn't count. I think where people start saying things like, "Leave modern stuff out." Is when people start trying to say that to be good one must follow the rules of our current societies. Especially political correctness. D&D is essential a game where people get sharp pointy pieces of metal and hit other creatures with them, or they get magic that blows things up. To try to force some kind of code of behaviour, where every life has to be spared, where every creature has some inherent value, just creates a silly framework. You have a sword, what, you're not going to use it? Lethal measures are the natural course of things in D&D.True. However, assuming adherence to RAW (plus houserules, which is too vast an avenue to follow), game content rules over PCs. If the DM says that the law requires the sparing of evil beings, then agents of that law have to follow it. I agree it makes the game incredibly complicated, but that's a DM problem, not a D20/SRD problem or even a contemporary morality problem. Good having to spare lives is a matter of morality as defined by the gaming group, really. If as a DM I say you must spare all life, no matter what, then I'm a moronic DM unless I give all my PCs the BoED Exalted Feats (Vow of Peace and Vow of Pacifism I think) for free, at which point I'm still arguably moronic for making a potentially unplayable game. There is certainly nothing wrong with playing a more "moral" character, but really people like Ghandi, wouldn't survive their first encounter with a typical group of orcs. They'd be torn to bits and cooked over a fire.Actually, Ghandi would get some serious power. Vows of Poverty, Pacifism, Peace... he'd pretty tough by D&D standards (if BoED is included).
pres_man 04-19-06, 03:02 PM	If the DM says that the law requires the sparing of evil beings, then agents of that law have to follow it. Well really that is a separate issue, you are talking more about ethics than morality. Also on a side note, lawful characters do not in fact have to follow laws of societies, though they normally do. If there is a law that says you can't enter a home without permission from the owner or from a city official, and a paladin walked by a burning building and heard a baby inside crying, the paladin is going to kick in the door and save the baby (unless it is a drow baby, jk ;) ). If as a DM I say you must spare all life, no matter what, then I'm a moronic DM unless I give all my PCs the BoED Exalted Feats (Vow of Peace and Vow of Pacifism I think) for free, at which point I'm still arguably moronic for making a potentially unplayable game. Let's just say you have to TRY to save all life. This is typically how western society law enforcement and military forces work. If possible they do not kill the individuals they are working against, they try to take them into custody. In fact they will often risk themselves to stop someone from harming himself. If your typical officer (police or military) can do it, why can't your typical paladin do it without some kind of special "magical" bonuses?
mlund 04-19-06, 03:15 PM	"Don't bring modern morality into it," is a weak dodge to avoid arguing moral reasoning. The SRD outlines a very nice swarth of Good and Evil in it that helps figure out where most actions lie on that continuum, even when they aren't explicitly mentioned (like rape or child molestation). Some people can't handle a system where morals require an exercise of reasoning - and that's too bad. "Don't ignore the setting context," is a valid response to some people who are too eager to turn a D&D game into something it isn't. Medieval settings have a very different definition of "due process" and often a less refined set of laws than a modern society. "Life is cheap," is still the halmark of evil, but "Most major crimes are punised by execution," is part of the setting even for the good guys. Sometimes you get folks that think every good guy should be dealing subdual damage and that incarcerating or executing criminals constitutes cruel and unusually punishments - and that's too bad too. Now the main problems usually stem from folks that let players of good or neutral characters take a very callous and self-absorbed outlook on harming other people. While authentic medieval reasoning says that those of lower station than you, criminals, and those of other races / nations / and religions are non-people, the SRD makes it clear that such a line of thinking is evil. "Their just NPCs," is generally even more of a problem. - Marty Lund
Steel Cobra 04-19-06, 03:50 PM	Well I might as well hop on this debate, the way I see it, the people in medial ages were, by D&D's defintation, evil. Yeah, they think they are doing nothing wrong, but the point is they are. If we didn't have modern morals and laws, in my opinion, what would be the line bewteen good and evil? I know slaughtering of the innocent and all, but other then that, raping a woman? Legal. Raping your daughter? Legal. They saw nothing wrong with that. But see the differance is that now we do, true the decision is all up to the DM, but as a DM of 4 years, I say that modern morals and laws need to be there for a reason.
Tormsskull 04-19-06, 03:56 PM	Now the main problems usually stem from folks that let players of good or neutral characters take a very callous and self-absorbed outlook on harming other people. While authentic medieval reasoning says that those of lower station than you, criminals, and those of other races / nations / and religions are non-people, the SRD makes it clear that such a line of thinking is evil. "Their just NPCs," is generally even more of a problem. - Marty Lund Since we're discussing modern morals and such, let me propose this. Do slave owners treat their slaves as non-people? I think many would say that is true. So by this logic, all slave owners are evil. In America, before women had the right to vote, did the government treat them as non-people? Arguably yes. Therefore the American government was/is evil. When the thirteen colonies existed, and were not getting representation in the British government, did the British government treat them as non-people? Arguably yes. What you have to keep in mind is that something is not evil due to ignorance. If you are ignorant of modern medicine, and kill people who come down with a very transmittable illness, the intent being to protect everyone who has not contracted the illness, are you evil? It is incredibly difficult to say an action is evil across the board. I highly doubt when the designers of D&D sat down and the alignment issue came up, they were thinking of making a game where you had to constantly check yourself and make sure you were following your alignment. Bottom Line: DMs should discuss with their players what they feel constitutes their players alignments, what is acceptable and what is not, and then consistently follow those guidelines. This way everyone knows up front what to expect, no one is tricked into anything (if your player has a valid complaint/argument/alternate viewpoint, cut them some slack), and everyone is happy.
malignor 04-19-06, 03:59 PM	Let's just say you have to TRY to save all life. This is typically how western society law enforcement and military forces work. If possible they do not kill the individuals they are working against, they try to take them into custody. In fact they will often risk themselves to stop someone from harming himself. If your typical officer (police or military) can do it, why can't your typical paladin do it without some kind of special "magical" bonuses?If a paladin had the D&D equivalent to modern transportation and support, I would reinforce the "try and save them all" rules. Cops can call for backup to cart away criminals. Military can call for a pickup and take their prisoners or stick them on a helicopter or whatever. If a paladin had the means to teleport (self+other), or could summon beings to take prisoners back to trial, I'd support the custody idea a little more, because it's much more reasonable with the paladin's abilities and circumstance. However, if sparing life is a definite and apparent risk to yourself or comrades, you may have to take other measures. I don't mean a possible risk, like they may be Asmodeus in disguise, or assorted pointless "what if" conditions. I mean a definite risk, like you're in enemy territory and the prisoner is slowing you down, or the next wave is coming in a matter of rounds, so you definitely don't have time to save them and defend yourself as well. The risks depend on the Paladin's current capabilities and circumstance and should help the player weigh the risks, necessities and virtues.
OravennasBrother 04-19-06, 04:01 PM	Ah the eternal debate. Let us look at a specific example from A D&D game I once observed IRL. The party leader is a Knight and younger son of a powerful Baron; Class Fighter. Another PC is a Peasant of Free Birth; Class Ranger. The ranger is, as per the knights orders, out on patrol ahead of the group. His instructions are to return and report if anything dangerous coms up. However the Ranger, upon seeing a threat (I don't recall now what it was) decides instead to fight it alone. After a brief conflict he is forced to run; but cannot retreat straight back to the party (out of sight more than a half mile away over rugger terrain). The threat comes on the party unaware and nearly results in the death of the NPC squire of the Knight/Party Leader. After the fight the ranger drags back into camp. The Knight asks what happened and the Ranger tells him that the enemy was so poerful that he could not defeat them and was forced to retreat. The knight proceeds to read the Ranger the riot act, and the Ranger reacts by telling the Knight off in extremely Vulgar terms. Then the Incident happens. Every time someone hears of the incident I hear a new twist on how EVIL the knight was blah blah blah. The Knight tells the pesant that he has overstepped himself and must apologize or face execution; the law is clear on that point. The ranger, despite repeated entreaties by the Knight, refuses to either go to trial by combat (to the death) OR apologise. So the Knight Executes him as a threat to society. Like any other Anarchist, the Ranger may cause thousands of deaths if he is allowed free reign to act. So, in order to save those thousands, and in full accordance with the law, the Knight regretfully executes the Ranger. Tons of people fixate on some sort of "Freedom of Speech" idea, and condemn the Knight out of hand. They tell me that the knight was wrong to execute ANYONE for speaking their mind. This is a VERY modern notion, and one which is still honored in the breach as much as the observance in many modern "Industrialized Democratic" Courts - if you doubt that tell a judge you think his costume is tacky and tasteless the nest time you have a traffic ticket or whatever and watch as you get treated badly because the Judge disapproved of your comment. However the Knight executed the Ranger because he refused to apol;ogize, thus proving he had no respect for the social order and could not be trusted not to spread his poisonoius ideas to the rest of society. Like a doctor chopping off a gangrenous limb to save a patient, the knight removed a rotten part of society to save the society as a whole. Note that if you condemn the knights action, then you are effectively saying that it would be evil to go back in time to WWI and, as a British Sniper, kill Adolph Hitler in the Trenches. Not because he was an enemy soldier, but because he would in the future cause damage to society.
The-Half 04-19-06, 04:17 PM	To play Devil's Advocate: They are saying not to inject modern morals into D&D........ they never said DO inject medevil or renissance morals into D&D. The point is D&D is not our "real life" world, past or present. So therefore you should not interject morals from the present or past of Europe, America, or Earth. D&D is a different universe that should have it's own morals (as dictated by the DM) that may or may not resemble morals of the past, present, or future of different cultures on Earth. Argue with that, lol.
malignor 04-19-06, 04:26 PM	Okay first off, there was likely no need to kill the Ranger. Exile would be the worst case for this, and it would be more appropriate. The Ranger would probably laugh and say "Okay, no towns. Good riddance." Second off, the paladin was focusing only on the Ranger's anarchistic ways and ignoring his contributions. I honestly wonder what crime the Ranger was accused of. Closest thing I can think of is disobeying orders. A good person would find a way to punish that reinforces good behaviour. An evil person would look at this as a chance to kill. In this case I'm guessing the player was thinking of how to twist LG to justify killing people, thinking he can defend the zealous pursuit of bloodlust with anachronistic laws that modern players would rather not accept. Thirdly, a legal system which permits the dealing of death for such a slight is not Lawful Good. Likely, it's Lawful Evil due to the cruel nature of the crime-and-punishment system. The DM should have had more involvement... reasonable involvement. ==== I feel that going back in time to kill Hitler is a Good act. Chaotic good if your country is not at war with him at the time, Lawful Good if at war.
Pegasos989 04-19-06, 04:57 PM	Bah. Just because of SOME of the medieval nations didn't have laws against raping your daughter etc. doesn't mean that it would be evil. The people aren't necessarily evil as they might not rape their daughters even if law doesn't strictly forbid it. The leaders might not be evil either as I doubt that any queen was ever asked "what do you think about the laws that would let your father rape you?". The highest noble never propably thought of these things and the lowest peasants might not have lived as if all that is not forbidden would be allowed. There might have been diffrent kinds of nobles in between that enforced some laws and some not and had their reasons to it. While I admit that rape is by western standards a horrible crime, it is not so everywhere. In some parts of africa people believe that you can get rid of aids by raping a virgin. If a sick man does that, would he automatically be evil? He might be, but I wouldn't say that he necessarily is. The same way diffrent cultures in DnD have diffrent morals and as such, the western morals can't often be applied.
StormKnight 04-19-06, 05:18 PM	Most ancient societies can provide us good examples of reasonable codes of conduct...for a neutral or evil society. Its quite a stretch to call any of them "good". Even our relatively enlightened society has some laws and traits that a truly good society would probably be horrified by. I feel that going back in time to kill Hitler is a Good act. Except then you wind up not quite killing him, but traumatizing him so badly that he develops this delusional paranoia that certain ethnic groups are out to rule the world and consequently leads his nation into horrible acts of genocide, which would actually have never happened if you just hadn't gone back in time and tried it stop it from happening. Ahh, the fun of time travel. :P
Gedrin 04-19-06, 05:18 PM	While I admit that rape is by western standards a horrible crime, it is not so everywhere. In some parts of africa people believe that you can get rid of aids by raping a virgin. If a sick man does that, would he automatically be evil? He might be, but I wouldn't say that he necessarily is.Damn.
wrecan 04-19-06, 05:20 PM	Stop injecting modern morals and laws into Dungeons and Dragons. Say wha...? Let's take a basic look at some of the laws of a 'midieval' culture The alternative to applying modern morality is not medieval morality. The proper alternative is to actually apply the rules of the SRD, which is neither medieval nor modern. That said, my first post on the thread you reference pointed out that the primary rule should be that the DM and players should always discuss their interpretation of the alignment system before play. And if they don't the DM should not punish a player simply because they disagree. That's it. Very simple. Very fair. If the DM and player want to apply modern morality, go for it. If they want to apply medieval morality, more power to them. If they want to apply the SRD as written, bully for them. As long as they are on the same page. My only problem is when people say "The SRD mirrors modern morality," or "The SRD mirrors medieval morality" or "The SRD mirrors [poster's personal theory on ethics]" because it doesn't. You want to house-rule it that way, that's your business, but don't pretend the house rule is anything but a house rule.
mlund 04-19-06, 05:34 PM	Since we're discussing modern morals and such, let me propose this. Do slave owners treat their slaves as non-people? I think many would say that is true. So by this logic, all slave owners are evil. In America, before women had the right to vote, did the government treat them as non-people? Arguably yes. Therefore the American government was/is evil. The conclusion here is unsupported. Is race-based, mercantile slavery an evil Act? Yes. Were all slave owners automatically Evil Aligned, on the D&D scale? No, though they were committing Evil acts and some of them certainly were. Same goes for a government wherein some policies are screwed up and some policies are not. When the thirteen colonies existed, and were not getting representation in the British government, did the British government treat them as non-people? Arguably yes. What you have to keep in mind is that something is not evil due to ignorance. Moral capacity requires conscious choice and information, yes. Animals kill all the time and aren't evil because they lack the capacity for moral decision making. The Rules As Written make this quite clear. They also speak to the idea of being "tricked into" an Evil act, which is almost always preying upon ignorance. If you are ignorant of modern medicine, and kill people who come down with a very transmittable illness, the intent being to protect everyone who has not contracted the illness, are you evil? This would be the whole "understanding setting context" issue. You aren't acting with a callous disregard for life or dignity when you take a life to prevent the spreading of plague. It is incredibly difficult to say an action is evil across the board. It is incredibly pointless to judge the merits of any action outside of the context. Some things are given a lot of context in a word, and some are not. "Murder" and "kill" are both one-word descriptions that could apply to the same action - but one gives us a lot more context than the other. I highly doubt when the designers of D&D sat down and the alignment issue came up, they were thinking of making a game where you had to constantly check yourself and make sure you were following your alignment. They made a lot of rules and character options to play with that folks constantly misplay or have to check. Alignment is the kind of thing that sometimes requires you commit a little bit of mental effort into working through a problem - at least if you are trying to keep away from evil. Evil has it easy. Good requires caring enough to figure something out. - Marty Lund
OravennasBrother 04-19-06, 05:36 PM	Okay first off, there was likely no need to kill the Ranger. I honestly wonder what crime the Ranger was accused of. The DM should have had more involvement... reasonable involvement. Some points 1 The Knight was a Fighter, not a Paladin. 2 The Crime was Breach of Noble Perogative, one which has traditionally carried the Death Penalty. 3 The DM set the laws for that campaign, and Freedom of Speech was not one of the laws. He was VERY involved as he also told the player that his character would know the law was on the Knight's side. 4 ALL the ranger needed to do was Apologize for mouthing off and he would have been forgiven. His Refusal and insistent claim that he could not be killed for speaking his mind was why he had to die - it would set a bad precedent to allow him to live. A precedent which would lead to lawlessness, brigandage and rebellion. Try reading Sallust "The Cataline Conspiracy and the Jugurthine War" for an example of what medieval leaders thought would happen if wild ideas were allowed to circulate.
mlund 04-19-06, 05:52 PM	Oh, killing the Ranger was certainly lawful. But it could definitely be labeled an Evil Act. It depends on where you draw the line on "oppressive." Obviously we don't apply a medieval society's definition of "oppressive" nor do we leave it up to the individual cultures within the game itself. The Scarlet Brotherhood, for example, is Evil regardless of whether or not they rationalize themselves as Good or Neutral. A devil who proposes to destroy "this flawed Creation" to "make way for a perfect world," is likewise Evil. - Marty Lund
malignor 04-19-06, 06:00 PM	It's still unneccessary to execute him. It was an act of lethal oppression, which is Lawful Evil. It was not an act of respect for life, or showing dignity for sentient beings, so it was not Lawful Good. You could argue that it was respect for the lives of others in some way, but then I could kill anyone and claim it's out of respect for all the people they may one day hurt, and that's both a repulsive and insane piece of contrived guesswork. Those "other lives" weren't at risk at the time, so there was no need to follow through in such a bloodthirsty manner over a slight. Paladin or no, it's Lawful Evil. I'd argue that it is blatant oppression and betrayal of ones comrades. When military people willingly turn on each other in the field without decent justification, it's a vile thing.
kelvinaw273 04-19-06, 07:05 PM	An example of a 'good' set of laws from the medieval period would be found in the Magna Carta. There is a specific section that declares that no man may be imprisoned nor his goods and land seized without due cause. The nobles who insisted on it were mainly worried about their own titles, but the law protected the peasent as much as the baron. The nobles and the king did not have the right to do as they pleased with those in their power any more. In any event earlier civilisations came up with their own morals and ethics not so far removed from our own. The code of chivalry was medieval, and forbade slaying a helpless enemy or one who sued for mercy; it also promoted the defending of the innocent from all harm; the chivalric code is generally considered the source-code for the Paladin class. Yes, medieval justice could be harsh (and often was) and the society was very violent by modern standards. There was little surplus energy to maintain prisons for criminals, so fining, branding, maiming, humiliating and executing were really the only options available. Justice was dispensed often by the local lord, and later by appointed magistrates and legal representation for the defendent was not manditory. However, it was not a case of "I hereby judge you - die!" as represented by some here. The case HAD to be brought before a court, even if that court was presided over by the person who was also the accuser. You only got to kill the miscreant there and then if he resisted arrest. Indeed, a noble making an accusation could well seek the judgment of a neighbour in order to show that they were being impartial. They didn't have to, but some did. Even in medieval times, there were philosophers and thinkers who presented what we would call 'modern morals' to the world.
pres_man 04-19-06, 07:23 PM	And in not so distance past of my own homeland (the good o' US of A), there was a period of time known as the "wild west". During this time, there was often "frontier justice". Many criminals were wanted "dead or alive". Bring them back alive was nice, just so the courts could hang them in plain sight so that they could show they had control. Yet dead would also work.
Man in the Funny Hat 04-20-06, 12:03 AM	And in not so distance past of my own homeland (the good o' US of A), there was a period of time known as the "wild west". During this time, there was often "frontier justice". Many criminals were wanted "dead or alive". Bring them back alive was nice, just so the courts could hang them in plain sight so that they could show they had control. Yet dead would also work. Interesting you should mention this. Just last week I got back from a vacation trip which included a stop in Tombstone, AZ, site of the infamous gunfight at the OK Corral. It was interesting in that in spite of the little live recreations, and short films and plaques and so forth you couldn't possibly hope to just look at the event casually and even have a proper idea of ALL of what happened much less if anyone was right or wrong in what they did. Of great assistance to me in really learning and understanding what happened is a reprint of the Tombstone Epitaph which included the story printed the day after the shooting as well as some of the transcripts of testimony from the inquest which lasted 30 days. The events weeks and months prior to as well as the morning of the gunfight are at least as fascinating as the gunfight itself. If it were not so lengthy I'd actually recount it here. Suffice it to say then that the OK Corral has some interesting parallels with the idea of frontier justice in a D&D setting. Not exact matches mind you, just interesting parallels. Moreso because the Earps were all sworn lawmen at the time of the shooting though Doc Holliday was not. The inquest, to be clear, legally speaking was simply a procedure to determine if there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial. Which is to say a trial of Virgil, Morgan, and Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday for murder. The conclusion reached was that although Virgil - the town Marshall - acted injudiciously in bringing along his brother Wyatt and Doc Holliday that it was quite understandable and justifiable given that the Clantons/McLowrys had publicly and repeatedly threatened to kill any or all of the Earps and Holliday. The judge, of course, finding that "there being no suffucient cause to believe they were guilty of the offense of murder," ordered them released. And what was it the Clantons/McLowrys did? Made threats. They waved their guns around and in general made it clear they wanted to kill the Earps. When the Earps entered the alley leading to the OK Corral their intent and sworn duty was to disarm these guys. Now put a paladin in the place of the lawmen. This paladin is NOT a lawman, has taken no oath to act as a policeman, sherriff, marshall, etc. What he HAS sworn is to act with honor, respect legitimate authority, and PUNISH those who threaten innocents. He himself, an innocent having done his opponent no wrong, has been threatened repeatedly with death by his opponent. In an encounter earlier in the day he gave his opponent full opportunity to duel openly. When his opponent made no move to do so he subdued him instead. Now he hears that his opponent with cohorts are gathering again nearby to kill him. So, he takes 3 of his own paladin friends with him to confront his opponent and HIS 3 friends. When the two sides meet up the paladin simply says he wants to disarm them. The opponents make a move to fight at last. The one UNARMED opponent is allowed to flee - the very one he ran into earlier - but the rest are killed in the ensuing fight. Remembering that these hypothetical paladins, unlike the Earps/Holliday, are NOT law-enforcement officers of any kind - that they are sworn only to uphold thier OWN oaths - are the paladins guilty of murder? Should they not have killed their opponents but taken them prisoner for a REAL law-enforcement officer to deal with? Were they out of line for even precipitating another confrontation?
Man in the Funny Hat 04-20-06, 01:03 AM	double post
Rallek 04-20-06, 09:22 AM	Since we're discussing alignment, and someone has already mentioned drow, in an obvious reference to the current "is killing a defenseless..." thread I want to ask the following question; Is it evil to eat a drow? I've seen many opinions on the other thread, and a few on this one that seem to support the idea that killing a drow cannot be murder because a drow is not recognized as a person. Fair enough, but can we eat non-people? If not why not? In my opinion this kind of puts us in a trap of sorts. If we claim that it is evil to eat the drow becasue he is a sentient creature, then we are admitting (at least to an extent) that the drow is a "person". We could, I suppose say that we (I assume, I am not familiar with the laws in question) couldn't eat a slave, and slaves aren't people, so we can safely make a law against eating the drow and still have it not be people. To that I ask, is slavery evil? It seems to me, from reading the alignment descriptions in the PHB that slavery would be evil, so where does this leave us? It seems to suggest that considering sentient creatures to be non-people is evil, in the same way that slavery is evil. Perhaps the idea of detectable alignment can save us. Maybe it is not evil to have an evil slave. While I doubt this, I can (for the purposes of argument) accept it. So sentient, evil creatures become non-edible non-people. This leads me to another question; Is it evil to rape a drow? Uh-oh, bit of a problem here. If our assumptions about evil non-people are correct the answer should hover somewhere around "no", but I think that we can all agree that this act is a bit darker than "neutral". Evil would describe it rather well, in my opinion. But according to RAW and the SRD, could a paladin do it? I hope it is abundantly clear to everyone that the answer is no. I also hope that this helps us bring into focus the core issue about the debate. It's not the specific act that is really in question, rather it is the basic worldview that must be assumed for the act ot be non-evil, namely that of sentient non-people. A lot of the opinions expressed support the idea of evil non-people, but I ask you what is more in line with the definition of evil than denying the very "personness" (I would say humanity, but there are other races to consider) of anyone? Either every life has value and must be respected, or none do. Anywhere in between and we end up cooking drow for dinner and making slaves of slavemasters. In essence in our fight against monsters we become monsters ourselves. Nietzsche warned us about that. A simple ethical truth to keep in mind as we go forward; The ends can never justify the means. It may not be popular, but it remains true. Happy Gaming
Ankalagon 04-20-06, 10:08 AM	But according to RAW and the SRD, could a paladin do it? Probably, if he had the moral compass of the templar or teutonic. :evillaugh If ignorance is no defence can someone in an inherently evil society be good? Take altruism as just part of the guidlines: "concept in philosophy and psychology that holds that the interests of others, rather than of the self, can motivate an individual" Well I am off and slaughter that bunch of baby hob-gobs because otherwise they will be a menace to the town. It's kind of a big conundrum, a catch22 (of sorts) That's awfully simplistic but as others have stated, it comes down to the DM. They know their game, they set the environment and the fantasy society ethics and morality. I guess when I judge where on the good/evil axis an individual action belongs I am going on a few things: 1) Generally what level of niceties is the fantasy setting living up to (respect for life etc, etc) 2) How has the character previously behaved in relation to their alignment. 3) Where applicable, how would their God view what they had done. I am not sure I can do anything else.
OravennasBrother 04-20-06, 12:07 PM	Some points become hazy when you ask: is good determined by intent or outcome? And: how far down the road do you look? Good Intent - Teach poor farmers more effective methods which increase their crop yields. First Outcome - The farmers have increased yields, alleviating their hunger. So far so good. Second Outcome - The Farmers have more children who survive to adulthood. So far so good. Third Outcome - The increased numbers overtax the farmland leading to mass starvation. Not so good. Good intent - Enact freedom of speech laws. First outcome - People rejoice in their freedom and speak out against several problems which were previously kept quiet. So far so good. Second outcome - Several Problems are fixed, because the law allowed them to be exposed. So far so good. Third Outcome - Anarchists use the freedom of speech to cause unrest, resulting in riots, revolutions and a century of Chaos followed by a millenia of Tyrants and Despots. Not so good. Now look at the example of a knight faced with a peasant who refuses, even on pain of death, to apologize for "Speaking his mind." Important note - ALL that is required of the peasant is an apology, no reparation, no flogging, no fine, no imprisonment, NOTHING beyond the apology. If the knight, who has the power of low justice by virtue of the order in which he is knighted, fails to execute the peasant, then the set of outcomes from the "Freedom of Speech" set above appear. It amazes me that some people seem to think that allowing an apology for vulgar speech is Evil. I would have thought it evil of the Knight to give no option to the transgressor save death by crucifixion.
Merovech 04-20-06, 12:14 PM	Rallek, one could argue that it is an evil act to torture animals, but not an evil act to slaughter them as humanely as possible for food and other uses. Person-hood is a legal/moral concept, and one could easily see that drow are not considered to be persons, but at the same time afforded a certain greater level of protection than animals and other non-sentient creatures. Thus, one would have at the center, persons - humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and other 'civilized races'. Outside that would be sentient non-persons - Drow, goblins, orcs, kobolds, mind flayers and other monstrous or non-civilized races. After this would be animals and other non-sentient living creatures. Finally, you'd have things like constructs and animated undead like skeletons or zombies.
Rallek 04-20-06, 12:30 PM	Merovech - I don't disagree that one could argue that torturing animals is evil, but perhaps slaughtering them humanely for food is not evil. This misses the point, or rather only addresses the issue of eating the drow, if you would read on you will see that I myself possit a worldview that allows us to kill but not eat the drow, similar to the levels of protection that you possit. The issue is one regarding the underlying assumptions that go into that worldview. This I feel is explained by me in the latter portion of the post, but to reiterate; Can it be non-evil to enslave the slavemaster, or to eat the cannibal? The answer is clearly (to me at least) no. One cannot label the drow evil for denying the "personness" of other races, and then deny the "personness" of the drow and be labeled good, any more than one could condemn a cannibal as evil, and then kill and eat him while claiming to be good. Nietzsche quote, fundamental rule of ethics, standard closing line. Happy Gaming.
Kakerate 04-20-06, 12:45 PM	.... I just want them to stop saying that their way to run D&D is the only right way to do so. I totally agree with you here, but it ain't gonna happen.
pres_man 04-20-06, 03:16 PM	Is it evil to eat a drow? Assuming we are not talking about specific settings I would say: -no, if no other food was available ("Alive", Donner party, etc). -yes, if you are hunting drow down even if you had other choices -no (but its disgusting IMO), if the drow is already dead and you think it is wrong to waste the elements of the drow's now dead body. Is it evil to rape a drow? Well I would be tempt to say that rape is evil in and of itself, regardless of the victim. If someone "raped" an animal, I would still view it as evil. Rape at least in my culture is destructive not only to the victim but also to the perpatrator. I know there are other cultures that might view it differently, and then there is the whole "rapture" issue. But my view would be true rape is evil, regardless of the victim (person or non-person). Either every life has value and must be respected, or none do. And there we have the problem. You see, I don't believe it is an all or none thing. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to convince me that the life of a child-molesting-murderer is of equal value as that of the woman who spends her free time helping others and trying to make the world a better place. I'm not going to buy what your selling, sorry. Does that mean that people have free reign when it comes to these people that I view have forfeited their rights, no. But that is because doing evil on to them harms the person doing it as well. Look at it from the D&D alignments, if you do evil to the people around you, they don't become evil, you do. That is why good people can't do evil to evil creatures. On the other hand, it is not necessarily evil (it may be in some specific game setting but in general it is not) to destroy dangerous, unrepentent, destructive, evil creatures. Heck it is not even evil to destroy creatures that may not be intentionally harmful but are harming those around them anyway (disease carrying rodents for example). As long as it is being done in a "humane" way (as quick and as painless as possible) and to actually help protect the greater "body of life".
Rallek 04-21-06, 04:00 AM	pres-man, Leaving aside for a moment the issue of from whence does the authority to "punish" a "criminal" derive that I wish to address, I will point that ethical behaviour does not distinguish between a child molestor and a nun. The classic example being that if one had the cure for cancer, and hitler had cancer, would one have to cure hitler? The answer is yes. One cannot do evil to protect the greater good, and thus claim that the act is good. Again, let me state the fundamental law of ethics; The ends cannot justify the means. As far as the question of the value of sentient life being an all or nothing proposition, it kind of has to be. Think about it in very simple terms, once we say that it is ok to decide that some lives are worth saving and protecting, but other lives are not, we have commited the same crime that we accuse the drow of. We may be tempted to say "but the drow murdered!" but consider that any test that we apply to the drow's action of killing a member of a race that his race considers non-people which results in a determination that he is a murderer, also makes us a murderer for killing things just because they're typically evil. So now you'll claim "but the drow killed a good person, and I killed an evil one, so it's different." This is a valid distinction, but if you follow this line of thought to it's end, it leads to paladins being allowed to do any kind of sick and twisted thing that they might want to do to evil creatures, and be fine alignment wise because the target was evil. The last issue I want to touch on is that of authority, or rather the authority to "punish" a "criminal". You (perhaps inadvertently) have put your finger on the very core of the issue when you said that; Does that mean that people have free reign when it comes to these people that I view have forfeited their rights, no. The key here is the idea of a person/creature/whatever having rights. With a bit of thought we come to the understanding that rights of any individual are the direct result of the responsibilites of other individuals. For example, your right (in the united states) to not be subjected to unreasonable searches or seizures, depends upon and implies a responsibilty on the part of police officers and other individuals in authority to not commit unreasonable searches or seizures. Likewise any right to life reflects another's responsibility not to kill you. If someone does violate your rights by abdicating their responsibilities to you, then we investigate the alleged violation, and after determining their culpability, impose a punishment on them. What does this mean? At it's core it means that we are all participating in a social contract. We agree to avoid certain behaviors and carry out others with the understanding that everyone else will do the same. This contract is ultimately the source of our authority to enforce laws and exact punishments for violations thereof. Now, just as china refuses to recognize many things that the united states calls crimes, (especially "electronic" crimes and certain "intellectual property rights") I am sure that the Drow do not recognize many things that the humans would call crimes, such as the killing of humans. Now, in order for us to determine that the drow is a murderer he would have to be a participant in our social contract. I think that we would be hard pressed to find that this is the case. We could further argue that just as an American police officer would have no authority to arrest a citizen of china on their native soil for committing a crime that is recognized by the u.s. but not by china, a paladin would have no right, in drow territory, to execute or in any way punish a drow for violating the human's social contract. This should serve to show us that a discussion of who has forfeited what rights is really not a productive area, as rights are a result of participation in a social contract, and underdark drow do not participate in human society. What all of the above means at the end of the day, is that the drow is not really a criminal, as he cannot abdicate responsibilites that he doesn't have. So where are we left? Right back where we started, at the fundamental question of what is good and what is evil, an absolutist, all or nothing proposition (given that D&D morality holds, and good and evil actually exist). So we either conclude that every sentient life has value, regardless of its participation in our social contract, or lack thereof, or we conclude that life has value only in so far as our social contract says that it does, which makes us the same as the drow in question, doesn't it? We're backed into a corner here, we either have to admit that killing the helpless drow is begining to look more like an evil act, or we have to admit that in our drive to destroy monsters, we have become monsters ourselves. Decent moral dilemma for a paladin to stumble through. Happy Gaming
pres_man 04-21-06, 08:37 AM	As far as the question of the value of sentient life being an all or nothing proposition, it kind of has to be. Think about it in very simple terms, once we say that it is ok to decide that some lives are worth saving and protecting, but other lives are not, we have commited the same crime that we accuse the drow of. We may be tempted to say "but the drow murdered!" but consider that any test that we apply to the drow's action of killing a member of a race that his race considers non-people which results in a determination that he is a murderer, also makes us a murderer for killing things just because they're typically evil. The drow wasn't killed because he was a drow. This entire part of your argument is actually meanless to the current issue. It was not that the paladin came across a random drow in a trap that was dying and said, "Hey drow tend to be evil, is this one evil, (18 seconds later), yup, **pokey, poke**, now he's punished." The drow was "put down" because he was a danger to life in general. You may personally be against the death penalty in RL, but that doesn't make it evil automatically in D&D. Your position seems to suggest it would have to be, since all beings are equally valuable. Sorry, as I said, I am not going to buy that, maybe to Jesus, all of us sinners are equal but I'm not going to cry over some sick bastard getting killed. So now you'll claim "but the drow killed a good person, and I killed an evil one, so it's different." This is a valid distinction, but if you follow this line of thought to it's end, it leads to paladins being allowed to do any kind of sick and twisted thing that they might want to do to evil creatures, and be fine alignment wise because the target was evil. Nice try, I already addressed that. Some acts are inherently evil, because they harm both the person doing and it and the one it is getting done to (mentally and/or physically), with no good outcome. Torture and rape are two of the most common examples. Killing is not evil by default, we kill animals all the time to eat, but we try to do it in as humane a manner as economically possible. But let us actually look at the core rules for some guidence and see if there is a difference between judging someone on their acts versus on their race, of religion or what have you. Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. Now it doesn't explicitly say that good folk do condemn others on their actions but I think we can draw that from this and the fact that the LG hate to see evil doers go unpunished. We are not talking about killing a random drow who may or may not be evil, or just killing an evil creature for just being evil (detect-smite, which is still playable under the core rules). We are talking about putting down a dying predator, that has attacked and killed people. I am sure that the Drow do not recognize many things that the humans would call crimes, such as the killing of humans. Now, in order for us to determine that the drow is a murderer he would have to be a participant in our social contract. I think that we would be hard pressed to find that this is the case. In RL, I would agree, but we are not talking about RL, we are talking about D&D. Paladins are not officers of the law, though they tend to follow it and try to "motivate" others to do likewise if it is good for the society. No paladins are smiters of evil, not criminals. All that needs to be shown is did the drow commit evil and was it an evil creature and is it still willing to commit evil. If yes, then a paladin is certainly within his role of holy crusader "allowed" to put the drow down. That doesn't mean that certain material plane official bodies (governments for example) might not label his act illegal. Legality is not the issue, does the paladin have the moral authority to destroy evil? If yes, then the paladin can not be punished by the "higher powers" (the DM in this case striping his abilities). So we either conclude that every sentient life has value, regardless of its participation in our social contract, or lack thereof, or we conclude that life has value only in so far as our social contract says that it does, which makes us the same as the drow in question, doesn't it? Or we follow the example of the core rules and realize, condemning others based on their actions is an allowable position for good to take. Being a drow, smitable offense? Raw says no. Being an evil murdering scum who just happens to be drow, smitable offense? Raw says yes. The whole "everybody has valuable even if they have harmed others and continue to try to harm others" is a very western "enlightened" idea. Of course some of these "enlightened" western societies think that a woman's life is only worth 9 years in prison as well. Well, sorry I'm not one of those folks. You're a murderous scum who drains the rest of the people who try to make the world better, well you get the sharp pointy end of the sword. If there is a "reasonable" chance you might be turned around, ok, we might give you that chance, but you don't get it for free. Given that most "evil" folk are not just "poor confused" individuals, but choose their way of life, redemption, though a nice idea, is rarely effective. We're backed into a corner here, we either have to admit that killing the helpless drow is begining to look more like an evil act, or we have to admit that in our drive to destroy monsters, we have become monsters ourselves. Lol, the only corner is the one you are putting yourself in. Think outside the box. In order for it to be evil you'd have to show that a)it was done in an evil fashion (torturous for example), b)the drow was innocent, c)the death penality is evil, or d)coup-de-grace is evil by its very nature. You don't have to show all of them, just one.
Rallek 04-21-06, 10:03 AM	Nice try, I already addressed that. Some acts are inherently evil, because they harm both the person doing and it and the one it is getting done to (mentally and/or physically), with no good outcome. Torture and rape are two of the most common examples. Killing is not evil by default, we kill animals all the time to eat, but we try to do it in as humane a manner as economically possible. But let us actually look at the core rules for some guidence and see if there is a difference between judging someone on their acts versus on their race, of religion or what have you. Perhaps I am not being clear with my point. This is where your argument breaks down. Note the part where you say that "some acts are inherently evil, because they harm both the person doing and it and the one it is getting done to (mentally and/or physically), with no good outcome. Torture and rape are two of the most common examples." There is a problem here, namely the definition of "good" Further, why are torture and rape inherently evil? The cited standard of "because they harm both the person doing and it and the one it is getting done to (mentally and/or physically), with no good outcome." fails as a test for validity almost immediately. I get involved in a car wreck by striking a patch of ice and hitting a pedestrian. In the course of the wreck I break my leg. I have now commited an act of inherent evil. I have been harmed, the person struck has been harmed, 0 good accomplished. Alignment shift for me. Don't like this example? Think for a few minutes and you will doubtlessly come up with many better ones. Or perhaps the problem is that it is too much of a RL example? Ok, let's frame it in D&D terms; I'm on my horse traveling, a rattlesnake spooks my horse, I fall off and land on a peasant who is walking down the road alongside me. I break my wrist he breaks his leg, again inherently evil act. By your standard it's true, he's hurt, I'm hurt, no good accomplished. Not to mention that my killing a neutral animal that releases poison gas on death (there are certain spore creatures that still do this in 3e/3.5e I believe) may well be an inherent act if I fail my save. Don't like spore creatures? Use a contingency spell instead, the effect is the same. Your standard is flawed on its face. Leaving that behind though, we see several other problems. Standing out among those is the inclusion of "as humanely as economically possible" as a reason why an act is not evil. I've heard about having faith in the free market, but wow... that's a whole other level. This is not so much an argument as my wondering how one can legitimately make a claim like this, but I digress. This brings us to "Killing is not evil by default" ok, let's accept that at face value. So why is the drow wrong for killing someone? You can claim that he is wrong because the PCs are "good", but notice that the SRD doesn't mention "Good" as a standard, it mentions "innocent" life. This is not the same thing. Now it doesn't explicitly say that good folk do condemn others on their actions but I think we can draw that from this and the fact that the LG hate to see evil doers go unpunished. Well, even if you're right (note the "if"), all we need to do is come up with an objective definition of evil, and we're in business. That aside, let's move on. Or we follow the example of the core rules and realize, condemning others based on their actions is an allowable position for good to take. Paladins butchering theives, approved. Oh wait, theivery might be neutral.. ok paladins butchering muggers... approved, paladins chopping the heads off of those who commit insurance fraud, thus becoming one who "drains the rest of the people who try to make the world better"... approved, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. Again what makes one crime worthy of death and another not? "Murder" is a crime, thus "murderous scum" are defined as criminals. I went through that and you said thta it was irrelevant. If that's true, it is also irrelevant when you raise it as an issue. As far as my positions on things in RL, they have no place in this debate, nor have I ever used them. In point of fact I don't believe in either good or evil in RL. Not sure how that's relevant, but since you brought it up, there it is. Finally; maybe to Jesus, all of us sinners are equal but I'm not going to cry over some sick bastard getting killed. Well, I'm familiar with the mythos of a large number of religions, of which christianity is one. In the alignment sense, I would have to say that the jesus figure would probably LG. Certainly good, but why lawful you may ask, well divine punishment mostly. Eternal damnation in a lake of fire seems like a fairly serious way to punish evil, and to make sure that you don't have to worry about "evil doers going unpunished". So as a paladin wouldn't you be trying to live up to the ideals of LG divine beings...? As far as you not crying about some sick bastard, that's just you. No matter if I agree or disagree with you, that is not a valid point in favor of your argument. It really has no standing or relevance in terms of the discussion. Just as an open comment to the board; Why is it that people who point out that RL and D&D are different in their arguments, as a means of defeating an argument, feel perfectly justified in repeatedly referencing RL myths, cultures, laws, and so forth in order to construct an argument supporting their view of something in D&D? Happy Gaming
OravennasBrother 04-21-06, 01:59 PM	A quote I know which is relevant to philosophy discussions, credit for which may go to Thorvald Haffgrimson "There are two types of Philosophers; the ones who are not smart enough to be Mathematicians, and the ones who are not moral enough to be priests." Even the "Condemn others for their actions" part of alignment RAW might be abused by a slick talker. Tilling the soil can be declared an offensive atcion as it disrupts the natural order, perhaps as much as necromancy, and thus, like using necromancy, warrant a death sentence. :rolleyes: Just to be clear I would not accept such an arguement.
pres_man 04-21-06, 02:50 PM	Just figured I would respond to this part. The rest, well, yeah. Go on with your ... self (I would say go on with your bad self, but well, not sure if you believe in "bad" ;) ). In the alignment sense, I would have to say that the jesus figure would probably LG. Certainly good, but why lawful you may ask, well divine punishment mostly. I think the general consensus is that Jesus would be NG, while the god of the old testament would LN. Of course, since they aren't really stat'ed out, your view is just as valid. It is just Jesus is usually portrayed, at least recently, as accepting of all people, which is the positioned you seemed to be pushing, acceptance of all sentient beings. So as a paladin wouldn't you be trying to live up to the ideals of LG divine beings...? Indeed, but ones relevant to setting. Let's look at what the MM says about some good divine beings. ...Angels can be of any good alignment. Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials. ... In combat, most angels make full use of their mobility and their ability to attack at a distance. ... An astral deva is not afraid to enter melee combat. It takes a fierce joy in bashing evil foes with its powerful +3 heavy mace of disruption. ... Despite their vast array of magical powers, planetars are likely to wade into melee with their +3 greatswords. They particularly enjoy fighting fiends. ... Seems pretty "violent" if you ask me. "Takes fierce joy in bashing evil foes", wow. Of course, maybe all of these don't describe LG, but CG or NG, ok, lets look at some always LG divine beings. (by the way I included the "attack from a distance" to point out that somethings people think are "dishonorable" are described here as actions that a creature that is "impeccably honorable" sometimes takes). ...Archons generally prefer to meet a foe head-on if it is prudent to do so, but if outmatched, they do what they can to even the odds (usually by employing hit-and run tactics or standing off and engaging a foe with magic before moving into melee). ... A lantern archon has little reason to get within melee range. It usually hovers just close enough to bring the enemy within its aura of menace, then blasts away with its light rays. Lantern archons prefer to concentrate on a single opponent, seeking to reduce enemy numbers quickly. ... The hound archon hero is a mighty champion of justice, devoted to the pursuit and destruction of evil in all its forms. ... A trumpet archon usually disdains physical combat, preferring to obliterate foes with spells quickly and return to its duties. If forced into an extended battle, it sounds its trumpet and attacks with a vengeance. ... Wow, no peace loving flower power folk here. Even the little lantern archons "seek to reduce enemy numbers quickly". The rest destroy and obliterate evil in all of its forms. Is this how a paladin should act? Well, where is the offer of peace, where is the mercy? Hmmm, not seeing it, let's see if I can find some more LG divine beings. Hmm, here is something from a dragon, not divine but an always LG creature. Bronze dragons dislike killing animals and would rather bribe them (perhaps with food) or force them away magically. They use detect thoughts to learn intelligent creatures’ intentions. When attacking they blind their opponents with fog cloud and then charge or, if flying, snatch them up. Against seafaring opponents they conjure up a storm or use their tails to smash the vessels’ hulls. If a dragon is inclined to be lenient, ships might be merely becalmed, fogbound, or broken-masted. Dislikes killing animals, and may be lenient. Ok, but it also doesn't state it dislikes killing intelligent creatures, merely that it tries to learn the creatures' intentions. One would guess then that killing a creature with evil intentions might be deemed acceptable, maybe not, I'm only inferring here, so no real evidence. Silver dragons are not violent and avoid combat except when faced with highly evil or aggressive foes. If necessary, they use fog cloud or control weather to blind or confuse opponents before attacking. When angry, they use reverse gravity to fling enemies helplessly into the air, where they can be snatched. Against flying opponents, a silver dragon hides in clouds (creating some with control weather on clear days), then jumps to the attack when it has the advantage. "Highly evil OR aggressive foes", hmm, that would seem to imply that they might attack a foe that was highly evil but not aggressive. Interesting. So what do we see? Not a lot of these divine beings of goodness, or these LG dragons, seem to be all that concerned about mercy, or protecting little evil creatures, or what have you. Seems to me that if a paladin used these as his models for behaviour, coup-de-gracing a downed known killer and evil creature, would seem at least at first glance, as acceptable. Heck he might even be able to get away with feeling fierce joy in the act of destroying this evil form. Why is it that people who point out that RL and D&D are different in their arguments, as a means of defeating an argument, feel perfectly justified in repeatedly referencing RL myths, cultures, laws, and so forth in order to construct an argument supporting their view of something in D&D? Was this in response to my Jesus comment? Because I was actually saying it supported your position, value everyone, even the undesirable. Not my position of, if they are foul enough remove them from the situation permanently. If you have an issue with religion in general. Sorry I ever brought it up.
jagraham 04-21-06, 03:50 PM	To play Devil's Advocate: They are saying not to inject modern morals into D&D........ they never said DO inject medevil or renissance morals into D&D. The point is D&D is not our "real life" world, past or present. So therefore you should not interject morals from the present or past of Europe, America, or Earth. D&D is a different universe that should have it's own morals (as dictated by the DM) that may or may not resemble morals of the past, present, or future of different cultures on Earth. Argue with that, lol. I am now lighting a candle in memory of all the independent contractors who died on the Death Star when it was blown up by terrorist rebels. :D
Bruunwald 04-21-06, 04:28 PM	I've said it before and I'll say it again: Our collective morality, in the game and out, must be judged by both the best and worst to which we are contemporary. The worst evil is that by which you judge evil. The best good is that by which you judge goodness. Everything else is measured by the shades in-between. How does this apply to morality in the game? Because in real life, everything that those arguing for a medieval-earth mindset are deeming "modern morals" are not at all new concepts. They are contemporary to every time period. The Greeks, the Hebrews, Native Americans and Egyptians, just to name a few, all at one time or another, held concepts, enacted laws or put down philosophies that were the moral equivalent, not to mention often the origin of what we recognize as morality and ethics today. There is nothing new about Love Thy Neighbor. It is four-thousand years old by its earliest account. There is nothing new about Love Thy Enemy. That's at least two-thousand years along. Rape was considered evil several millenia ago, in most cultures. Killing? Bad. Stealing? Bad. Most of the morality of The Torah is an attempt to keep civility and fairness the order of the day to protect the rights of women and their children. Those are high moral standards, even if they weren't always enacted across the board. So this notion that D&D's medieval or even pre-medieval nature somehow excuses a wicked mindset by our so-called "modern" standards is a total ****-and-bull excuse put forth by people whose behavior and notion of ethics, frankly, is starting to disturb me. That wicked, morality-lax mindset is not ancient. It's Dark Ages. But the Dark Ages were mostly unique to Europe and only lasted for a short time comparative to human history as a whole. It is a narrow, unfair and misleading view to narrow oneself only to the ethics and morals of that one place in that one time. It is also a disservice to history and to the truth to take the worst of that time and hold it up as the only available alternative. You want to play Dark Ages? Fine. But don't pretend that our "modern" notions of morality didn't always exist in some place in the world at any given time. They sure as hell have existed since human beings first loved their children - even if those notions were not always canonized - and we started being human and loving our children hundreds of thousands of years ago. But in the end, only one argument matters to me. And it is this: "Betty has gone too far this time. Killing is bad. And wrong. In fact, there should be a new, stronger word for killing. Like bad-wrong, or... badong. Yes, killing is badong. From now on, I will stand for the opposite of killing, or gnodab." That humorous bit from Kung Pow! may seem inane, but it unwittingly points out something very profound. That wrong is wrong, and we know it intuitively; instinctively. No matter how hard people want to argue for the wicked path in those paladin threads, their mommas taught them better and they know better.
OravennasBrother 04-21-06, 05:12 PM	Ooh Ooh Mr Philosopher, can you answer a question for me? A Shire Reeve (aka Sheriff) in a low magic world (one with a handful of spellcasters) is presented with a Magical Plague. He knows it is magical because it strikes only first born sons, killing them in an agonizing wasting manner over the course of about two weeks. He manages to discover that an evil wizard has the cure in his very Shire. So he gathers some armsmen and manages to capture three people in a tower, taking them unaware. He Knows one of them must be the wizard, but is unsure which one. All claim to be the Hired help, and that they never saw the wizard, just heard his unidentifiable voice through a door. Scores of infected victims in his Shire are nearing death, hundreds are infected, and the news from the rest of the kingdom indicates that thousands (even tens of thousands) WILL die without the cure. The only way to get the cure is to Torture the knowledge out of the wizard. Is it Evil to torture all three to get the cure? Is it then Good to allow those thousands to die to avoid staining your own hands with the blood of the two inocents? Through some Holmsian deduction you determine which of the three IS the wizard. Is it still evil to torture the Wizard to get that cure? Is it then Good to allow those thousands to die to avoid staining your own hands with the blood of the Evil Wizard - the one who started the magic plague in the first place? Please oh please dispense your infallible wisdom on we the unenlightened masses, for we can see no other choice than to torture all three if needed in order to save those thousands. Naturally being a basically kind and generous Sheriff we will provide prompt care to the two innocents when the wizard finally cracks,as well as providing for them and their survivng dependents if they are permanently maimed, but ignorant mortals that we are we cannot hope to find a better solution which does not BETRAY our oath to the king to defend his subjects and rule in our Shire. A closing note, the wizard is not from our Kingdom, so he has no legal rights in any event.
wrecan 04-21-06, 05:23 PM	That humorous bit from Kung Pow! may seem inane, but it unwittingly points out something very profound. That wrong is wrong, and we know it intuitively; instinctively. No matter how hard people want to argue for the wicked path in those paladin threads, their mommas taught them better and they know better. And yet despite human beings having an infallible and intuitive sense of right and wrong, ethicists, philosophers, legislators, judges, juries, ministers, priests, rabbies, imams, ayatollahs, monks, shamans and parents still wrangle with ethical issues every day. Curious.
kelvinaw273 04-21-06, 05:24 PM	You want to play Dark Ages? Fine. But don't pretend that our "modern" notions of morality didn't always exist in some place in the world at any given time. They sure as hell have existed since human beings first loved their children - even if those notions were not always canonized - and we started being human and loving our children hundreds of thousands of years ago. Actually, I have already raised the point about medieval morality. And the Dark ages were dark because the people of the time KNEW that what was going on a lot of the time - the 'might makes right' context - was wrong. They just couldn't do much about it.
Pfisiar 04-21-06, 06:00 PM	The games morality is defined in the PHB. Killing someone for their gold is an evil act or maybe a nuetral one. Killing someone because they are a threat to the welfare of a city is a good act. Protecting life vs devaluing life is the measuring stick of good and evil in this system. And I'd like to think that the rules are pretty clear. Despite philosophical quandries, these actions are good and those actions are evil in relation to how the game defines it.
Dragonsnack 04-22-06, 09:02 PM	Ooh Ooh Mr Philosopher, can you answer a question for me? A Shire Reeve (aka Sheriff) in a low magic world (one with a handful of spellcasters) is presented with a Magical Plague. He knows it is magical because it strikes only first born sons, killing them in an agonizing wasting manner over the course of about two weeks. He manages to discover that an evil wizard has the cure in his very Shire. So he gathers some armsmen and manages to capture three people in a tower, taking them unaware. He Knows one of them must be the wizard, but is unsure which one. All claim to be the Hired help, and that they never saw the wizard, just heard his unidentifiable voice through a door. Scores of infected victims in his Shire are nearing death, hundreds are infected, and the news from the rest of the kingdom indicates that thousands (even tens of thousands) WILL die without the cure. The only way to get the cure is to Torture the knowledge out of the wizard. Is it Evil to torture all three to get the cure? Is it then Good to allow those thousands to die to avoid staining your own hands with the blood of the two inocents? Through some Holmsian deduction you determine which of the three IS the wizard. Is it still evil to torture the Wizard to get that cure? Is it then Good to allow those thousands to die to avoid staining your own hands with the blood of the Evil Wizard - the one who started the magic plague in the first place? Please oh please dispense your infallible wisdom on we the unenlightened masses, for we can see no other choice than to torture all three if needed in order to save those thousands. Naturally being a basically kind and generous Sheriff we will provide prompt care to the two innocents when the wizard finally cracks,as well as providing for them and their survivng dependents if they are permanently maimed, but ignorant mortals that we are we cannot hope to find a better solution which does not BETRAY our oath to the king to defend his subjects and rule in our Shire. A closing note, the wizard is not from our Kingdom, so he has no legal rights in any event. The sheriff can't possibly rationalize or bargain with the wizard? There are no charm or mind-reading spells, no clues in the tower, none of the other two people are willing to spill their guts to prove who is the real wizard or what the cure is? You're making this overly convoluted, more than is realistic, to force the sheriff to have no other apparent choice. A person has got to stand by his convictions, what point do you have in protecting your own way of life if you know that way of life puts its own safety above its beliefs? "Torture is wrong, but we're in trouble, so what the hell!" It's been said before and it bears saying again, the ends do not justify the means. A complicated situation like this is unlikely to happen, but I've seen it used for arguments to use torture when it is not a "necessity" but a convenience. How moral can the sheriff be if he will do anything to get the cure he needs? Let's not pretend a person is in the right because he uses evil to fight evil. Here, let's make the situation even more convoluted; The evil wizard has a terrible heart condition that would prove fatal if he was tortured for even a few minutes. However he does have a twelve year old daughter that he adores more than anything in the world. Does the sheriff rape and torture the daughter in front of the wizard's eyes in hopes that this will make him break and give up the cure??? Still can't find a better solution?
Pyritefoolsgold 04-23-06, 01:53 AM	Ah the eternal debate. Let us look at a specific example from A D&D game I once observed IRL. The party leader is a Knight and younger son of a powerful Baron; Class Fighter. Another PC is a Peasant of Free Birth; Class Ranger. The ranger is, as per the knights orders, out on patrol ahead of the group. His instructions are to return and report if anything dangerous coms up. However the Ranger, upon seeing a threat (I don't recall now what it was) decides instead to fight it alone. After a brief conflict he is forced to run; but cannot retreat straight back to the party (out of sight more than a half mile away over rugger terrain). The threat comes on the party unaware and nearly results in the death of the NPC squire of the Knight/Party Leader. After the fight the ranger drags back into camp. The Knight asks what happened and the Ranger tells him that the enemy was so poerful that he could not defeat them and was forced to retreat. The knight proceeds to read the Ranger the riot act, and the Ranger reacts by telling the Knight off in extremely Vulgar terms. Then the Incident happens. Every time someone hears of the incident I hear a new twist on how EVIL the knight was blah blah blah. The Knight tells the pesant that he has overstepped himself and must apologize or face execution; the law is clear on that point. The ranger, despite repeated entreaties by the Knight, refuses to either go to trial by combat (to the death) OR apologise. So the Knight Executes him as a threat to society. Like any other Anarchist, the Ranger may cause thousands of deaths if he is allowed free reign to act. So, in order to save those thousands, and in full accordance with the law, the Knight regretfully executes the Ranger. Tons of people fixate on some sort of "Freedom of Speech" idea, and condemn the Knight out of hand. They tell me that the knight was wrong to execute ANYONE for speaking their mind. This is a VERY modern notion, and one which is still honored in the breach as much as the observance in many modern "Industrialized Democratic" Courts - if you doubt that tell a judge you think his costume is tacky and tasteless the nest time you have a traffic ticket or whatever and watch as you get treated badly because the Judge disapproved of your comment. However the Knight executed the Ranger because he refused to apol;ogize, thus proving he had no respect for the social order and could not be trusted not to spread his poisonoius ideas to the rest of society. Like a doctor chopping off a gangrenous limb to save a patient, the knight removed a rotten part of society to save the society as a whole. Note that if you condemn the knights action, then you are effectively saying that it would be evil to go back in time to WWI and, as a British Sniper, kill Adolph Hitler in the Trenches. Not because he was an enemy soldier, but because he would in the future cause damage to society. This is probably the best case of lawful thinking I can think of. While somewhat evil (he is killing a person) it is also very lawful (enforcing morals on a person.) A lawful neutral person would have no problem with this, while a Chaotic neutral person would probably be outraged. Essentially, chaotics believe in the idea of anarchy, that no one should rule anyone else. Slavery, even, isn't an evil concept. It's a lawful concept often practiced in an evil way. A paladin would be more interested with the living conditions of a slave than their freedom.
Pfisiar 04-23-06, 08:32 AM	This is probably the best case of lawful thinking I can think of. While somewhat evil (he is killing a person) it is also very lawful (enforcing morals on a person.) A lawful neutral person would have no problem with this, while a Chaotic neutral person would probably be outraged. Essentially, chaotics believe in the idea of anarchy, that no one should rule anyone else. Slavery, even, isn't an evil concept. It's a lawful concept often practiced in an evil way. A paladin would be more interested with the living conditions of a slave than their freedom. Probably, but I think a Paladin would also be interested in the freedom of the slave as well since Lawful can mean persecution, which is a very non-good concept. I think a Paladin would be more in favor of slavery as a form of punishment for transgressions than one from birth. I think the prosecution of the innocent, aka the enslavement of people from birth, is something that would bother a Paladin very much.
Rhomphaia 04-23-06, 06:59 PM	This is probably the best case of lawful thinking I can think of. While somewhat evil (he is killing a person) it is also very lawful (enforcing morals on a person.) A lawful neutral person would have no problem with this, while a Chaotic neutral person would probably be outraged. Essentially, chaotics believe in the idea of anarchy, that no one should rule anyone else. Slavery, even, isn't an evil concept. It's a lawful concept often practiced in an evil way. A paladin would be more interested with the living conditions of a slave than their freedom. emphasis mine While I understand what you mean, the way you worded it makes it sound more like an evil act. 'Forcing morals upon a person' is subverting their free will, and thus shows disrespect for life or the sanctity thereof. I believe you meant to say 'Enforcing the rule of law'. That actually makes a lot more sense in the context you gave in your post. You are right though. It is one of the best cases of lawful behavior I can think of, and although the act itself was probably a bit on the evil side (not much though) a LN character would have no compunctions about it. Hell, I would say a LG character, while regretting having to kill the guy, would not suffer alignment-wise from that one act. He acted within accordance to the law, and gave the guy more than ample warning (multiple warnings) before executing him...if I read the post right, the ranger was still armed too, so he was far from helpless.
Andrew_980 04-23-06, 10:56 PM	Through some Holmsian deduction you determine which of the three IS the wizard. Is it still evil to torture the Wizard to get that cure? Is it then Good to allow those thousands to die to avoid staining your own hands with the blood of the Evil Wizard - the one who started the magic plague in the first place? To stand idle is not good but it is not commiting evil. That said, sometimes evil is what is nessicary. If those lives mean enough to you that you decide it is worth it, doesn't change the morality of the action but doesn't automaticly make you evil, but it enough to stain your hands a bit. but sometimes good is a *****. actually good seems least forgiving. damn, i have to stop there before i really get going...
sdragon1984 04-24-06, 12:29 AM	whos the DM in the group? what does s/he say? does another DM say something different? are they DMing the group in question? or wwdmd or youre the DM. who cares what others say?
Cantankerous 04-24-06, 02:02 AM	People and ideals do not really change. History is the study of instances in time... trends are infered from those, but are nothing more or less than inferences. The ideal of Good has not changed in ten thousand years. The actuality and defintion of it may change from week to week and from one person to the next, but the ideal has always been pretty much the same. Adherence to that ideal is another thing. In D&D the broad, universal ideals of Good are what has been defined as Good. Those ideals are timeless. But they may be too broad for most people to like because you simply can't nitpick them as well as convoluted flavor of the week ideals. Ok, the basic, universal ideals should be easy to use...and would be, if not for the tendency of DMs (and Players alike, but most DMs seem set on insisting that it be defined in "their games" solely by themselves, so the Players POV in essence does not matter) to use their position to preach their particular brand of morals and impose them on others. So, these easy ideals, these universal and ancient ideals, get mostly abused or ignored in favor of the morality of the week that is the only method most people possess of thinking in a moral fashion. It's not easy to stand outside of yourself and your upbringing and try to look objectively at a moral dilema. So, instead we get a hundred alignment threads a month, a hundred or so replies long in most cases and all the same individual moralizing gets trucked out again and again and again... and it can never be useful, or agreeable, because IT is solely individualistic. Broad, universal ideals, such as are presented for Good and Evil, for Law and Chaos, are workable, without much of any distraction from the RP, and without endless debate. Nitpicky, "this is actual morality because this is what I was taught was morality (or ethics) when I was a child, so what you're talking about must be BS!".... arguementation is never fruitful. Only the most simple, broad and generalized ideals can be succesfully used without endless arguement or debate. No one in their right minds in these debates gives a flying rats turd how Baron A acted historicly or what church commited what attrocities in the name of God (and thus Good by their lights) in "actual historical fact" (which animal, the "actual historical fact" is a rare to non-existant commodity to begin with) but rather in how the rules of the game can be most easily applied to the game. Yes? Isshia
rockondon 04-24-06, 02:54 AM	The way I see it, these comments translate from; A) Stop injecting modern morals and laws into Dungeons and Dragons. To; B) I am right, but I can't prove it so I am just going to belittle your argument in a way that sounds perfectly reasonable and logical unless there is a halfway intelligent person out there. The type of person who would say A is exactly opposite the type of person whom would say B. Person A has a good point. Injecting modern morality would unnecessarily complicate the game mechanic. Depending on their upbringing/culture/religion/etc, things that are morally right for some people are shockingly immoral for others. The summarized alignment descriptions in the PHB provide a narrow view of morality, but it is necessary to do so in order to make the game playable. The person who states A is the kind of person that closely follows the rules and wants to run a playable game. He makes as few assumptions as possible and when reading the rules he considers the writer's intent as he wrote them. Person A knows that the more opinions he puts forth into justifying his interpretation of the rules, the greater the likelihood for a pointless argument. Person A wouldn't say that he can't prove his point (statement B) because evidence is the very backbone of his reasoning. From what I've seen of your posts in other threads, you, Rhomphaia, are precisely the kind of person that fits B. You seem to have little regard for the rules and tremendous regard for personal opinion. And I don't really blame you. Certainly there are valid reasons for considering modern values when measuring the ethics of a character's actions in the game. My stance, however, is that one should simply accept the narrow view of morality that is laid out for us in the books in order to reduce conflict and improve gameplay.
Rhomphaia 04-24-06, 06:03 AM	The type of person who would say A is exactly opposite the type of person whom would say B. Person A has a good point. Injecting modern morality would unnecessarily complicate the game mechanic. Depending on their upbringing/culture/religion/etc, things that are morally right for some people are shockingly immoral for others. The summarized alignment descriptions in the PHB provide a narrow view of morality, but it is necessary to do so in order to make the game playable. On the contrary, modern ethics and morals are already a part of the game. This has been stated in this thread a couple of times already. Person A does not have a good point and is telling people that to play with the given material is the wrong way to play. Take for example this quote from page 11 of the BoED. BEING AHEAD OF YOUR TIME Heroic characters often end up at odds with their culture and society. The standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities than about justice, equality and respect for life than to the actual midieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional... I think this speaks for itself. D&D is based in a midieval world (wow, who knew?), but the very concepts of good are admittedly modern. Then again, I think I know full well the rebuttal this argument is going to get...oh well. The person who states A is the kind of person that closely follows the rules and wants to run a playable game. He makes as few assumptions as possible and when reading the rules he considers the writer's intent as he wrote them. Person A knows that the more opinions he puts forth into justifying his interpretation of the rules, the greater the likelihood for a pointless argument. Person A wouldn't say that he can't prove his point (statement B) because evidence is the very backbone of his reasoning. If he is so closely considering the writer's intent, then why is he throwing modern morals out the window? See my above comment. From what I've seen of your posts in other threads, you, Rhomphaia, are precisely the kind of person that fits B. You seem to have little regard for the rules and tremendous regard for personal opinion. And I don't really blame you. Nice attempt at a personal attack here. However, it doesn't bother me since it isn't true. Oh, and last time I checked, you really haven't responded to me in those threads either, but that is neither here nor there. Let's finish this up... Certainly there are valid reasons for considering modern values when measuring the ethics of a character's actions in the game. In a word; DUH! That is how the game was written. This has been admitted to by Monte Cook in the BoED! To play otherwise is to significantly alter the material as it is presented. My stance, however, is that one should simply accept the narrow view of morality that is laid out for us in the books in order to reduce conflict and improve gameplay. The narrow view of morality, yes, the modern one presented in the books. I agree completely. Now can you tell me why you insist on arguing?
wrecan 04-24-06, 08:55 AM	Rhompaia, the quotation from the BoED only supports you if you continue to insist on the false dichotomy of having only two alternatives for interpreting the alignment system: medieval v. modern. But as has already been stated several times, to which you have not once directly responded, that is not the choice. Here is the quote you selected: BEING AHEAD OF YOUR TIME Heroic characters often end up at odds with their culture and society. The standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities than about justice, equality and respect for life than to the actual midieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional... Something that "bears much more similarity" to modern morality than medieval means that it is not actually modern morality. "Red" bears much more similarity to "orange" than it does to "green". But that does not mean red and orange are the same color. And insisting that something orange is in fact red is not valid. Nor is arguing that it must be red because it's not green a valid rebuttal. There is a third option and that is playing the rules as written without injecting modern sensibilities into it. If the choice were solely between modern and medieval, you would be correct. But that is not the choice any more than the choice in playing a ranger in D&D is the choice between working for the United States Department of the Interior (the modern definition of "ranger") or being the official gameskeeper for a nobleman (the medieval definition). One could say that the standards expected of rangers in D&D bears much more similarity to the medieval definition than the modern one (although one could argue the reverse as well), but that tells us almost nothing about what a ranger in D&D actually is. Analogously, one can certainly say that the alignment system bears much more similarity to modern sensibilities than medieval ones. But that also tells us virtually nothing about what the alignment system actually requires, other than the fact that it doesn't require medieval morality.
Eightbitmage 04-24-06, 09:09 AM	Then how exactly do modern morals differ from the RAW?
wrecan 04-24-06, 09:19 AM	Modern morality does not allow "good" people to break into the an abandoned building and kill the sentient creatures that are living there for the purpose of taking their stuff. In the modern world, one would be a duly designated representative of law enforcement. One would have a legal mandate to evict the sentient beings living in the abandoned building. One would not use lethal force to evict them. one would use only non-lethal force. If four people with equipment were insufficient to evict the squatters through nonlethal means, their moral obligation would be to petition the government for the manpower and equipment to effectuate the eviction safely. If the agents of the government were to be forced to use lethal force ot defend themselves in their eviction action, they would not be allowed to keep the possessions of those they killed in self-defense. Instead, those possession would be given to the State to be turned over to the dead people's next of kin. If such people could not be located, the goods would be turned over to the State to be used, hopefully, for social programs, presumably to lessen the housing shortage that forces so many sentient beings to become squatters in abandoned buildings. In other words, the classic dungeon crawl is immoral under modern sensibilities. It's actually rather horrific and brutal. The game is intended, if it's intended to allow anything, to allow four individuals to go into a dungeon and kill the creatures within for their treasure. If the alignment system were coterminous with modern morality, one could not have a good-aligned party of dungeon-crawlers. Edit: Here's a real-life analogy. In the 1980's in west Philadelphia, a group of radicals had taken up illegal residence in an abandoned building. The group called itself "M.O.V.E." and there were allegations they may have been a cult, and that the group was probably immoral themselves. There was a stand-off with law enforcement who was trying to evict them from the premises. Some members of M.O.V.E. may have fired at police. The police ended up fire-bombing the building, killing many of the people (including children) inside. The police were rightly condemned for acting immorally. Now imagine this. David Koresh and his undoubtedly evil cult had holed itself up in a compound outside Waco. The Attorney General knows they have stashed arms within. She decides to hire four outside agents, say, one guy who really knows how to kick-ass, another guy with technological wizardry, another guy trained in special ops stealth operations, and a field medic. She tells them they can break into the compound (she even gives them a warrant to make it legal), attempt to retrieve the weapons, kill anybody who tries to kill them, and they get to keep any valuable they find within. Does that sould like a moral action to you? It doesn't to me. But that is the modern analogy to what adventurers are hired to do all of the time in D&D.
Cantankerous 04-24-06, 11:03 AM	Then how exactly do modern morals differ from the RAW? In specifics. Modern morality is built not on generalizations, as the RAW is so built, but on specific instances that often also alter to fit the morality of the moment, or say, a governments position at the moment and the expediency thereof. There is the biggest difference in the more (notice more) modern views of morality than are cited by the RAW...modern "morality" is built far more around the ideas of conciliation and expediency. They are far more "shades of grey" now than in the older, simpler, black and white moralities of man in a more primitive (or pristine, depending on how you want to state it) setting. "Killing is Evil except when" ... is no new concept. All that has been added over time are more exceptions. If ONLY the items listed in the RAW that define IT'S morality and ethical basis are used, and not the more modern, vague and expedient extrapolations of those ideals, then as it stands, the RAW is usable and easily usable. In the RAW, Good and Evil, Law and chaos are defined by the BIG differences....the polar opposites. It is only when the venial enters into the picture that the Alignment system begins to suffer. Isshia
wrecan 04-24-06, 11:43 AM	I have to admit, I don't quite understand your point, Isshia. Could you give us a specific example of what you're referring to?
StormKnight 04-24-06, 11:51 AM	Does that sould like a moral action to you? It doesn't to me. But that is the modern analogy to what adventurers are hired to do all of the time in D&D. That's odd. I'd consider a group of adventurers who decided to head into a dungeon for the purpouse of finding "loot" and who killed sentient creatures who were just defending their home to be acting immorally as well. I don't see a difference. Typically what I see is a group of adventurers heading into a dungeon for some external, and often noble purpouse, having to defend themselves against creatures who consider the PCs to be a nice tasty snack. Certain modern to D&D correlations do not exist: Large portions of a D&D land are likely to be essentially lawless areas, as opposed to the modern world where someone's laws goven virtually any area and every person is the citizen of some nation or other and subject to its restrictions and protections. In the real world, its unlikely that any military/combat/police action that could be handled by a few independent individuals could not be handled better by the trained military/police of the nation. In D&D this is frequently not the case; the PCs CAN handle things better than the "authorities".
OravennasBrother 04-24-06, 11:54 AM	The sheriff can't possibly rationalize or bargain with the wizard? There are no charm or mind-reading spells, no clues in the tower, none of the other two people are willing to spill their guts to prove who is the real wizard or what the cure is? How moral can the sheriff be if he will do anything to get the cure he needs? Let's not pretend a person is in the right because he uses evil to fight evil. Here, let's make the situation even more convoluted; The evil wizard has a terrible heart condition that would prove fatal if he was tortured for even a few minutes. However he does have a twelve year old daughter that he adores more than anything in the world. Does the sheriff rape and torture the daughter in front of the wizard's eyes in hopes that this will make him break and give up the cure??? Did I mention thousands dying agonizing deaths due to the plague released by the Wizard? Remember the Sheriff has no access to magic - his only recourse is Negotiation or torture. Even with the wizard revealed why should he talk? As long as the sheriff does not have the cure he cannot execute the wizard or he loses any hope of gaining the cure. But once the Sheriff does have the cure he can freely execute the wizard for his crimes. If the Sheriff is gullible enough to allow the wizard to go free in return for the promise of the cure, the Evil wizard need merely leave the Shire - eluding justice and leaving the plague raging. Even if the sheriff agrees in good faith to release the Wizard after the cure is administered, the King might decide not to honor the Sheriff's promise, and again the Wizard is exectued. So the Wizard has NO incentive to abandon his sole bargaining point by giving up the cure. So are you telling us that it is better, under your value system, to allow thousands of innocents to suffer terrible agonizing deaths to avoid ahving to torture the location of a cure from a single evil individual whose actions brought about that agony? OR are you saying you would rather torture etc. the wizard's innocent daughter to get the information? A closing point - the longer you quibble and hesitate, the more innocents who suffer and die from the lost time.
wrecan 04-24-06, 12:14 PM	That's odd. I'd consider a group of adventurers who decided to head into a dungeon for the purpouse of finding "loot" and who killed sentient creatures who were just defending their home to be acting immorally as well. I don't see a difference. That's not what happened in eithe rof my two examples. In the first, the police were trying to evict a group of dangerous people who had occupied an abandoned building. They were confronted by lethal force and responded by killing the occupants. That's exactly what adventurers do in your example. They are hired by a nobleman to clean out a dungeon in which there are dangerous criminals. They are allowed as compensation to keep what they find. they are allowed to use lethal force to defend themselves. In my example, the police weren't even allowed to keep any possessions. It was still properly considered immoral. Typically what I see is a group of adventurers heading into a dungeon for some external, and often noble purpouse, having to defend themselves against creatures who consider the PCs to be a nice tasty snack. And such actions would be considered immoral in the real world. Let's take a place of chaos. Say, an African nation engaging in genocide. Let's say the United Nations were to hire mercenaries who volunteered to help end the genocide. They were told to go in as peacekeepers, use lethal force to defend themselves and keep the possessions of those they killed. in doing so, they were given free discretion to determine who needed to be killed, how such killing should be accomplished and what to do with the possessions. Often, the mercenaries were not required even to dispose of the bodies of those that died. Let's assume the mercenaries' primary motiviation was fighting evil, although a secondary motivation was making a decent livign for themselves. I do not think these mercenaries would be viewed as good, moral people by most of the civilized world. They would be seen as mercenaries. They loot the dead, they enrich themselves by dealign death, and they treat those they kill with what would appear to be little respect, and certainly with no due process. They may not be as evil as those who commit genocide, but they are not good. In D&D, such people are called "heroes". Certain modern to D&D correlations do not exist And that's why Rhompaia's argument does not work. Modern morality cannot be used as the basis for alignment because modern morality does not deal with the reality of the typical D&D world. Medieval morality does not work either because 1) medieval morality was in many ways repugnant, and 2) the medieval world also isn't equipped to handle the reality of the typical D&D world. In D&D this is frequently not the case; the PCs CAN handle things better than the "authorities". True, but in "handling" it, they do things that we with modern morality would find repugnant.
Cantankerous 04-24-06, 12:57 PM	I have to admit, I don't quite understand your point, Isshia. Could you give us a specific example of what you're referring to? The modern view of morality is built more on thiose exceptions I mentioned, partially simply because more of them have been developed over time. Keep in mind we are not talking legal defintions here, but societally accepted ones. It's ok to kill: "in the service of god or your leige lord" has now been expanded to "or to prevent what might be a threat to their security at a later point", for instance. THIS is an almost completely Modern ideal in reference to morality. In the older view of morality it was an "eye for an eye" ideology concerning what WAS DONE, but now the idea of a "preventive war" has become part of the common moral landscape. This trend really got going in the 15th century although it did appear RARELY before that. Today, it seems the standard mode of business for most world governments. Whether this more modern morality is more moral or not is immaterial in this forum. Simply, it IS a more modern one and it's concomitants define the more modern morality wherein the venial becomes the excuse du-jour more easily and naturally than in the past. It's a natural consequence of any culture that it becomes more complex over time. This additional and perpetual layering of complexity expresses itself in those aforementioned "exceptions" to the rules. Of course, the more exceptions that exist, the more complexity exists. The more complexity the more difficult rules are to use because they require ever greater specification. THAT is why I say that the RAW, if taken EXACTLY as written, without further extrapolations added, is workable for alignment, but modern morality is not. The modern morality adds the extra layers of complexity that time always vouchsafes a subject. Isshia
wrecan 04-24-06, 01:08 PM	Okay. I understand now (and agree!) Thanks for the clarification.
StormKnight 04-24-06, 02:05 PM	That's not what happened in eithe rof my two examples. No, but my statement wasn't in response to your examples. It was in response to: Modern morality does not allow "good" people to break into the an abandoned building and kill the sentient creatures that are living there for the purpose of taking their stuff. In the first, the police were trying to evict a group of dangerous people who had occupied an abandoned building. They were confronted by lethal force and responded by killing the occupants. In this situation, first off the police "might" have been shot at. Second, they killed people who are protected by laws that are defined to protect its people from being killed without proper proccess. Thirdly, they wantonly killed clearly innocent people as well. See how far "Well, we fireballed the traveling caravan under the flag of the royal kingdom along with all the families and children because we saw a few known bandits in their midst" gets you in a D&D world! And such actions would be considered immoral in the real world. Police killing a gunman who is busy shooting people won't be considered immoral. A company requesting the government kill the polar bear that has attacked workers on their artic drilling expedition (so they can get to the "loot - ie. oil it guards) won't be considered immoral. A soldier on the battlefield who grabbed a rocket launcher from a fallen foe and used it to take out an enemy tank won't be considered immoral. The property of a dead criminal without relatives is not buried with him or burned. Its TAKEN and used in whatever way the government sees fit to use it. Hopefully for the benefit of all. This is not considered immoral. That's exactly what adventurers do in your example. They are hired by a nobleman to clean out a dungeon in which there are dangerous criminals. They are allowed as compensation to keep what they find. they are allowed to use lethal force to defend themselves. Er, I didn't give a specific example, but I don't think I've ever played a game where the PCs specifically are out to "clean out" something or to "go kill things". In my example, the police weren't even allowed to keep any possessions. It was still properly considered immoral. I don't see how keeping possessions factors into it. They loot the dead, they enrich themselves by dealign death, and they treat those they kill with what would appear to be little respect, and certainly with no due process. They may not be as evil as those who commit genocide, but they are not good. And a D&D group sent into a civilized area from an outside nation who killed those who they considered a threat without regard for the wishes of the local populace and left bodies around and claimed their possessions would be perceived as 'good'?!?! Why in the world do you think this is the case? Again, I've never played a game of D&D that invovled a scenario such as this. In D&D, such people are called "heroes". Maybe in your D&D world. Certainly not in mine. When I considered D&D having a more modern morality, I consider broad concepts. We'll pick one that I consider really good: People have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This doesn't mean that all the details will be the same. Maybe a certain D&D society poses no restrictions on the use of addictive substances, but has laws about keeping your dwellings clean and presentable. That's not how the modern society I live in works, but its not imcompatible with modern morality; the people are still supposed to be free to pursue life and their happiness with dignity, and the laws are intended to prevent negative effects to all of society. The difference of application does not mean its not "modern" morality.
Eightbitmage 04-24-06, 02:31 PM	D&D morality does not allow good people to break into an abandoned building and kill the sentient creatures that are living there for the purpose of taking their stuff. In the modern world, one would be a duly designated representative of law enforcement. One would have a legal mandate to evict the sentient beings living in the abandoned building. One would not use lethal force to evict them. one would use only non-lethal force. This is legality not morality. If four people with equipment were insufficient to evict the squatters through nonlethal means, their moral obligation would be to petition the government for the manpower and equipment to effectuate the eviction safely What? Why would they be morally obligated to tell the government that there are squatters on some property? If the agents of the government were to be forced to use lethal force ot defend themselves in their eviction action, they would not be allowed to keep the possessions of those they killed in self-defense. Instead, those possession would be given to the State to be turned over to the dead people's next of kin. If such people could not be located, the goods would be turned over to the State to be used, hopefully, for social programs, presumably to lessen the housing shortage that forces so many sentient beings to become squatters in abandoned buildings. More legality. Nothing in this is about morals, it is about what is legal and illegal to do, or what is feasable or not feasable for civilians to do. In other words, the classic dungeon crawl is immoral under modern sensibilities. It's actually rather horrific and brutal. I don't think dungeon crawls go quite that way. The game is intended, if it's intended to allow anything, to allow four individuals to go into a dungeon and kill the creatures within for their treasure. That is part of what makes the game fun, but if that is the PCs sole motivation they are evil. Now imagine this. David Koresh and his undoubtedly evil cult had holed itself up in a compound outside Waco. Ok so evil people are where they are not supposed to be. The Attorney General knows they have stashed arms within. She decides to hire four outside agents, say, one guy who really knows how to kick-ass, another guy with technological wizardry, another guy trained in special ops stealth operations, and a field medic. What is immoral about outside agents? In real life such agents would not be able to succeed but that doesn't make their actions more or less moral. Also what is her reason for wanting them out? Does she own the property? Are they planning to attack innocents? In the first case the agents are enforcing law, in the second they are enforcing good. She tells them they can break into the compound (she even gives them a warrant to make it legal), attempt to retrieve the weapons, kill anybody who tries to kill them, and they get to keep any valuable they find within. This has nothing to do with morality. All you've done is proven that our universe and the D&D universe have different laws, both social and physical. Does that sould like a moral action to you? It doesn't to me. But that is the modern analogy to what adventurers are hired to do all of the time in D&D. Killing terrorists to stop them from killing civilians is immoral? Your modern analogy is a bad one. Say, an African nation engaging in genocide. Let's say the United Nations were to hire mercenaries who volunteered to help end the genocide.... All this example shows is a distaste in the public eye for mercenaries. If you change them from mercenaries to soldiers more people would approve even if they did the exact same things. This part is not a matter of morals. in doing so, they were given free discretion to determine who needed to be killed, how such killing should be accomplished and what to do with the possessions. So now it is legal for them to take the stuff off their fallen enemies. How is this immoral? Often, the mercenaries were not required even to dispose of the bodies of those that died Unrelated to morality. They loot the dead What is immoral about taking the posessions of the dead? (I have more to say, but I want to see how you respond to this first) they enrich themselves by dealign death Like soldiers in every war, ever? and they treat those they kill with what would appear to be little respect, and certainly with no due process Not sure how respect for the dead fits into morality, and usually hostile forces acting with leathal force aren't expected to get due process. They may not be as evil as those who commit genocide, but they are not good. Their motivation is primarily to help people and they aren't good? If ONLY the items listed in the RAW that define IT'S morality and ethical basis are used, and not the more modern, vague and expedient extrapolations of those ideals, then as it stands, the RAW is usable and easily usable. In the RAW, Good and Evil, Law and chaos are defined by the BIG differences....the polar opposites. It is only when the venial enters into the picture that the Alignment system begins to suffer. I continue to disagree with you on this because my experience playing and DMing has shown me that this just is not true.
rockondon 04-24-06, 02:50 PM	Rhomphia, I applaud your efforts in finding an ambiguous comment in the BoED and insinuating that it supports your argument for superceding the alignment descriptions with your own self-made concepts of morality. I was hoping to counter your arguments toward me from the last page and I was disappointed yet also pleasantly surprised by yet another brilliant post by wrecan at the top of this page to counter your statements for me. The more I read of wrecan's posts the more he impresses me. After seeing wrecan's statements refuting your own I presume that you will once again fail to respond to them, and instead reply with pointless fluff about how I like to argue or that I'm insulting and you're a victim blah blah blah. The reason I stopped replying to your posts in the other thread was because your posts had no substance. You repeatedly ignore the meaningful part of a discussion and instead focus on the irrelevant. Your arguments weren't based on reasoning or logic, they were based on opinion. Arguing with someone like you whom is beyond the sway of reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
wrecan 04-24-06, 03:09 PM	In this situation, first off the police "might" have been shot at. Second, they killed people who are protected by laws that are defined to protect its people from being killed without proper proccess. Thirdly, they wantonly killed clearly innocent people as well. I gave you a real-life example. The police were roundly criticized and rightfulyl so for using unnecesary, even brutal, force. They acted in a way that was clearly immoral under normal morality. I don't think I've ever played a game where the PCs specifically are out to "clean out" something or to "go kill things". I never said they were hired to kill things. But cleaning out a abandoned keep or dungeon currently housing a bandit tribe of orcs or goblins is a classic D&D scenario for D&D adventures. If such an adventure would be considered not good under the alignment system then the game is inherently broken. In fact, on the Wizards website, they have a series of adventures available for download and the setting is described as "Generic D&D". Many of those adventures involve a party of PCs going into a dungeon for the purpose of collecting treasure and killing the monsters within. Many of those monsters have a humanoid level of intelligence (8 or above). A Dark and Stormy Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20050329a) has PCs exploring an ancient hall where they are told there are likely hostile humanoids now living. The adventure assumes the humanoids will be confronted, killed and the treasure kept by the PCs. In Wreck Ashore (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20040430a) the PCs are hired by a community to attack and kill lizardmen conducting bandit raids. The PCs are told they can keep whatever treasure they find as compensation. In Ettin's Riddle (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20000901a) , the PCs are hired to kill an ettin that has been stealing cattle and causing property damage. The PCs are allowed to keep the ettin's treasure as compensation. In Dry Spell (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20040626a) , the PCs are hired to kill a bugbear chieftain who is harassing a community, and the PCs get to keep the chieftain's possessions as treasure. in The Eye of the Sun (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030725a) , the PCs are sent to stop a tribe of lizard men who are harassing a town. The adventure expects the PCs to stop the lizard men by killing them. The adventure asusmes the PCs will keep the lizard men's treasure. This is only a sample of WotC's official adventures for a "generic D&D" setting. While you might never have played in a campaign in which adventurers are expected to go out, kill sentient beings and keep their stuff, it is a time-honored plot of many D&D campaigns, and certainly is contemplated as a standard plot for a generic D&D campaign. Since it is also expected that players can and often are good-aligned, it must not violate the good alignment to participate in such plots. However, if people engaged in this sort of behavior in the real world, it would be roundly condemned as immoral. That's one reason modern morality is inappropriate as a means for interpreting alignment issues. I don't see how keeping possessions factors into it. Keeping the possession of those you kill (however justifiably) is considered immoral under modern standards. It is, however, a time-honored tradition among D&D parties. And a D&D group sent into a civilized area from an outside nation who killed those who they considered a threat without regard for the wishes of the local populace and left bodies around and claimed their possessions would be perceived as 'good'?!?! Change "civilized" to "uncivilized and occupied by goblinoids" and the answer is "Yes." Why in the world do you think this is the case? Because Wizards publishes just such adventures. When I considered D&D having a more modern morality, I consider broad concepts. That's fine. I don't mind people playing D&D with modern morality. I only mind when they (and I don't think you are one of those people) claim that's the way the alignment system is actually written to work.
Cantankerous 04-24-06, 03:18 PM	Okay. I understand now (and agree!) Thanks for the clarification. You're quite welcome. It's a refreshing change to be able to discuss and expound on this material without getting caught up in debates about the minuate of whether this or that precise action is moral under this or that set of circumstances as the main mode within which the whole thing is discussed. Those are all no win arguements... as in no one wins, ever, and everyone (or nearly everyone) claims victory none the less. Being able to avoid them is swwwweeettt! Isshia
Eightbitmage 04-24-06, 03:54 PM	A Dark and Stormy Knight has PCs exploring an ancient hall where they are told there are likely hostile humanoids now living. The adventure assumes the humanoids will be confronted, killed and the treasure kept by the PCs. Untrue. The PCs take refuge in a cave and happen upon hobgoblins who try to kill them. Every other enemy is an animal, evil outsider, or undead. All of them attack the PCs on sight. In Wreck Ashore the PCs are hired by a community to attack and kill lizardmen conducting bandit raids. The PCs are told they can keep whatever treasure they find as compensation. They are putting a stop to evil. who keeps the treasure is a legal issue not a moral one. In Ettin's Riddle , the PCs are hired to kill an ettin that has been stealing cattle and causing property damage. The PCs are allowed to keep the ettin's treasure as compensation. Same as above, but actually there is a second route that if the PCs don't just charge and kill they can stop the ettin by turning him back to his natural form. In Dry Spell , the PCs are hired to kill a bugbear chieftain who is harassing a community, and the PCs get to keep the chieftain's possessions as treasure. Same as above. in The Eye of the Sun , the PCs are sent to stop a tribe of lizard men who are harassing a town. The adventure expects the PCs to stop the lizard men by killing them. The adventure asusmes the PCs will keep the lizard men's treasure. Same as above. All of these examples involve the legitamate authority hiring PCs to stop evil with the exception of the first one where the PCs are attacked on sight in a tomb owned by neither group. The only questionable part is who gets the treasure. So the question is, "is it moral to keep the posessions of someone who tried to kill you when you tried to stop them from doing evil things?" I personally think the answer is yes, especially when the treasure would default to the PCs' employer who in turn says the PCs may have it.
wrecan 04-24-06, 05:12 PM	They are putting a stop to evil. who keeps the treasure is a legal issue not a moral one. If a cop was found stealing from perpetrators he justifably had shot and killed, he would be condemned for acting immorally as well as illegally. If a thug tries to mug someone and the victim pulls a gun and shoots the mugger in self-defense, and then steals the dead thief's wallet, he would rightly be condemned morally for what he did. He would also be prosecuted for criminal behavior. The reason why it is against the law to rob the dead and to keep what you take from someone you killed, even justifiably, is that we as a society find that behavior immoral. There is no modern society of which I am aware that feels it moral to let people take loot from those you kill, no matter if the killing itself was justified. Even if there was one aberration of which I am not aware, it is accurate to say that modern morality does not accept the taking of possession for personal use from those you kill, even if you kill such people legally. And yet that is the basis for acquiring treasure in almost every adventure published for the "Generic D&D campaign". All of these examples involve the legitamate authority hiring PCs to stop evil So what? That doesn't make it moral from a modern perspective. Murder squads that are sent to kill real threats to public safety are not considered moral. Even though some of the advnetures allow a means of resolving the encounter without fatality, none of the adventures I cited ever mention there being an alignment consequence if the party chooses a resolution that does involve a fatality. In other words, these writers, sanctioned by Wizards, did not feel that the taking of loot from a sentient being the PCs kill to have any alignment consequences of note. So the question is, "is it moral to keep the posessions of someone who tried to kill you when you tried to stop them from doing evil things?" I personally think the answer is yes, especially when the treasure would default to the PCs' employer who in turn says the PCs may have it. Why would it default to the PC's employer? That's an abject assumption on your part and not how things would work today or historically. At any rate, if you were being honest when you wrote that "who keeps the treasure is a legal issue not a moral one" then just the fact that it is legal for the village to let the people keep the treasure doesn't mean it is moral to do so. In the modern world, we do not think that people who keep the money of the enemy troops they kill are "good". We call them "looters". We disapprove of them. We punish them. We think they are morally bad people, even if they were justified in the initial killing.
StormKnight 04-24-06, 05:27 PM	I gave you a real-life example. The police were roundly criticized and rightfulyl so for using unnecesary, even brutal, force. They acted in a way that was clearly immoral under normal morality. Right. I agree completely. And such an act by a group of adventurers would be immoral as well. Keeping the possession of those you kill (however justifiably) is considered immoral under modern standards. It is, however, a time-honored tradition among D&D parties. In the real world, there are normally lots of laws governing property and there is normally SOMEONE to whom the property belongs - and it ain't the "adventurers". I would assume that most "good" adventuring groups, if confronted by: A) A just government that had a system for dealing with contraband recovered from criminals... B) A group of peasants indicating that loot in a monster's lair was their rightful property and was stolen... C) A young person who was known to be the child of a villain and as such the rightful inheritor of his property... would in fact turn over the "loot" to the rightful owners. However, frequently there is NO clear, rightful owner and no proper government in a position to determine how best to deal with the goods, so the PCs keep them by default. In the modern world, we do not simply throw away all the stuff of someone who is deceased. It winds up in someone's hands. Change "civilized" to "uncivilized and occupied by goblinoids" and the answer is "Yes." I'm stating your example as closely as possible. Perhaps you could give me a modern example comparable to "uncivilized and occupied by goblinoids"? If such an adventure would be considered not good under the alignment system then the game is inherently broken. Well, either the alignment system is inherently broken, or the adventures do not accurately reflect the alignment system. Given that adventurers are not neccessarilly written by the game designers, and are probably designed to provide action, combat and adventure and not to provide moral philosophy, I would go with the latter option. However, the majority of people I have played with, if playing "good" characters, would not accept "Go kill things" as a plot. They are not assassins. They will generally accept surrenders, and will be willing to talk and negotiate. That's a big part of what distinguishes good from evil. (I have played the Ettin's Riddle, and I don't recall it being presented as "go kill the ettin", but that may have just been the DM knowing our style and presenting the adventure differently). The alignment system, as written, talks about how good people respect life. This is a fairly modern concept. Ancient people were fairly happy to conquer and slay their enemies, sacrifice people for their gods, execute on the whims of those in power, and other such activities. By not supporting this, the alignment system supports a more "modern" morality.
wrecan 04-24-06, 06:08 PM	And such an act by a group of adventurers would be immoral as well. But that's not how the game is designed. I'm stating your example as closely as possible. Perhaps you could give me a modern example comparable to "uncivilized and occupied by goblinoids"? I did. Let's try it again. The UN wants to stop the genocide in Darfur, Somalia, which is generally considered a lawless place. Groups of roving militia, called janjaweed, regularly rape and pillage their neighbors. It is a racial and religious war of perseuction. They are also engaged in genocide. The UN lacks the troops to do anything about it. The rest of the world so far lacks the resolve to take military action to resolve it. Diplomatic solutions have proven ineffective so far. This is a real situation and it is tragic. Here is the hypothetical: Let's say the UN decided the only way to stop the genocide was to ask for volunteers from around the world. They would recruit people who were militarily trained and, as far as they could tell, honestly interested in stopping the genocide (although also interested in earning money and having adventures). Let's call these people "adventurers". Let's say these "adventurers" were allowed to go into Darfur to try to stop the genocide. They are authorized to use deadly force, if the adventurers deem it necessary and nobody would review their actions. They would be in a no-man's land and therefore beyond the reach of any lawful prosecution anyway (assuming they didn't commit war crimes). Let's further say that the UN authorized them to take whatever materials, cash, and arms they found on the bodies of the janjaweed they killed. The adventurers go into Darfur and begin to kill janjaweed. They find the janjaweed have a lot of money on them. The adventurers use this money to upgrade their equipment, to become more effective killers and thereby kill more janjaweed. Some of the adventurers use this money to create enclaves in the Darfur area and declare themselves "kings" of their own territory, beyond the reach of UN jurisdiction. They retain other adventurers to go out and expand their territories by killing even more janjaweed and taking their money. Other adventurers use this money to buy homes on the Riviera where they live out the rest of their lives in peaceful retirement. Would such "kings" be considered good people in today's world? I submit they would not. They would certainly be less evil than the janjaweed, of course. But the purposeful life of adventuring and looting is not morally righteous in a modern sensibility. Making yourself a warlord in such a world is not a morally upright action. Yet that's the classic adventurer's path in D&D. Go into a no-man's land, fight the goblinoids, take their money, buy magic items with it, fight more villainous creatures, and eventually become a ruler (or otherwise retire). Well, either the alignment system is inherently broken, or the adventures do not accurately reflect the alignment system. Given that adventurers are not neccessarilly written by the game designers, and are probably designed to provide action, combat and adventure and not to provide moral philosophy, I would go with the latter option. They are hired by Wizards to write adventures and they did. Wizards calls it appropriate for a "generic D&D setting". So these professional writers who are paid by (and are often employes of) the owners of the game to write adventures for their flagship game understand the alignment rules less than you do? However, the majority of people I have played with, if playing "good" characters, would not accept "Go kill things" as a plot. That's not what I said the plot was. The assignment was to stop evil. The written plot contemplated that one way they might do that is by killing sentient creatures and keeping their possessions. That is considered a perfectly legitimate action for a party of good-aligned PCs in D&D, even though such actions would not be considered "good" in the modern world. The alignment system, as written, talks about how good people respect life. And also to fight evil without mercy. That's the point. The alignment system permits a wide range of behavior under the umbrella of "good", including behavior that if takn in the present-day would be considered "not good". Ancient people were fairly happy to conquer and slay their enemies, sacrifice people for their gods, execute on the whims of those in power, and other such activities. By not supporting this, the alignment system supports a more "modern" morality. And as I have said several times, there a choice that is neither "medieval" nor "modern" morality. The third choice -- applying the rules as written without regard for either medieval or modern morality -- is to me the obvious one.
Rhomphaia 04-24-06, 10:43 PM	wrecan, rockondon, read my original post. My original post did not say that modern morality is the only aspect of D&D alignments written. It said, and my argument is, that modern morals are part of the game as written, along with some other older moral codes. Thus, those who make blanket statements like 'stop injecting modern morals into D&D' are making absurd statements and assumptions about the game. D&D encompasses, in the basic structure of the game, both modern morals and morals from other eras (not just midieval). Like many have said, it is a mix. It is not one or the other. I, in no way shape or form, said otherwise. rockondon, it seems to me that you are so wrapped up in your own little world of how you play D&D that you are not even acknowledging that there are other ways and other views on how D&D is played. wrecan on the other hand seems to understand that basic fact, but is misinterpreting my arguments.
rockondon 04-24-06, 11:33 PM	wrecan, rockondon, read my original post. you mean the one that we both read and both quoted in our own posts? It's pretty silly to tell people to read a post that they've obviously read already. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I have to read it again. there are other ways and other views on how D&D is played. Captain Obvious strikes again :rolleyes: Everybody knows this. Are you pretending that I don't realize there are other ways to play D&D? You can pretend that I don't if it makes you feel better, but it won't help you win any arguments. We all see many threads with many different personalities playing D&D in many different ways so don't think that you're enlightening us with something we don't know. My posts were a direct result of the great number of ways to play D&D. There are many people playing in many styles and the more they try to incorporate their own morals into the playing field, the more conflict they're likely to have. What's moral for some is immoral for others. My suggestion is to not impose your morals on others, but follow the view of the RAW as closely as possible to make the game as simple and playable as possible. Morality is a complex issue and the more you wield it, the more players will argue. If you try to encompass your own mixture of modern morality and medieval (and other eras of) morality into the game, it'll likely result in little play and a lot of arguing. It seems clear to me though that you would prefer arguing over playing any day. You are quite good at starting arguments, and quite bad (or rather, unwilling) at resolving them.
Cantankerous 04-25-06, 01:32 AM	What parts of the actual moral alignment defintions"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." are modern then Romphaia? Isshia
Rhomphaia 04-25-06, 07:51 AM	you mean the one that we both read and both quoted in our own posts? It's pretty silly to tell people to read a post that they've obviously read already. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I have to read it again. I told you to read my original post again because you were taking my point completely out of context which illustrates that either A) you misunderstood my original intent or B) you just want to argue. Captain Obvious strikes again :rolleyes: Everybody knows this. Are you pretending that I don't realize there are other ways to play D&D? You can pretend that I don't if it makes you feel better, but it won't help you win any arguments. We all see many threads with many different personalities playing D&D in many different ways so don't think that you're enlightening us with something we don't know. From the nature of your posts, it sure seems that you don't know that there are more ways to play than your own narrow view. The way you wield the term 'RAW' around as if it were some kind of cudgel to smite the unholy heretics who dare play by any other interpretation kinda gives me that hint. Forgive me if I am wrong, but that's just the message I have been getting from your posts. My posts were a direct result of the great number of ways to play D&D. There are many people playing in many styles and the more they try to incorporate their own morals into the playing field, the more conflict they're likely to have. What's moral for some is immoral for others. My suggestion is to not impose your morals on others, but follow the view of the RAW as closely as possible to make the game as simple and playable as possible. Morality is a complex issue and the more you wield it, the more players will argue. Okay, here you somehow find a way to agree with me, yet still argue. Let me clarify my point yet again. The moraliity of D&D, as presented in the books, encompases aspects and traits from many different eras and lines of thought from a moral perspective. This is the simple view of the RAW. D&D is a fantasy role-playing game, and to pigeonhole the rules (or concepts thereof) for morality into a single social/political era would make the game less adaptable to various means of play and thus less fun. What parts of the actual moral alignment defintions are modern then Romphaia? Isshia Okay, in case this is a trick question... First off, with your specific quote and the wording of your question, it can be seen as either 'all of it is' or 'none of it is' depending on your viewpoint. If you take it in the context that it is written, then all of what you quoted is modern (due to these being generally accepted definitions of good and evil in the modern world), though not specific to the modern era, as these have commonly been the definitions throughout history. If the meaning of your question was actually 'What part of the definitions are new and unique to the modern world?' then the answer would have to be 'none' for the reasons stated above. I am sorry if this seems like a cop-out to give you both answers, but I really cannot discern the context of your question. Let me give an example of how modern morals affect D&D. While not RAW, it does illustrate a very common interpretation that RAW allows, and some might say encourages, due to the definitions that Cantankerous quoted, as well as how published campaign settings deal with the subject. How many of you have played in games where a kingdom or civilization that was largely good-aligned practiced widespread slavery? I am willing to bet the number isn't all that high. Now while certainly possible under RAW, it would take a DM (and players) who were not only unusually bright, but also open-minded to actually help such a game come together. The reason for this is a very recent (historically speaking) notion that slavery, in any form, is an evil thing to do. Most of us grew up learning of the evils of the American slave trade and have pretty much been brainwashed into thinking that slavery is an inherently evil, vile thing. Thus, most campaigns seem to have only evil (or at best neutral) aligned peoples practicing slavery. Many, many cultures around the world thoughout history have practiced slavery in all of its forms. Everything from the brutal treatment of slaves in pre-Civil War America to the very humane ways slaves were treated in many parts of ancient Greece (though there were still some brutal treatments in many areas of Greece at the time). Despite modern sensibilities, slavery is not the inherently evil thing it is made out to be. The practice of slavery, in and of itself, is neither good nor evil. It is what you do with, and how you treat the slaves (as well as how you acquire them) is what determines the evil (or lack thereof) of the practice. Various campaign settings and generic adventure modules published by WotC lend even more credence to the modern notion that 'slavery is evil' in D&D. Of course, I am in no way saying that I agree with slavery at all. I am merely using this as an example of the points I am trying to make in this thread. Oh, and in case you need the plain, simple Vulcan answer to the question of morals in D&D, here goes; Yes, there are both modern morals in D&D as well as moral and social aspects from other eras. This is all we humans have to draw from. Now while the mix may make something completely new, a careful look will reveal morals and sensibilities from different eras of human history. This is unavoidable, because as I have said before, all we have to draw on are our own (human) moral values from different eras of history and our own (personal) experiences. The creation of this mix is unavoidable given the context of how alignments are presented in D&D.
Cantankerous 04-25-06, 08:08 AM	When talking about the RAW, you have to talk about the Core RAW, or make it VERY clear that you are including things from other sources and exactly which sources and to which degree, or you aren't really talking about RAW at all, but one persons interpretation of a combined home brew, and official RAW. In the Core RAW, there is no modern morality leavened in that I've seen. It uses broad universialities in it's defintions of Good and Evil. It must, for them to fit the plethora of different backgrounds possible. When you start dragging other "semi-official" (ie: WotC published Splatbooks) and un-official sources into the discussion, no one can be sure what you're talking about unless they too have ALL of the requisite materials. This is the reason for the Core RAW=RAW ideal practiced here on the boards. It can be safely assumed that if you are online, you have access to these materials, if only in the form of the various SRDs. It can NOT be so assumed about any other product, WotC published or no. So, again, from the RAW itself, that is, from the Core RAW, what is it that you are seeing as modern morality? Isshia Edit: As an aside; slavery wouldn't qualify, because as you yourself pointed out, not all types of slavery are Evil. Indeed, there were cultures IRL where certain classes of slaves had MORE rights than the majority of the citzenry of those nations; thus it would be ludicrous to call them oppressed.
Rhomphaia 04-25-06, 08:34 AM	When talking about the RAW, you have to talk about the Core RAW, or make it VERY clear that you are including things from other sources and exactly which sources and to which degree, or you aren't really talking about RAW at all, but one persons interpretation of a combined home brew, and official RAW. In the Core RAW, there is no modern morality leavened in that I've seen. It uses broad universialities in it's defintions of Good and Evil. It must, for them to fit the plethora of different backgrounds possible. When you start dragging other "semi-official" (ie: WotC published Splatbooks) and un-official sources into the discussion, no one can be sure what you're talking about unless they too have ALL of the requisite materials. This is the reason for the Core RAW=RAW ideal practiced here on the boards. It can be safely assumed that if you are online, you have access to these materials, if only in the form of the various SRDs. It can NOT be so assumed about any other product, WotC published or no. Look, no offense...but you are yet another person who is misunderstanding my position. What I bolded above is exactly what I am trying to say. Those broad universalities include a mix of ethics from not only different cultures, but different eras as well. To make a game based (loosely) off of midieval Europe to be played by modern people from all over the world, this is a necessity or else no one will understand the general concepts as presented in the game. Thus I will say it again; to tell people to not include modern morality when playing D&D is absurd when the game is made to include such a wide variety of morals and ethics, including bits and pieces of modern. So, again, from the RAW itself, that is, from the Core RAW, what is it that you are seeing as modern morality? I already answered this. If you want something more specific, please rephrase the question to include if you are looking for 'uniquely modern' or 'exists in modern times'. As I pointed out before, there are two opposing answers to this question with the way you have worded it. Edit: As an aside; slavery wouldn't qualify, because as you yourself pointed out, not all types of slavery are Evil. Indeed, there were cultures IRL where certain classes of slaves had MORE rights than the majority of the citzenry of those nations; thus it would be ludicrous to call them oppressed. This is exactly my point. A very broad interpretation of the good alignments would strictly prohibit slavery due to modern views of slavery in general. As I said also, the way slavery is treated in many campaign settings (particularly Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms) and adventure modules, only works to support this view. I am not saying that the modern view of slavery being evil is specifically stated, but I am saying that it is strongly encouraged and that this blanket view of the subject is in fact a very modern one. I only used slavery as an example though.
wrecan 04-25-06, 08:59 AM	It said, and my argument is, that modern morals are part of the game as written, along with some other older moral codes. Okay, then you've come up with a yet a third way to read the rules that is unhelpful. Saying that D&D morality is an amalgam of old and new (but mostly new) morality is possibly the single most unhelpful way of reading the alignment rules that I have ever seen. It is of absolutely no assistance in interpreting the rules. If every morality system everywhere and everywhen is a possible influence then how do you determine what the rules mean?! That's why I advocate that the rules must be interpreted as written without trying to add a lens of modern and/or historical morality on it. Your approach seems to me to be even less helpful that the approaches, however flawed, of those who seek to apply only medieval morality or only modern morality. And, Rhompaia, if Cantankerous, Rockondon and myself, who are all fairly intelligent and articulate posters on this board, seem to persistently misunderstand what you have written, you have to consider that it may be because you are being very unclear in what your position is.
StormKnight 04-25-06, 10:23 AM	wrecan, let me start with your last point first: And as I have said several times, there a choice that is neither "medieval" nor "modern" morality. The third choice -- applying the rules as written without regard for either medieval or modern morality -- is to me the obvious one. As usual in a forum discussion, there have been multiple sets of arguments going on. I started out disagreeing with your specific examples of behavior that you consider "good" by D&D standards but not by modern standards. This doesn't neccessarilly correlate directly to the other argument, about whether or not its valid to use modern morality in a D&D setting. In my opinion, the rules as written for alignment reflect modern morality and modern notions of what is 'good'.. They focus on respecting the life and dignity of others. So in my opinion, if you apply the rules as written, you get something very similar to modern morality. This is a good thing, since who really wants to study a whole new philosophy system just to play a game about adventuring and fighting monsters? However, it is likely that certain details will not correlate to modern morality...or at least not modern legality. There are many areas where whether or not something is "moral" is highly questionable in modern morality is well - say, gambling for example. You oft-repeated statement about "looting the dead" is another highly questionable area. Sure, the knee-jerk reaction to "looting the dead" is "BAD BAD BAD!". How about the reaction to "confiscating the goods of felons in accordance with the law?" Hey, wait a minute, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? Well, what if the felons are dead? You sure just aren't going to leave their possessions sitting out to rust, and burying the property with the dead may have been in vogue in ancient Egypt, but its kind of lost popularity nowadays. What you do is follow a process; most likely the goods are: 1) Destroyed if are inherently illegal or dangerous. 2) Returned to their rightful owners, if they were originally stolen. 3) Used to reimburse those harmed by the actions of the felon. 4) Given the appropriate next of kin or other rightful owner of the goods. 5) Retained by the government/authorities and put to whatever use it feels is best (which may include being sold to cover expenses). So, if in a D&D world, the government or authorities also consider it viable to let the individuals who stopped the felons keep the items to be able to stop more felons more effectively and to reward them for their effort. This is different, but hardly so different as to interfere with the basic concepts of morality. Indeed, taking "loot" from the dead really isn't covered by the D&D alignment guidelines, which don't really say a thing about what happens to people's stuff after they die. Nor is it a significant part of modern morality - ask most people to name the top 5 or top 10 rules for moral living and I doubt "don't take from the dead" will end up on a lot of lists! Its just not a significant issue for modern morality. The UN wants to stop the genocide in Darfur, Somalia, which is generally considered a lawless place. <rest clipped for space> First off, you've got some contradictions here; you talk about how its a "racial and religious war". You can't really have wars without civilization; there needs to be a level of organization for group A to decide they hate group B and want to wipe them out. At the very least, group A and group B need to exist as clearly seperate groups. We'll skip that for now and assume your example does match up with what I requested. So we now have... A) A group of 'adventurers' moving into the area to protect the innocent people and stop the violent elements, using deadly force if neccessary. No problem so far. That's exactly what the modern military (and to some extent the police) does. B) The adventurers are sanctioned by the government to deal with the confiscated material as they see fit. Ok, again, this is exactly what the military and police do. Now you may run into problems here because its some outside entity sanctioning this. Do the local people approve? This is equally a problem in D&D; if you defeat the goblins but just keep all their stolen and pillaged goods rather than returning them to the peasants which they rightfully belong to, the peasants probably won't be too happy with that. C) The adventurers declare themselves "kings" of the territory. Um, whoa - yeah, that's going to cause problems. And it will in D&D to. Do you really think someone can just proclaim themself ruler of an area, maintain this by force and be considered to be doing "good"? D) The adventurer kings, now in a position of power, escalate the violence and profit by it rather than attempting to establish a peaceful situation. Yup, this is something evil rulers might do. And it would be equally evil in a D&D world. A good ruler with power will attempt to build up their people to be able to live in a general state of peace, and attempt to either make peace with their enemies or conquer them in such a way as to end the violence. What you have described would not be seen as "good" in the D&D world either! In point of fact, in the modern situation you describe, even with some generally "evil" things the adventurers do, the people who they protect and whose lives they save on a daily basis probably WOULD consider them heroes, whether or not they deserved the title. While others far outside the situation might condemn them (possibly even without C and D) the fact that the modern world has the communication ability to hear about and pass judgement on situations so far removed from us that we can barely imagine them is not really relevent to morality. One might equally assume that a peaceful D&D empire which has been established for generations without war or threat would here of the people you say would be considered D&D heroes and condemn them as "barbaric" and "vicious". They are hired by Wizards to write adventures and they did. Wizards calls it appropriate for a "generic D&D setting". So these professional writers who are paid by (and are often employes of) the owners of the game to write adventures for their flagship game understand the alignment rules less than you do? Well, I've got the alignment rules...right there in the PHB and the DMG. Same as they do. I doubt WotC has seminars on D&D ethics or training in racial sensitivity to kobolds. However, I don't think there's any lack of understanding of the rules here. Its simply not considered. They write an adventure that's about fighting monsters and gaining treasure - that's kind of what the game is about. I doubt they stop to think "Am I presenting this an ethically appropriate manner?" They may even be assuming a black/white world where evil creatures are simply EVIL and can never be reasoned with, made peace with or redeemed. This the mindset I take when we play, say, Warhammer Quest...we try to go accomplish a quest, the monsters attack, and its just assumed we can't reason with them because they are EVIL so we must fight back. That's not what I said the plot was. The assignment was to stop evil. The written plot contemplated that one way they might do that is by killing sentient creatures and keeping their possessions. That is considered a perfectly legitimate action for a party of good-aligned PCs in D&D, even though such actions would not be considered "good" in the modern world. Stopping evil is NOT the same as "heading out to kill things", even if the result is essentially the same. Modern military and police forces will use lethal force to stop evil and are not considered evil for doing so. This is considered perfectly legitimate action for a group of people serving a supposedly good aligned nation. (Also, as a side note, the actions don't need to be considered "good" for a group of good-aligned PCs to do them. Neutral actions out of neccessity and survivial are pefectly valid things for PCs to do to :) ) And also to fight evil without mercy. That's the point. The alignment system permits a wide range of behavior under the umbrella of "good", including behavior that if takn in the present-day would be considered "not good". They "fight evil without mercy" is a specific example of a specific person of one specific alignment. And its a lousy example, since it doesn't really fit anywhere else. Acting "without mercy" is listed as one of the defining traits of Lawful Evil, and acting without compassion (not the same as mercy, but closesly related) is listed as a defining trait of Evil. Then we get one vague example of lawful good who acts "...without mercy". I'd say the writers most likely just didn't think that through very well. What they probably had in mind is that she upholds the law and what is just - she will not ignore a criminal just because she feels sorry for him, but that does not mean she'll cut down an opponent trying to surrender or kill someone for a minor crime with an established punishment. Whoo. Long post there. Sorry - lots of rambling. Maybe some sense can be taken out of it.
wrecan 04-25-06, 06:53 PM	Stormknight, I will place my prior statements in bold and yours in italics to conserve on space. And as I have said several times, there a choice that is neither "medieval" nor "modern" morality. The third choice -- applying the rules as written without regard for either medieval or modern morality -- is to me the obvious one. ...In my opinion, the rules as written for alignment reflect modern morality and modern notions of what is 'good'.. They focus on respecting the life and dignity of others. So in my opinion, if you apply the rules as written, you get something very similar to modern morality. This is a good thing, since who really wants to study a whole new philosophy system just to play a game about adventuring and fighting monsters? My response is simple: the problem is that you apply the assumption regardless of what is written. You have elevated your assumption so that it trumps other material published by WotC that is expressly to be consonant to the material therein and yet contradicts your theory. There is an old orienteering saying: When the map and the terrain differ, follow the terrain. I have cited official WotC material in which adventurers are expected and allowed to act in a way that is immoral under modern society. I have cited provisions from the actual Players' Handbook that shows that PCs may be good-aligned and act in ways that would be morally unacceptable in modern society. Your response in both situations has been to decide those examples are aberrations to be ignored in favor of your extra-textual analysis. You are ignoring the terrain in favor of a map of your own devise. it is likely that certain details will not correlate to modern morality...or at least not modern legality. Then your thesis is unhelpful. Basically, you are saying that the alignment system follows modern morality... except where it doesn't. So references to modern morality in interpreting the alignment rules are unhelpful because it is always a valid response to say that this is one area where alignment and modern morality should differ. That's why I think the only valid way to interpret alignment rules is to do so by analyzing the words actually written without imposing the lens of modern (or medieval) morality on them. How about the reaction to "confiscating the goods of felons in accordance with the law?" Name me one modern society in which the officer who kills a criminal gets to keep his stuff. Nobody allows it because it is considered immoral. You keep making a distinction between law and morality, but in much of criminal justice system, we criminalize behavior we find immoral. That's the basis of criminal law. The problem is that a written statute is poorly tailored to deal with individual crimes, which is why most modern societies have juries comprised of lay-people who are to apply common sense. No society of which I am aware grants to people a right to inherit the items of the people they kill by virtue of the fact that they are killed. We find that morally abhorrent. Sure, there are many things that are more morally abhorrent. So what? if in a D&D world, the government or authorities also consider it viable to let the individuals who stopped the felons keep the items to be able to stop more felons more effectively and to reward them for their effort. This is different, but hardly so different as to interfere with the basic concepts of morality. I find this statement so remarkable as to think that further conversation with you may in fact be pointless. You may be unique in this planet in thinking that such a system of government would be considered moral under a modern system of morality. I challenge you to find any legal system in the modern age that has adopted or even seriously considered it. I challenge you to find any modern ethicist, religious figure or philosopher in the last 30 years who would condone it. First off, you've got some contradictions here; you talk about how its a "racial and religious war". You can't really have wars without civilization You don't know what is hapening in Darfur? There is anarchy there. There are roving bands of thugs. There is no centralized authority. The governments that nominally control the area are powerless. If you are getting hung up on the term "war" then substitute "violence", "conflict" or "strife". I don't really care what terminology you use. At the very least, group A and group B need to exist as clearly seperate groups. Races and religions exist as social constructs which do not require any organization. B) The adventurers are sanctioned by the government to deal with the confiscated material as they see fit. Ok, again, this is exactly what the military and police do. No, it is not. No military or police organization in the world allows the uindividual troops to keep what they find on the bodies of those they kill. It is known as looting and is a crime that is worthy of court martial in every civilized society in the world. You are, quite simply, wrong on this point as a moral and legal matter. Do the local people approve? What local people? The ones who support the janjaweed? They want to kill the adventurers. The ones being persecuted by the janjaweed? They are so terrorized by the janjaweed that they would say anything not to offend those who would kill the janjaweed. Many of them have fled the area and are living in refugee camps. You have no manner of getting a reliable consensus on who "the local people" are, much less what they might "approve". Do you really think someone can just proclaim themself ruler of an area, maintain this by force and be considered to be doing "good"? Most kings were. That's how they all became kings. D) The adventurer kings, now in a position of power, escalate the violence and profit by it rather than attempting to establish a peaceful situation. Not only is that not what I said, but I am confused how you think that. They did not escalate the violence. They have made their own territory peaceful by eliminating the janjaweed. Now they are expanding their influence. To do that they must eliminate the janjaweed beyond their current borders. What you have described would not be seen as "good" in the D&D world either! Absolutely false. I don't know what sort of D&D campaigns you have played. They don't appear ot resemble anything in D&D's written materials. the people who they protect and whose lives they save on a daily basis probably WOULD consider them heroes, whether or not they deserved the title. So what? Neither alignment rules nor modern morality adjudges people solely based on what those they help think. A religious fanatic who robs and kills Hindus and gives the money to his cult is not "good" simply because his cultists think he is. They are hired by Wizards to write adventures and they did. Wizards calls it appropriate for a "generic D&D setting". So these professional writers who are paid by (and are often employes of) the owners of the game to write adventures for their flagship game understand the alignment rules less than you do? Well, I've got the alignment rules...right there in the PHB and the DMG. Same as they do. I doubt WotC has seminars on D&D ethics or training in racial sensitivity to kobolds. However, I don't think there's any lack of understanding of the rules here. Its simply not considered. So you're telling me that the writers hired to write adventures are not supposed to consider a major part of the rules -- alignment?! This is exactly what I mean by following the map when the terrain differs. I doubt they stop to think "Am I presenting this an ethically appropriate manner?" Professionals are supposed to apply the rules as written. I submit that your statement is irrational. The assignment was to stop evil. The written plot contemplated that one way they might do that is by killing sentient creatures and keeping their possessions. That is considered a perfectly legitimate action for a party of good-aligned PCs in D&D, even though such actions would not be considered "good" in the modern world. Stopping evil is NOT the same as "heading out to kill things", even if the result is essentially the same. Exactly. They "fight evil without mercy" is a specific example of a specific person of one specific alignment. And its a lousy example, since it doesn't really fit anywhere else. The "specific alignment" is lawful good. Defending it as a "lousy example" is not an argument. Again, you are following your map and ignoring the contrary terrain.
Cantankerous 04-26-06, 02:56 AM	This is exactly my point. A very broad interpretation of the good alignments would strictly prohibit slavery due to modern views of slavery in general. But that's not true. A very broad interpretation has to INCLUDE the possibility of slavery being ok, or it isn't broad. It is exclusions that narrow a subject, not inclusions. Including things, such as the possibility of slavery being acceptable, broaden the scope. When you exclude (or to use your word, prohibit) you are narrowing the scope BY excluding (or prohibiting) a part of that scope. Isshia
Eightbitmage 04-26-06, 09:57 AM	If a cop was found stealing from perpetrators he justifably had shot and killed, he would be condemned for acting immorally as well as illegally. If a thug tries to mug someone and the victim pulls a gun and shoots the mugger in self-defense, and then steals the dead thief's wallet, he would rightly be condemned morally for what he did. He would also be prosecuted for criminal behavior. The reason why it is against the law to rob the dead and to keep what you take from someone you killed, even justifiably, is that we as a society find that behavior immoral. There is no modern society of which I am aware that feels it moral to let people take loot from those you kill, no matter if the killing itself was justified. Even if there was one aberration of which I am not aware, it is accurate to say that modern morality does not accept the taking of possession for personal use from those you kill, even if you kill such people legally. And yet that is the basis for acquiring treasure in almost every adventure published for the "Generic D&D campaign". Here is the core of the misunderstanding. You are applying morality to situations that are similar to those that come up in D&D, but these are not situations that ever actually come up in D&D. Rather than try to come up with a modern parallel (that is too different to be a basis for comparison) to apply morality apply modern morality to situations in D&D. While modern people might find the actions you describe as immoral that is because they are different situations than what D&D characters find themselves in. Ask a person the cop example and you will probably get a negative responce. Ask that same person instead about a group of warriors who get attacked in the woods in a medieval fantasy setting and they are taking the stuff so that they can further the cause of good, and you will probably get a different answer entirely. Even then it is probably more a law vs. chaos thing than a good vs evil (at least for those who believe that stealing is chaotic and not evil) Stop asking stuff like "would it be ok today to do this?" the answer is no, we have a different level of technology. Instead ask "would people today observing the people in the game doing what they are doing be ok with it?" So what? That doesn't make it moral from a modern perspective. Murder squads that are sent to kill real threats to public safety are not considered moral. Even though some of the advnetures allow a means of resolving the encounter without fatality, none of the adventures I cited ever mention there being an alignment consequence if the party chooses a resolution that does involve a fatality. When have armies been considered immoral? We give cops and soldiers guns for a reason. While persuing a route of peace is preferable if people are killing civilians they are going to be shot on sight. Change "murder squad" to "Officers of the law" or "soldiers" and "real threats to public safety" to "murderers on the loose" and you get a different answer. In the adventures you list the first the PCs get attacked and have to kill or be killed, not immoral, the second either the PCs figure out the peaceful way to solve the problem or the ettin asks them to kill him, hell if you have smart PCs who take the best route the enemy ends up being the townsfolk who the PCs had probably better not kill, in the third and fourth the PCs are asked to investigate what is going on, and are attacked when they do so. They are then attacked over and over as they make their way toward the problem. Nobody is hired to go out killin' in any of these adventures. Why would it default to the PC's employer? That's an abject assumption on your part and not how things would work today or historically. Because in all the adventures (with the exception of the first) you listed the PCs are hired by the town to figure out what is causing all these problems. Afterwards the bad guys are either dead or captured. Who gets thier stuff? Probably really hard to find next of kin, so it defaults to the local government. The local government knows this and has given the rights of all they would normally recieve to the PCs.
Rhomphaia 04-26-06, 10:34 AM	Okay, then you've come up with a yet a third way to read the rules that is unhelpful. I was never aware that I came up with a second way to read the rules... But that's not true. A very broad interpretation has to INCLUDE the possibility of slavery being ok, or it isn't broad. It is exclusions that narrow a subject, not inclusions. Including things, such as the possibility of slavery being acceptable, broaden the scope. When you exclude (or to use your word, prohibit) you are narrowing the scope BY excluding (or prohibiting) a part of that scope. Isshia I believe you misunderstood that particular comment. Let me ask this; What is the modern view of slavery in the civilized world (well, among cultures likely to play D&D anyway)? The keeping and holding of an unwilling subject for use in labor and/or menial tasks, often in poor work/living conditions and/or being forced to do repugnant tasks, correct? In short, forced menial, dangerous or degrading labor. Even in the broadest (or perhaps I should say 'most basic') view on the good alignments, this modern view of slavery is directly anathema to 'respect for the dignity of life' that good is supposed to hold so dear. And like I said before, many a published book strongly ties slavery to the definition I just gave. Granted, slavery has existed like this throughout the centuries (as well as 'kinder, gentler' forms of slavery), but never before has this view of it been so dominant when the word comes up as it has in modern times.
pres_man 04-26-06, 10:37 AM	I wonder if some people are confusing correlation with causation. That is, just because some moral views in the RAW coincide with moral views in modern RL, that does not mean necessarily that modern RL morals causes the morality in the RAW. Both could actually be influenced by a older and "deeper" morality. I will say that some modern "morality" (social viewpoints?) are definitely part of D&D. Female adventurers is the most strikingly obvious example. Of course, there is a fundamental difference in D&D morality than in modern morality. That is in D&D, most conflicts are expected to be solved with violence. This goes against our modern sensibilities. We tend to be more Picard and less Kirk, while most D&D is more Kirk and less Picard.
StormKnight 04-26-06, 11:22 AM	My response is simple: the problem is that you apply the assumption regardless of what is written. You have elevated your assumption so that it trumps other material published by WotC that is expressly to be consonant to the material therein and yet contradicts your theory. There is an old orienteering saying: When the map and the terrain differ, follow the terrain. I have cited official WotC material in which adventurers are expected and allowed to act in a way that is immoral under modern society. I have cited provisions from the actual Players' Handbook that shows that PCs may be good-aligned and act in ways that would be morally unacceptable in modern society. Your response in both situations has been to decide those examples are aberrations to be ignored in favor of your extra-textual analysis. You have cited adventures which I have never read or seen; the only one of which I have played does not match up with the way you describe it, and which other people have contradicted the way you describe them. I am defaulting to the three books you actually need to play the game and that we should all have read; PHB, DMG, and MM. You have cited one provision from the player's handbook implying that PCs can be good and act in ways that don't fit with modern society. That one provision is contradicted by other examples within the same chapter. That one provision defines a morality set so different from our own its hard to even imagine. That's why I think the only valid way to interpret alignment rules is to do so by analyzing the words actually written without imposing the lens of modern (or medieval) morality on them. That's fine. You are welcome to do that. I just don't think you will usually reach any conclusion noticeably different from what most normal, modern, American people who had don't know the first thing about D&D would reach. Name me one modern society in which the officer who kills a criminal gets to keep his stuff. Nobody allows it because it is considered immoral. The MILITARY or the POLICE, as prescribed by the government, decides what to do with the stuff. The MILITARY is not one of its members. The POLICE is not one officer. The D&D situation in which 4 adventurers ARE the entirety of the military or police in question simply doesn't exist in the modern world. B) The adventurers are sanctioned by the government to deal with the confiscated material as they see fit. Ok, again, this is exactly what the military and police do. No, it is not. No military or police organization in the world allows the uindividual troops to keep what they find on the bodies of those they kill. Once again, the MILITARY or POLICE decide what to do with it. The situation where a tiny handful of people ARE the entirety of the military or police does not exist. You have no manner of getting a reliable consensus on who "the local people" are, much less what they might "approve". One might then wonder who, in fact, is considering the adventurers evil. To help illuminate things, perhaps you can tell me what you, based on modern morality, would in fact do with the property? Most kings were. That's how they all became kings. Right. Hence part of the the assertion that medieval kingdoms/empires/whatever were rarely "good" and were often "evil". Not only is that not what I said, but I am confused how you think that. They did not escalate the violence. They have made their own territory peaceful by eliminating the janjaweed. Now they are expanding their influence. To do that they must eliminate the janjaweed beyond their current borders. Ah. You never said they made their territory peaceful - just "they kill more janjaweed. Ok, so we assume they have created a safe, stable area. They wish to expand their influence by military conquest, which is rarely considered "good". However, most likely either the janjaweed are still posing a threat to the people of the new nation, in which case this would amount to a justified war which are not generally considered "evil" by modern society, or the victims are appealing to the nation to spread their borders and help them. I don't think modern morality would consider this "evil" either. Absolutely false. I don't know what sort of D&D campaigns you have played. They don't appear ot resemble anything in D&D's written materials. Perhaps you can explain, by the alignment descriptions, how forcing people to serve you and acknowledge you as ruler by threatening them with force falls under the heading of "good". So what? Neither alignment rules nor modern morality adjudges people solely based on what those they help think. You stated that the D&D world would consider such people heroes. I'm just saying that the people would in the modern world as well. I agree, this may have very little to do with whether its good or evil! So you're telling me that the writers hired to write adventures are not supposed to consider a major part of the rules -- alignment?! This is exactly what I mean by following the map when the terrain differs. Professionals are supposed to apply the rules as written. I submit that your statement is irrational. First off, what "major" part of the rules? There's a few pages in the PHB and another one or two in the DMG. Oh, and there's descriptors on certain spells that no one can really agree on why they are there or whether or not using an "evil" spell is an "evil" act. Second off, D&D is essentially a game about fighting monsters, exploring fantastic places and undertaking perilous quests. If you are spending your D&D sessions with characters debating the nature of good and evil and reaching level 4 in the wandering philosopher class, hey, that's great for you but its not how the game was designed. I don't think adventure designers will really be worrying about "now, wait, are these actions all GOOD?" Third off, you still haven't even sold me on the idea that these adventures neccessarilly involve doing "evil" things by modern standards. Modern military forces do in fact engage in operations where they actually wind up killing their opponents. They do set out to capture enemy leaders "dead or alive". These things do not seemed to be viewed as reprehensible by modern society. The "specific alignment" is lawful good. Defending it as a "lousy example" is not an argument. Again, you are following your map and ignoring the contrary terrain. I hate to say this, but we don't have terrain. All we have are a bunch of maps. We don't know what the game designers intent was; all we have are the rules as a guide. You are pointing to the little anecdote note saying "This person went left and found goodville!" I'm pointing to the two places on the map where it shows going left getting you to evildom. Also, sadly to say, game writers are not infallible. Errors do show up. Things that don't make sense show up. Things that might make sense but are never explained show up. That's how it goes. Occasionally we'll get rules contradicting examples, or rules and tables that contradict, or rules that make perfect sense but are just plain poorly done. Ultimately, this whole argument is just academic. Players can and should use the game in whatever way they see fit. Ultimately, the whole argument is also fairly silly. I've been able to play fantasy RPGs for 20 odd years and never yet have a game run into the problems on the basis of wondering what's "good" or not.
Rotipher 04-26-06, 11:41 AM	They "fight evil without mercy" is a specific example of a specific person of one specific alignment. And its a lousy example, since it doesn't really fit anywhere else. Acting "without mercy" is listed as one of the defining traits of Lawful Evil, and acting without compassion (not the same as mercy, but closesly related) is listed as a defining trait of Evil. Then we get one vague example of lawful good who acts "...without mercy". I'd say the writers most likely just didn't think that through very well. What they probably had in mind is that she upholds the law and what is just - she will not ignore a criminal just because she feels sorry for him, but that does not mean she'll cut down an opponent trying to surrender or kill someone for a minor crime with an established punishment. FWIW, one of the short novels that Alhandra (the LG sample-character at issue) appears in helped to clarify her views immensely. In a scene where she first meets Krusk, the half-orc has been captured by human villagers who want to lynch him, believing he was with the orc raiders who'd attacked their community. Alhandra calms the villagers down, examines their evidence, and correctly proclaims that Krusk is innocent (he'd been traveling in the wrong direction when spotted and captured), winning the barbarian his freedom. The telling factor is that, after the fact, another character asks Alhandra why she never used her ability to detect evil to check if Krusk was a good guy, saving herself the trouble of puzzling out the evidence. Alhandra replies that, had Krusk detected as "evil", she would have done exactly the same thing. The issue wasn't whether Krusk was evil, but whether he'd actually committed a punishable offense; if he wasn't guilty of any crime, her proper duty was to spare and free him, evil or otherwise. In short, "fight evil without mercy" doesn't mean, to Alhandra, "fight evil PEOPLE without mercy". It's evil DEEDS she opposes; sometimes that might mean killing people, but justice takes precedence over indiscriminate retribution. That's what makes her Lawful Good, instead of just Lawful Zealous. An IRL police detective who fights the "evil" of child pornography, by relentlessly tracking down the perpetrators and throwing the book at them, could be said to "fight evil without mercy", by Alhandra's definition. That doesn't mean they'd have to gun down the porn-merchants, to do so.
Eightbitmage 04-26-06, 12:24 PM	Rotipher thank you for posting that. I have always had an issue with that part of the PHB thinking it was contradictory to the rest of what describes good. That really helps.
wrecan 04-26-06, 01:05 PM	Rather than try to come up with a modern parallel (that is too different to be a basis for comparison) to apply morality apply modern morality to situations in D&D. That's why the idea that you can apply modern morality in D&D is absurd. If an in-game situation has no modern parallel that creates an accurate comparison, then you're just making the answer up because then neither you nor I have any basis to decide what modern morality would ask in such a situation. In fact, WotC gives us alignment rules to avoid this very convoluted and essentially arbitrary system. All that those who advocate applying a modern morality to D&D (or those who advocate an unspecified mixture of modern and medieval morality) are doing is placing a poor veneer of justification over the desire to apply an essentially ad hoc ruling. Ask that same person instead about a group of warriors who get attacked in the woods in a medieval fantasy setting... But that isn't applying modern morality. That's applying what an average person thinks medieval morality is. That's like rather than asking a modern mathematician to use modern math to solve an equation you ask the modern mathematician what Isaac Newton might do to solve the equation. Instead ask "would people today observing the people in the game doing what they are doing be ok with it?" Where do you get the idea that is what the alignment system requires? And why would people observing a game care what the heck players do in a game? It's a game. As long as they're not cheating (and even if they were) I don't know why outside observers would even care. When have armies been considered immoral? When they loot villages and dead bodies for personal profit. Even if their superior officers say it is okay. Nobody is hired to go out killin' in any of these adventures. They are asked to resolve the problem for the village that hires them. One of the ways in which the adventures expect they might do that is by killing the creatures responsible and keeping their treasure. None of the adventures mentions any alignment issues with regard to such an act. All of the adventures are supposed to be appropriate for a "Generic D&D campaign" it defaults to the local government. Why does it default to the "local" government? In every known legal system, it defaults to the central government (usually the King). That's a peculiarity of D&D and it doesn't track to any concept of modern morality. Nor is it even the stuff of legends. In most legends, the hero is himself the local lord of the area. If he is not, the treasure, such as it is, goes to the local lord. The only exception is when a divine being (like the Lady of the Lake, Hermes, et al.) tells the hero to keep the stuff (often over his objections). Otherwise, he is considered a thief (such as when Jason steals the Golden Fleece). But not in D&D. Why? Because D&D is supposed to be fun. Finding the magic item and then keeping it is fun in a game. So D&D's alignment system allows good people to loot the dead without forcing the DM to make every hero a lord, or having Gods pop up every three or four sessions to tell Finnegan the Rogue, "LO, THOU SHALT KEEP THE RING OF PROTECTION +1 THAT THOU DIDST WREST FROM THAT MIMIC!"
WolfHati 04-26-06, 02:09 PM	The distinguishing feature of modern moral philosophy is the abandonment of the concept of an absolute morality. So if one truly wishes to do away with modern morality in their game, this should probably be the first thing to go. Oh look, we're done. Back to the game. And by the way, you're character isn't a paladin anymore... Yes I know it's the smart aleck response, but it really is true. I suppose there's the gender equality stuff that is modern, but I really doubt anyone you want to play with would be proposing doing away with that.
Eightbitmage 04-26-06, 02:27 PM	That's why the idea that you can apply modern morality in D&D is absurd. If an in-game situation has no modern parallel that creates an accurate comparison, then you're just making the answer up because then neither you nor I have any basis to decide what modern morality would ask in such a situation. Are we working under the same definition of what morality is? I consider it a set of ideas that define what right and wrong are. It doesn't matter if you can create a modern parallel or not, if you apply modern ideas of right and wrong to the situation you (no matter the time period) are applying modern morality. In fact, WotC gives us alignment rules to avoid this very convoluted and essentially arbitrary system. All that those who advocate applying a modern morality to D&D (or those who advocate an unspecified mixture of modern and medieval morality) are doing is placing a poor veneer of justification over the desire to apply an essentially ad hoc ruling. I still believe the RAW is modern morality. But that isn't applying modern morality. That's applying what an average person thinks medieval morality is. That's like rather than asking a modern mathematician to use modern math to solve an equation you ask the modern mathematician what Isaac Newton might do to solve the equation. No, no it isn't. I'm honestly stunned by this statement. The first two sentences are not true and the parallel you try to draw is once again a wretched one. Changing the situation doesn't change the morality. If I strand you on mars in a space suit and you make a moral decision you aren't using martian morality. A modern person who finds out someone they know has been sleeping around won't seek to physically punish them, 1500 years ago they would get stoned to death. Asking what the people 1500 years ago should do rather than what they did do (what they did do is follow the morals of their time period) is asking someone to apply modern morality to the situation. Where do you get the idea that is what the alignment system requires? And why would people observing a game care what the heck players do in a game? It's a game. As long as they're not cheating (and even if they were) I don't know why outside observers would even care. This is probably bad communication on my part. I'll clarify: Ask a modern person if something a character did is right or wrong and their decision based on modern morality will usually match the RAW. This does assume objective morality (asking a racist about actions toward a person of dark skin would probably recieve a bias answer) When they loot villages and dead bodies for personal profit. Even if their superior officers say it is okay. Its a different situation than people in D&D find themselves in. If in D&D PCs looted the civilians in a kobold village after killing the warriors it would be an evil act. And not only that but my quote wasn't in responce to anything on looting, but rather on killing those who are endangering the lives of innocents. They are asked to resolve the problem for the village that hires them. One of the ways in which the adventures expect they might do that is by killing the creatures responsible and keeping their treasure. None of the adventures mentions any alignment issues with regard to such an act. All of the adventures are supposed to be appropriate for a "Generic D&D campaign" I ask again, if creatures are harming innocents and then they attack you what is wrong with defending yourself in virtually any moral system? Why does it default to the "local" government? In every known legal system, it defaults to the central government (usually the King). That's a peculiarity of D&D and it doesn't track to any concept of modern morality. Who the money defaults to has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with what is legal. Just because the laws are different in our world doesn't mean that the morals are. It means we have a different society with a different level of technology.
OravennasBrother 04-26-06, 04:32 PM	I suppose there's the gender equality stuff that is modern, but I really doubt anyone you want to play with would be proposing doing away with that. Actually you can do away with gender equality - if you allow Female PC's to be the exception; strong minded women who have forced their way into men's occupations. The point where you should start to lose female players is when you try to enforce restrictins on the female PC's. Further the entire concept of "The Dignity of Sentient Beings" is extemely modern. Even the liberal Greek Philosophers (Plato, Aristotle and Socrates) believed that the bulk of the populace were too inherently stupid to benefit from education and that doing so would only interfere with them working at the menial tasks to which they were ideally suited (their thoughts do not reflect the views of this poster so no one claim I said this). Until the Enlightenment the lower classes were generally thought to be better off with the direction of their 'betters' and that direction could generally be summed as "Do your work, pay your taxes, and hope for a better life in the next world." The last part is why Marx called Religion the "Opiate of the Masses" - the hope of a better life kept the masses in check. That the Enlightenment did not end that thought pattern can be seen in the author of the initial great Ponzi Scheme (err I mean Social Security) - Otto von Bismark proposed a Social Insurance system to help control people by allaying their fears about ebing paupers in their old age, he had no altruistic motive it was just a method for control. So when the Alignment System speaks of good respecting the dignity of sentient beings, it does come off sounding modern to me.
wrecan 04-26-06, 04:59 PM	You have cited adventures which I have never read or seen Then go educate yourself and come back. It's not like the adventures are hard to find. They're on this very same website. Ignorance is not a defense to an argument. You have cited one provision from the player's handbook implying that PCs can be good and act in ways that don't fit with modern society. And you rejected it out of hand. That one provision is contradicted by other examples within the same chapter. No, it doesn't. It only reads as contradictory base don your assumption of how to read it. I have no problems with the rules as written. I don't find them contradictory at all. They're only contradictory because you insist that they must reflect modern morality. In other words, you see a contradiction because you are unwilling to reconsider your asusmptions. I just don't think you will usually reach any conclusion noticeably different from what most normal, modern, American people who had don't know the first thing about D&D would reach. I think this statement is about the least helpful thing you've written. You're speculating both what I would conclude and what "most normal, modern, American people who ... don't know the first thing about D&D would reach" about hypothetical D&D situations! The MILITARY or the POLICE, as prescribed by the government, decides what to do with the stuff. No. They don't. Society decides what to do with the stuff and they tell the police and military what they have decided in the form of regulations and statutes. No modern society tells the military or the police that they can give the property to the person who committed the justified killing. The D&D situation in which 4 adventurers ARE the entirety of the military or police in question simply doesn't exist in the modern world. Sure, they do. They're known as bandits and pirates. They exist in places of anarchy, which do still exist in the world. They kill people and take their stuff. Believe it or not, some of them actually think they are heroic, because they give some of their stuff to poor villages. The rest of the world rightly condemns them as acting immorally. One might then wonder who, in fact, is considering the adventurers evil. The rest of the frickin world. You know, the folks who define "modern morality". To help illuminate things, perhaps you can tell me what you, based on modern morality, would in fact do with the property? What is expected of such mercenaries under standards (as this is what was required of combatants after the fact in Serbia, Bosnia, and Rwanda after they experienced periods of anachy) is that all property confiscated by roving bands of mercenaries were turned over to the UN who created a fund to help refugees and victims. We are left with two conclusions. 1) Modern morality is insufficiently definite to determine such issues and this is an inappropriate basis for D&D in-game ethics. 2) Modern morality would not condone some actions condoned by adventurers in-game. They wish to expand their influence by military conquest, which is rarely considered "good". However, most likely either the janjaweed are still posing a threat to the people of the new nation, in which case this would amount to a justified war which are not generally considered "evil" by modern society, or the victims are appealing to the nation to spread their borders and help them. I don't think modern morality would consider this "evil" either. I don't think you have any idea what modern morality does or does not condone. Where do you get your comparison from? When you say that D&D alignment should be interpreted in light of "modern morality", how do you determine what modern morality requires? Clearly, we are both literate articlate people. We directly disagree on some pretty major components of what modern morality would consist of. In what way, then do you think modern morality is a useful standard? Perhaps you can explain, by the alignment descriptions, how forcing people to serve you and acknowledge you as ruler by threatening them with force falls under the heading of "good". I think it is neither good nor evil under the rules. That's why I think Good characters are allowed to rule nations. All rulers force people to serve them by necessity. When a king orders a magistrate to imprison a thief, the thief is being compelled to serve the king by sitting in a prison cell. If Good people are not allowed to force others to serve, then no government can have good rulers and the Aristocrat NPC should have an alignment restriction of "Not Good". I'm just saying that the people would in the modern world as well. And I'm saying that you are wrong as a matter of history. Pirate and looters who believe themselves to be freedom fighters, but who loot the bodies of the evil oppressors they kill, are condemned throughout the world and have been since the beginning of the prior century, if not earlier. In the Southern colonies during the Revolutionary War, there were some "irregulars" (meaning soldiers not officially part of the Continental Army) who would raid British encampments, kill some soldiers, take their valuable and then sell them in town. They called themselves patriots. Washington called them "looters" and directed the Continental Army to hang any who were caught. In D&D, these looters would suffer no alignment consequence for such actions. First off, what "major" part of the rules? You don't think alignment is a major part of the rules?! I hate to say this, but we don't have terrain. The rules as written are the terrain. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it as such doesn't chaneg a thing. Ultimately, the whole argument is also fairly silly. I've been able to play fantasy RPGs for 20 odd years and never yet have a game run into the problems on the basis of wondering what's "good" or not. Bully for you. I've been playing for 25 plus years and not once have I had to rely on the absurd argument that the alignment rules are coterminous with some nebulous and unworkable concept like "modern morality"
wrecan 04-26-06, 05:19 PM	Are we working under the same definition of what morality is? I consider it a set of ideas that define what right and wrong are. It doesn't matter if you can create a modern parallel or not, if you apply modern ideas of right and wrong to the situation you (no matter the time period) are applying modern morality. Only to the extent those "ideas" cover all situations. It is rapidly becoming apparent to me that there is little consensus on how to apply modern morality to situations that would only aris ein a fantasy setting. I still believe the RAW is modern morality. What is mordern morality? Where do I go if I am not certain what modern morality dictates. What if I as DM decide that it is immoral nder modern standards for a paladin to kill a murdering mind flayer who has been temporarily stunned, but the player of the paladin thinks it is perfectly moral under modern standards. Please don't answer the hypothetical. Since you will not be at my game, your personal opinon of what modern morality would say is irrelevant. I need something that I can reference during the game session. Just tell me what reference material I can use to determine the answer to my question. If it boils down to my personal opinion then the standard of "modern morality" is nothing but a canard, a false and frankly dishonest veneer used to justify ad hoc decision making. If that's what you advocate then you should be honest about it and not pretend to be applying some objective set of standards. Changing the situation doesn't change the morality. No, but it illustrates the folly of applying modern morality to situations that modern morality has never had to consider, such as the eixstence of magic, dragons and divine interference. If I strand you on mars in a space suit and you make a moral decision you aren't using martian morality. No, but I might have to make a moral decision that modern morality isn't yet equipped to handle. Why has modern morality changed? In part, because technology did advance. Why do we debate stem cell research? Because nobody ever had to consider such issues before. What would medieval man think of it? Who knows. It would be speculation. What does modern man think of moral situations involving detect evil abilities and supernatural abilities? Again, rank speculation. The idea that one could apply modern morality to fanasy situations on anything approximating a rational basis is inherently absurd. Modern morality is not equipped or designed to handle fanatasy settings. Ask a modern person if something a character did is right or wrong and their decision based on modern morality will usually match the RAW. This does assume objective morality (asking a racist about actions toward a person of dark skin would probably recieve a bias answer) Please tell me where I cna go to find out about this "objective modern morality" of which you speak. I will try to use it the next time some alignment discussion comes up in my games. Maybe it will be a shorter solution than the 20 seconds it takes me to consult the Players' Handbook, which is my current technique. my quote wasn't in responce to anything on looting, but rather on killing those who are endangering the lives of innocents. So what? We're discussing the basis of the alignment system in general. I ask again, if creatures are harming innocents and then they attack you what is wrong with defending yourself in virtually any moral system? I really couldn't care less about "virtually any moral system". I care about the D&D alignment system and I would liek you to explain how you determine what is in your "objective modern morality". Who the money defaults to has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with what is legal. Again with the division of laws and morals. Criminal laws are enacted to prohibit behavior we find immoral. Once upon a time, it was criminal to charge interest on loans. Why? because once upon a time it was considered immoral. Then people realized that lending is a way to finance progress (and wars). People changed their mind. Now we make it criminal to charge usurious interest. Why? Because although we no longer find interest itself immoral, we still think of usury as immoral. Back before laws were based on the will of an electorate, you could not say that criminal laws and morality were necessarily related (although I think it's a pretty safe assumption). But today, most laws are enacted because the voters want them to be. And criminal laws, more than any other area of law is based on public morality. We deem certain acts so immoral that they mus be criminalized (as opposed to safety issues, such as speeding, which are merely regulated, and not criminalized unless it kills someone). Just because the laws are different in our world doesn't mean that the morals are. The criminal laws do. It means we have a different society with a different level of technology. The technology has changed our perception of morality. The world of D&D has even different technology than we do in the form of magic and monsters. Their morality, perforce, should be different than ours as well. our morality (however you might determine it) is not equipped to deal with a fantasy setting.
wrecan 04-26-06, 05:26 PM	I was never aware that I came up with a second way to read the rules... Har-de-har-har. I meant that you have defined a third option among the options presented in this thread (not including simply interpreting RAW). Not that you invented all three. Anyway, now that your little diversion is dealt with, let's move on to your rebuttal to my coments on your theory... :allalone: :allalone: :allalone: :allalone: :allalone: Hmmm....
StormKnight 04-26-06, 06:28 PM	Then go educate yourself and come back. It's not like the adventures are hard to find. They're on this very same website. Ignorance is not a defense to an argument. Thank you but no. I really don't like to read an adventure I'm not planning to run, as I will spoil it for myself if I ever get a chance to play. Ok, I'm not going to respond to every point here as it just getting into a back and forth argument which is fairly unconstructive. Instead, I'm going to try to redirect onto a maybe hopefully more constructive direction. I can hope :) You don't think alignment is a major part of the rules?! No, I really don't. They occupy a few stray pages in each book and one line in each stat block of several dozen lines. D&D is not really about moral debates. Its about adventure and action. The rules as written are the terrain. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it as such doesn't chaneg a thing. They rules do NOT provide an explicit, clearly defined rule about every action in such a way that it could inarguably determine what is good/evil or neutral in every situation. All they are is a set of guidelines. Reasonably vague guidelines at that. Herein is where the modern/medieval issue comes in. If I want to tell people how to interpret good and evil, I think if I tell them "if you think its wrong, your character probably does to. If you think its right, so does your character", the person will probably play things very close to what you might get by analyzing the guidelines given in the PHB. If I tell you "do what a medieval person would have thought was right or wrong", I'll probably get something fairly unclose to the guidelines in the PHB. If I tell you "forget what you would do, follow the guidelines in the PHB", I get a lot of stress about figuring out what that means, conflicting opinions about how to interpret the guidelines, arguments about paladins burning kobold babies...and if I get something workable, it probably gets played just like it would have if I had said "go off what you feel is right/wrong". So I consider "using modern morality" a very, very helpful suggestion, that will probably get you farther than just trying to interpret the rules. Further, its simple, and since its probably not a major issue of the game anyway, why not do so? How about this "looting the body thing?" Ok, a good person (by the RAW) values the life and dignity of others. Permitting the looting of bodies for personal gain encourages killing for profit, which devaluing the lives of others and encourages people to regard them as objects, devaluing the dignity of others. Clearly good people in D&D don't loot. Now, we've been trying to draw parallels to the modern world here. The problem is, we keep disagreeing on details. I don't think good people rule by force, D&D or real world. You think they do. I think that there is a due process for "looting the bodies" that is followed and acceptable in the real world. You do not think there is. Obviously, just "modern morality" won't get us all the way either, since we can't agree on what "modern morality" is! I never said using modern morality was the only way to play, or should be all-comprehensive. I do think its useful and resolves a lot of practical issues (the material in the PHB is almost all theoretical). Bully for you. I've been playing for 25 plus years and not once have I had to rely on the absurd argument that the alignment rules are coterminous with some nebulous and unworkable concept like "modern morality" I've never had to rely on ANY argument for alignment rules. Characters have personalities. The players play the characters to those personalities. I really can't recall ever, in an actual game, a topic of "would my character do..." based on morality ever coming up.
wrecan 04-26-06, 07:04 PM	They occupy a few stray pages in each book and one line in each stat block of several dozen lines. They don't occupy much more space than the racial descriptions in the PHB. I assume you would agree that race is an major aspect of the game. Alignment is an important aspect of the druid, cleric, paladin, bard, barbarian and monk classes. That's more than half of the core classes. I don't see how you can claim that it isn't a major part of this game, except by virtue of the fact that you downplay its importance in the games you run. Accepting alignment as a major part of D&D does not require you to become a philosopher. It doesn't require a PhD in ethics or a masters in law. It just requires you to immerse yourself in a fantasy world with a system of morality unlike (although not entirely alien from) any the real world has ever seen, just as it requires you to immerse yourself in a fantasy world with a syetm of physical laws unlike (although not entirely alien from) any the real world has ever seen. D&D is not really about moral debates. Its about adventure and action. Which is exactly why the alignment system facilitates adventure and action rather than restricts it with silly rules against looting. Herein is where the modern/medieval issue comes in. If I want to tell people how to interpret good and evil, I think if I tell them "if you think its wrong, your character probably does to. If you think its right, so does your character", the person will probably play things very close to what you might get by analyzing the guidelines given in the PHB. If I tell you "do what a medieval person would have thought was right or wrong", I'll probably get something fairly unclose to the guidelines in the PHB. If I tell you "forget what you would do, follow the guidelines in the PHB", I get a lot of stress about figuring out what that means, conflicting opinions about how to interpret the guidelines, arguments about paladins burning kobold babies...and if I get something workable, it probably gets played just like it would have if I had said "go off what you feel is right/wrong". That is totally backwards. Basically, you are abandoning the actual rules in favor of an extraneous rule that you assume substitutes for the rule. That's called a "house rule". Nor does it have anything to do with modern or medieval morality. You aren't applying modern morality. you're applying subjective morality, and relying on your players ot have a moral compass similar to yours. Which means you have no guidance when you enter a situation where you and your player differ on moral issues. Which is exactly what happens every time a player and DM have an alignment dispute. Now maybe in your 20-plus years of playing you and your players never had a dispute. Lovely for you. But it is clear from the numerous posts on this board about alignment issues that other DMs and players do have disputes. Telling these players and DMs to apply "modern morality" is useless ot them as it doesn't tell them anything about how to adjudge whether the DM, the player (or perhaps a third alternative neither considered) is appropriate. You're just spinning wheels on a system that has never been tested (by virtue of the fact that you and your players never have alignment disputes in which a reference to "modern morality" would settle the issue). So I consider "using modern morality" a very, very helpful suggestion, that will probably get you farther than just trying to interpret the rules. How? By definition, if the player and DM disagree about the appropriateness of the action, your test has failed. I never said using modern morality was the only way to play, or should be all-comprehensive. Then what does it add? What does it even mean? What is "modern morality"? Nobody seems to agree on this. Clearly good people in D&D don't loot. As to why players can loot monsters they kill, I cite the Monster Manual, in which the possessions of the creatures that the PCs are expected to confront are called "Treasure" and not "Possessions." The entire game is geared towards players taking the possessions of what the party kills as "Treasure." The Wealth per Encounter tables are useless if the PCs don't keep what they find on those they defeat. The Wealth Per Encounter Tables are tied to the Expected Character Wealth by Level Tables. If good PCs are not allowed to loot and must instead turn all this "Treasure" over to the authorities to be disbursed to third parties, then the game is broken on a fundamental level. The PCs will be by definition unequipped to handle encounters designated for their level. The Encounter Levels, the Challenge Ratings, the Wealth Tables, the Treasure Tables, are all geared to the assumption that the players will have certain levels of treasure, which are to be gained through defeating encounters and keeping their stuff. D&D game balance is based on this premise. The only way to make it work under your rules interpretation is to jury rig the system so that PCs happen to get paid equally to what they would have gotten from looting. But the DMG never advocates this approach. If you are not ready to accept that looting is acceptable for good players in D&D, it can only be because you refuse to see it.
Howland Reed 04-26-06, 08:48 PM	Happened upon the thread, and felt the urge to comment on a few subjects. --What is "modern morality"? Wrecan, you wanted a definition...the closest I can come up with is "behavior that is deemed socially acceptable by the majority of First World civilization". Even that is a stretch. While there are many differences between the United States, England, Germany, Japan, and Australia, by and large there is a strong trend of "morality" that is common to all of the above. THAT is what I call "modern morality". Your own definition? (I'm curious) --Mercs in Darfur. You seem to think the situation you outlined (where a group of mercs is given permission--by who, I'm not sure, incidentally--to go into Darfur, kill the Janjaweed, establish peace, and keep the possessions of the slain) does not strike me, under my enlightened modern morality, as evil by any stretch. In fact, if tomorrow the United States airlifted a brigade or so of such mercs into Darfur, I would applaud, as long as I had a reasonable expectation that they would only fight the Janjaweed and would not indiscriminately slaughter the civilians populace. What's happening in Darfur is an atrocity, and I'm appalled that some people are too "sensitive" to realize that when brutal murderers are raping and butchering innocent people, the best way to deal with them is at the muzzle of a gun. And I am not alone in my thinking, I assure you. --Looting. Modern morality (as I defined it) frowns on looting because it is generally considered unsavory to profit by the deaths of your enemies. It is assumed that when you kill people, be it in war, peacekeeping, or lawful execution, you did so because their death was necessary and not because you wanted to make a buck. This is a perfectly reasonable expectation, to my mind, in D&D as well. My parties do acquire loot and so forth, but it is seldom (if ever) their motivating factor. It is a nice fringe benefit, I suppose. You say modern morality would be horrified by this, but that's simply because (unlike in D&D) the modern world has very clear lines of property possession. When someone owns something, there is nearly always a clear title of ownership, and likewise, someone to whom it passes when the owner dies. Hence, there is the need to distribute someone's goods to the lawful inheritor. In D&D, there is seldom (if ever) a lawful inheritor or a means of determining who it is...hence, the method usually followed is that of expediency (i.e. the PCs keep it). Not always, though...loot is often given to innocents, returned to rightful owners, donated to worth causes, etc etc. You say we never allow police or soldiers to keep the property of those they kill...that's because (as I stated) there is a clear title of ownership. When there is not (for example, large amounts of drug money), US asset forfeiture laws let the government agency seize that wealth and keep a fair amount of it. If DEA agents wanted to keep some of it, I would not (personally) consider them "evil". But as Stormknight noted, they would be breaking the law. Similarly, while Washington hung those irregulars for personally profiteering, it is a time-honored tradition of soldiers to seize enemy victuals and equipment and use it for their own. Do you have any idea how many "souvenir" Luger pistols and Japanese swords came back from WWII? Are those people all shunned as evil for "looting"? In the Old West (not entirely "modern", but much moreso than medieval times), if a group of Texas Rangers killed some maurauders, they would nearly always take their horses and guns and whatever else they had to hand, and those items often went to individual members of the group. The situation you outlined (for what "should") happen to seized loot? If, after the situation in Darfur was cleaned up the mercs, all the loot was turned over the UN for redistribution, I would personally (as an American Citizen) be outraged...because I think the UN is as corrupt as hell, and has no proper authority over the United States or any agents thereof. I'd rather the mercs kept it. I'd prefer they donate it to the Darfurian villagers, or to charities of their choice, or maybe to a worthy organization like the Red Cross, but frankly I don't see anything "evil" about their keeping it. Maybe I'm not a good example of "modern morality" by your definition, I freely admit. --Bad parallels. One reason a lot of these comparisons fail is because it's often hard to draw parallels between a D&D world and our own. I pointed out one...the difference in established ownership. Let me point out another. In our modern world, there is no "treasure", that I can think of...there aren't piles of ancient coins and jewels, or artifacts, or so on, that are not claimed by SOMEONE (some government, at least) just laying around or in the possession of thugs and monsters. This really ties into the title of ownership thing, again. If the mercs killed a bunch of Janjaweed and they had not stolen possessions, or American greenbacks, or Kuggerands, or what have you, but a pot of ancient Egyptian coins, would you really think those mercs were jerks for keeping them? THEY did the hard work of killing scumbags and helping innocents. If nobody else owns those coins, why shouldn't the mercs keep them? That's what I'm getting at, I guess. In D&D there is a great deal of "found treasure" that nobody really owns. In the modern world, anything a group of "bad guys" has, they stole from someone else or else legitimately earned. There are no valuables that don't have a clear provenance. I'd love to discuss this more, but I'm mostly interested in the Darfur angle (as you may have guessed). I'd also love to hear your definition of modern morality, and how you arrive at it.
rydi123 04-26-06, 09:59 PM	i may not get a response, as it seems most of the posters here are already embroiled in a debate, but i wanted to add my personal view on what d&d morality is and should be. first, alignment seems to exist on a continuum, ranging from pure good/evil/law/chaos to something in between. it is also extremely modern in its ideology. even the separation of law from good is something that would be largely alien to much of the pre-modern world, as they were (and to many still are) seen as synonomous. further, the value placed on individual rights and happiness is a very new idea that much of the world still does not follow. second, the law/chaos axis and the good/evil axis are very different things in d&d, though in the real world they are not often seen as such. this seems to be something that the above posters are forgeting. for example, the looting spoken about above would, by d&d standards, be a chaotic neutral action. g/e does not enter into it at all, unless someone would be hurt by the items being taken. this idea is also important to remember when dealing w/in game societies, such as dwarves. because of their lawful good alignment, they are likely to see both chaotic and evil acts as 'wrong', and punish both accordingly. third, the morality of d&d should, imo and seemingly from in text examples, exist on multiple levels. for example, bob the dwarf can be lawful good but manifest it in different ways and embody that alignment to different degrees (the continuum again). also, on higher planes of morality, an individual may have to make choices that seem antithetical to their morals, but ultimately work toward them (likely many individuals would fall from this path into an opposing alignment, but would not remove the necessity of such things). ex: 1-bob is a generally law abiding citizen. bob likes helping his fellow dwarves. he thinks people that go against society should be punished, but he cant always put his finger on why, and he probably doesnt give a whole lot of thought to how law and good effect him or the world as a whole, possessing only a 'feeling' about what is right and wrong. his idea of both law and good likely doesnt go further than what he was taught as a dwarfling, and these traditions and behavioral norms guide his actions. sometimes he may even be a bit immoral, as his imperfect understanding of law and good move him to overly harsh judgements. his life is about acting in accordance with society, and the feeling of rightness and order that doing so gives him. 2-bob is a paladin. bob serves the concepts of law and good which are greater than any given society or thing. he recognizes that law and order hold societies together, and allows for greater achievements than a society could acheive without some way to hold itself to gether. law allows for greater personal achievement. good allows individuals the ability to be happy, the right to live thier lives, and donates to the achievements of society. it prevents the violence that could destroy society. both law and good are often seen as an end in and of theselves by bob, and he gives deep thought to the meaning of his actions in relation to law and good. he likely sees beyond tradition and normative values to how they interact w/these core concepts. bob attempts to never go against his alignment, and to embody the ideals he feels so strongly for. his life is about merging the mortal action with that of the ideal conception of law and good. 3-bob is actually the avatar of moradin. bob sees the world as a complex interplay of alignments and attempts to maximize order and good. sometimes bob uses chaos or evil to achieve his ends by allowing creatures of those alignments to act upon the world without stopping them, sometimes even stearing them toward a certain goal, but always in the cause of creating more good and law in the world. bob acts upon a level where there is sometimes no good alternative in a situation, and is forced to choose the best of two bad options, sometimes letting hundreds die so that thousands might live, and the choices wiegh upon him, but all he does is for the greater good. his life is about the cosmic forces of law and good, as they play out on the vast canvas of the planes. fourth, d&d morality should be defined. good: benevolence toward others and respect for thier wellbeing. evil: malevolence, and an active removal of the wellbeing of other individuals. neutral: niether helpful nor harmful, at least actively. selfish, but not to the point of actively hurting others, though passive harm is allowed. -wellbeing is of course debateable, but generally includes an individual's access to equal opportunity (w/out justification such as criminal activity), thier physical health, their mental health (but not offense, only actual harm/trauma), and their quality of life.- lawful: ordered personality, and compliance w/the law. this can contradict w/g&e axis when a character is required to go against a law for the sake of good and evil, but as long as there is an underlying code such actions should not cause alignment switch. chaotic: spontaneous personality and a disregard for the rules. few of these people can exist comfortably within a society for obvious reasons. neutral: the majority of people. niether wholy ordered or chaotic. thats it i think. thanks for listening
rockondon 04-26-06, 10:04 PM	people follow their own code, not a 'code of modern morality.' There is no set code of modern morality because moral values change from person to person and place to place. No single code can encompass everyone's value system. I suppose that when I play, I generally follow my own code. When that code conflicts with something in the rules, then the rules trump me.
wrecan 04-26-06, 10:55 PM	Wrecan, you wanted a definition...the closest I can come up with is "behavior that is deemed socially acceptable by the majority of First World civilization". Even that is a stretch. While there are many differences between the United States, England, Germany, Japan, and Australia, by and large there is a strong trend of "morality" that is common to all of the above. THAT is what I call "modern morality". Your own definition? (I'm curious) I don't have a definition. I reject the notion that there is a single system of "modern morality" that is useful to determine alignment issues in D&D. While your definition is fine for very broad issues, I think as you concede that standard is not going to be very servicable when dealing with ethical issues that only occur in a fantasy setting. You seem to think the situation you outlined (where a group of mercs is given permission--by who, I'm not sure, incidentally--to go into Darfur, kill the Janjaweed, establish peace, and keep the possessions of the slain) does not strike me, under my enlightened modern morality, as evil by any stretch. Reasonable minds may disagree. That's one reason "modern morality" (or any of its variants on this thread) is so abjectly unhelpful to a D&D campaign. When there is no disagreement, it doesn't matter what definitino is used. When there is disagreement, "modern morality" cannot be helpful because they already disagree on the point. Maybe I'm not a good example of "modern morality" by your definition, I freely admit. I don't have a definition, which is why I so often must rely on legalities to approximate them. There is no reliable definition.
Cantankerous 04-27-06, 12:54 AM	Hi Rhomphaia, You're confusing the universality of communication in the present world, and the will of some of the most powerful governments to use any excuse to expand their influence, and the fear of THAT by many nations, with morality. It's not that slavery is any more abhored in the present day than it was in the ancient world, most socieities evolved away from chattel slavery almost immediately once the borders were secure and the infrastructure was in place, the western Roman Empire being the exception that so often belies (and sometimes proves) the rule. And even this is not universal within the Roman Empire. Technicly speaking, even though the Sultans of Persia did not engage in chattel slavery at the time, any Persian slave who made it to one of the great Eastern Imperial cities (as the Byzantines saw themselves as the continuation of the Roman Empire it's accpetable to refer to them as such) became free simply by stepping through the gates. This held until the Persian Sultans started getting tired of the propaganda and forced the eastern Empire to cease this activity. It's interesting to note that during the period when the "escapees" could be freed by entering Constantinople (for instance) that the form of slavery then practiced in Persia DID become more restrictive and as soon as the eastern Empire stopped their practice of providing an escape valve, it went back to the far more eglatarian system they had in place when Basil I started the practice. There has never been a time, even during the Western Roman Empire's height, when slavery was really an accepted way of doing things. It was almost always abhored by the neighbors of the countires that practiced it (even when they practiced it within their own colonies, they abhored it at home and officially) during the late Dark Ages, when the conditions of Serfs was barely above that of chattel slaves. But don't decieve yourself about the modern era. Even as little as fifteen years ago there was a very wide spread company store type of semi-institutionalized slavery going in throughout the pacific rim lesser powers. Keep in mind that this represents almost a quarter of the worlds population... more than Western Europe and the US combined, and that it is still, though without official sanction, going on in many of those countries. Slavery is alive and well...it's name has been changed to protect the greedy and the sensibilities of the Western mindset, but it's still with us. There is NOTHING new or modern about any of this. The greatest difference in the world today is the ability to self delude becoming an art form. Nor is D&D anymore anti-all slavery in the way it is written than the ancient world was. I still don't see your point. Isshia
Howland Reed 04-27-06, 09:26 AM	I don't have a definition. I reject the notion that there is a single system of "modern morality" that is useful to determine alignment issues in D&D. While your definition is fine for very broad issues, I think as you concede that standard is not going to be very servicable when dealing with ethical issues that only occur in a fantasy setting. Ah, I see. I agree that it is not serviceable for dealing with fantasy ethics (as I pointed out), but I do believe this means it does not exist, or that it is not serviceable for dealing with situations in our own world. I didn't know we were treating modern morality as "a system of modern morality useful for determining D&D alignments", but rather as a more abstract that we tend to apply to D&D situations where applicable.l Reasonable minds may disagree. That's one reason "modern morality" (or any of its variants on this thread) is so abjectly unhelpful to a D&D campaign. When there is no disagreement, it doesn't matter what definitino is used. When there is disagreement, "modern morality" cannot be helpful because they already disagree on the point. Again, I'm afraid I disagree (that it is "abjectly unhelpful"). :) What matters to me is the degree of disagreement, and the reasonableness thereof. The situation we described (in Darfur) is one where reasonable people may disagree, yet both make valid arguments for their side. But "modern morality" can still be useful in other situations, where the disagreement is more one-sided. When one guy takes one position and a thousand take the other, it tends to lend weight to the second position. I don't have a definition, which is why I so often must rely on legalities to approximate them. There is no reliable definition. Bah. One can define anything, if you're motivated to. Why be lazy? :) You say you rely on legalities to approximate them...all right, define said approximation.
Rhomphaia 04-27-06, 09:50 AM	Har-de-har-har. I meant that you have defined a third option among the options presented in this thread (not including simply interpreting RAW). Not that you invented all three. Anyway, now that your little diversion is dealt with, let's move on to your rebuttal to my coments on your theory... :allalone: :allalone: :allalone: :allalone: :allalone: Hmmm.... Hey wrecan, guess what. You win. I give up. I don't know how many times I will have to beat you over the ****ing head trying to make my point. You refuse to see what I am trying to say. You are being argumentative, pig-headed and insulting now. Once more, for the record, this is what I have been trying to say for the entire thread. I will let this stand on its own. Tear it apart all you want wrecan, but like I said before, you win the argument. The alignment system in D&D is not based on a singular set of morals and ethics. It never was. In order to be a fantasy role-playing game suitable for people across a wide spectrum of cultures and viewpoints, they had to start with some modern morality (things like general equality and respect for others) so we all have a 'common ground' to know the writer's intent, then throw in some sometimes contradictory morals from ages past, or some that have been completely invented (such as going into a human camp and killing everyone and taking their stuff is wrong, but doing the same to orcs is ok). It needs to be this way to make the game fun. To make the morals from completely modern, midieval, ancient Greek or any other single geographical/historical cultural viewpoint would make the game stale, boring, or even repugnant. Saying 'stop stuffing modern morality into D&D' is just as ridiculous and baseless as saying 'stop stuffing midieval/Greek/Egyptian/whatever morality into D&D.' It just doesn't make any sense to me. And now on to someone who seems less interested in argumentative insults... Cantankerous, I didn't think I needed to mention where the modern abhoration of slavery comes from, just that it was there. Also, you seem to miss my point about the accepted modern definition of slavery. Also, I was referring to First World countries as well (remember my comment about 'among people likely to play D&D'?). I am well aware of slavery in Africa and the South Pacific (neither of which can really be classed as 'First World' countries, so I did not include them). The reason why slavery was 'abhored' historically was simply political, just as it is nowadays. A nation makes slavery illegal to make its neighbor look bad, or because it is sick and tired of their neighbor taking its people away to be slaves, that sort of thing. This trickles down into the populace eventually, creating an atmosphere of anti-slavery by simple proxy of the people not being used to it 'in their backyard'. This however, is a fairly recent occurence. However, even while officially denouncing and illegalizing slavery, these same nations either practiced it in secret or came as close as they could to practicing it themselves (serfdom and conscription stand out in my mind). This was an accepted way of life however. 'Well, we can leave any time we want, but we just can't get the money to do so. Just carry on I guess.' was a common lament of a serf. While they did not like their lot in life, they didn't exactly abhor it either. It was just where the gods placed them and so they didn't see too much reason to question it. Earlier than that, slavery was an accepted fact of life. Look to the Greeks, Eqyptians and Romans, where a slave could be perfectly happy in a good home and there were laws in place so that most of them got treatment much like a loved pet does today. Obviously, slave-warriors were an exception. More importantly, look at the attitude of the people. Especially in Rome and Egypt, the general populace loved the slaves. They provided entertainment and made their lives easier. Slavery was far from abhored in these times, except from the populations that slaves were taken from and that is perfectly understandable. Oh, one more thing. Constantinople opening its gates in such a fashion was akin to the Great Immigration here in the United States. The city needed a population, preferably hard-working and desperate.
StormKnight 04-27-06, 11:29 AM	They don't occupy much more space than the racial descriptions in the PHB. I assume you would agree that race is an major aspect of the game. Alignment is an important aspect of the druid, cleric, paladin, bard, barbarian and monk classes. That's more than half of the core classes. I don't see how you can claim that it isn't a major part of this game, except by virtue of the fact that you downplay its importance in the games you run. Well, perhaps I should revise my statement to morality is not a major part of the game. There are many spells and abilities that are based on alignment, but very few of them make it at all clear what they have to do with morality. And anything on the law/chaos split doesn't really apply - morality is good and evil. Nor does it have anything to do with modern or medieval morality. You aren't applying modern morality. you're applying subjective morality, and relying on your players ot have a moral compass similar to yours. This is an interesting point. Maybe "modern morality" actually isn't a good term here. There is not a blanket modern morality. What I'm actually assuming if that if we go into the game with our own personal assumptions, the game will work fine. Which means you have no guidance when you enter a situation where you and your player differ on moral issues. Which is exactly what happens every time a player and DM have an alignment dispute. The essential problem being that trying to follow the 'rules' in the PHB and the DMG still amounts to little to no guidance. As far as I can tell, most of the problems on this board (which almost always have to do with Paladins - probably because they are the only ones with game mechanics closely tied to morality) come down to players trying to JUST follow the rules without bothering to think about what makes sense to them. If they had just been approaching it from the starting viewpoint of "what I consider good and evil is a good basis for good and evil", most of the issues would never have happened in the first place. You're just spinning wheels on a system that has never been tested (by virtue of the fact that you and your players never have alignment disputes in which a reference to "modern morality" would settle the issue). I'm not sure I've ever advocated "referring to modern morality" to settle a dispute. Nor would I think referring to the RAW would help much to settle a dispute. My point has been that with this mindset, the disputes are much less likely to happen in the first place. If you are not ready to accept that looting is acceptable for good players in D&D, it can only be because you refuse to see it. You seemed to have missed the point. I was not saying that looting IS "evil" in D&D, I was explaining how one could interpret the RAW descriptions to arrive at the conclusion that looting is evil. A few comments, some on, some off topic... I don't think that societal morality, legality, and true good/evil always match up. Going 60 in a 55 mph zone is illegal; I don't think most people will consider it "immoral" and I think almost no one would consider it "evil". Giving alcohol to a minor is illegal. Many consider it at least somewhat immoral. I doubt, however, that many people consider it particularly immoral to give alcohol to someone two days before he turns 21. We recognize the age value as an arbitrary dividing line. Lying is generally considered immoral. Its not illegal except in fairly specific situations (libel, in court, etc). I think it may be a good idea to define legality and social morality in your game. This may be different from one area to another. This need have nothing to do with good/evil. I have certainly seen characters have conflicts of morality. This is not the same as players having the conflicts. We had one great bit where two characters were having a furious argument about whether to kill a captive or honor their word and let him go. The rogue settled the discussion by discreetly unbinding the captive and quietly suggesting he get away fast. I think these are great. The characters should no more be absolutely sure of the right or wrong of their actions than we are of ours. Whoops. Now think of examples, I did remember one player/DM dispute about good/evil. It didn't happen in D&D, but lets say for a moment it did. There was an argument about changing someone's memories. So, perhaps you can apply the RAW to this for me - in D&D, is it an evil act to make major changes to someone's memories?
rockondon 04-27-06, 11:40 AM	The alignment system in D&D is not based on a singular set of morals and ethics. It never was. In order to be a fantasy role-playing game suitable for people across a wide spectrum of cultures and viewpoints, they had to start with some modern morality (things like general equality and respect for others) so we all have a 'common ground' to know the writer's intent, then throw in some sometimes contradictory morals from ages past, or some that have been completely invented (such as going into a human camp and killing everyone and taking their stuff is wrong, but doing the same to orcs is ok). Shockingly, I don't disagree with this. Although instead of the term "modern morality" I would have said "basic morals" which essentially means the same thing, but doesn't imply that such values are strictly a modern ideal. In any case, my opinion of the statement "stop stuffing modern morality into D&D" would depend entirely on the context with which it was written. If the one writing that had invented his own moral code and feels that his code trumps the rules and other people's opinions of morality, then I feel that he would be in the wrong. However, if he was responding to someone else whom has a tendency to bring forth baseless assumptions and cloak them under the guise of 'modern morality' (or any other pretty-sounding term) then I wouldn't blame the writer for saying stop stuffing it down his throat.
OravennasBrother 04-27-06, 11:42 AM	Also, you seem to miss my point about the accepted modern definition of slavery. Also, I was referring to First World countries as well (remember my comment about 'among people likely to play D&D'?). I am well aware of slavery in Africa and the South Pacific The reason why slavery was 'abhored' historically was simply political, just as it is nowadays. A nation makes slavery illegal to make its neighbor look bad, or However, even while officially denouncing and illegalizing slavery, these same nations either practiced it in secret or came as close as they could to practicing it themselves (serfdom and conscription stand out in my mind). This was an accepted way of life however. 'Well, we can leave any time we want, but we just can't get the money to do so. Just carry on I guess.' was a common lament of a serf. While they did not like their lot in life, they didn't exactly abhor it either. It was just where the gods placed them and so they didn't see too much reason to question it. Earlier than that, slavery was an accepted fact of life. Look to the Greeks, Eqyptians and Romans, where a slave could be perfectly happy in a good home and there were laws in place so that most of them got treatment much like a loved pet does today. Obviously, slave-warriors were an exception. More importantly, look at the attitude of the people. Especially in Rome and Egypt, the general populace loved the slaves. They provided entertainment and made their lives easier. Slavery was far from abhored in these times, except from the populations that slaves were taken from and that is perfectly understandable. I'm not sure where to begin, there are so many misconceptions here. There are slaves in modern first world countries, even though slavery is illegal in those regions. Serfs were quite distinct from Slaves. Slaves could be bought or sold any time under any conditions. Serfs were tied to the land. If the Land was sold, the Serf went with it. That serfs were generally dissatisfied can be understood by looking at the frequency of rebellions against the nobles. Slavery was outlawed by some religions (two in particular come to mind) but the religious proscriptions against slavery generally only applied to members of that religion. Britain was IIRC one of the first major nations to categorically outlaw slavery - sometime in the late 18th century (obviously after the American Revolution) - and at that time no one was in any position to threaten the British Isles with slave taking raids. The Move to abolish slavery in Britain at that time seems to have been inspired by Parlimentary "Liberals" who actually WERE morally outraged by the concept of slavery, though they may have had help from a few pragmatists who decided to deny any other colonies the excuse of Rebellion against slave keeping masters (Ironically a point raised by some of the US rebels in the 1770's). Slave duties fell into a few categories and the treatment of the slave was often tied to their value. Educated slaves might be kept as Skilled labor (Tutors, craftsmen etc.) and often were treated better than other slaves. Roman records indicate that many of these slaves were dissatisfied with their condition, as can be seen by the number of slave Scribes who aided Spartacus with Logistics during his famous rebellion. Strong Fit Slaves were likely to be used as Agricultural laborers. They were generally treated poorly, particularly if there was a surplus on the market. Even with a tigher market (higher prices for slaves) as in 12th century Britain the cost of maintianing a slave was generally about a third less than the cost of maintaining a free worker. Slaves who were unable to labor in fields often were either used as household menials, with a VERY bleak existance, or were disposed of in a number of ways (starvation, eposure, dismisal at the beginning of Winter etc.). Military slaves, such as the Mamluks of Egypt or the Jannisaries of the Ottoman Empire, were a double edged sword in the hands of their "rulers" - Both Egypt and the Ottomans fell prey to control by their Slave Warriors. Even when they were still kept in hand, their existance was generally no worse than that of other full time troops; though they could seldom look forward to the Retirement of a Roman Professional Soldier (who was rewarded for 20 years service with a plot of land). Gladiators were not soldiers and they received a very different treatment, as the return expected from arena appearances allowed for profit while still expending significant sums on training and treating the gladiators. Some difficulties in reviewing past accounts of slaves are lack of documentation by neutral observers or the slaves themselves. It was a rare Roman who would record a coment by his household slave accountant expressing dissatisfaction at thier condition. A Roman farm manager might, for his own purposes, write of how content the slaves were, when in reality he had two or three mounted warriors stationed to prevent the flight of the Slaves. Another difficulty is in the very different world view of the modern era. Not only are we unlikely to have personally met a former slave, but we do not (in industrialized nations) have a first hand experience of agricultural margins so small that you must have 90% of the populace involved in food production to insure adequate amounts are available to last through winter and still plant in Spring. All of which helps explain why it is difficult to Fairly evaluate the morals of those who in past ages engaged in the keeping of slaves.
Cantankerous 04-27-06, 12:08 PM	Where to begin? First, a misconception to clear up. Oh, one more thing. Constantinople opening its gates in such a fashion was akin to the Great Immigration here in the United States. The city needed a population, preferably hard-working and desperate. During the time this was anything but true. It was being roundly criticized internally because the city was suffering, accutely, from massive over population for it's size. Unemployment was a way of life, there were already more beggars in some sectors of the city than there were employed citizens. The last thing the state there needed was more unemployed...but they did it anyway as even before the Crusades, there was more than a little friction, from time to time, between the Holy Lords of the Great Byzantine Empire and the Sultans of the Inimitable East, the Sons of Allah, the Masters of Persia or whichever name they were using that week. There was a low level insurrgency in place and mid level sniping politicly by both sides The only people who (usually) enjoyed the situations were the various Immams and Papistas advising the respective secular leaders. The point though is that the abhorance of slavery is by NO MEANS a modern situation. It can't be used as one. The Greeks, for instance, didn't engage in chattel slavery except during intakings and the years immediately following them. Their forms of slavery were freer than what is taking place in the Pacific Rim today... but today, with instant communications, the entire world is a neighborhood whenever it is convenient for any major government for it to be one. Again, I'd submit that it was MORE abhored by the civilzed states of the ancient world than it is today. Too though, there are plenty of official D&D products, including Greyhawk, from which the original 3.0 backdrop was drawn, where even in Good nations, slavery is sometimes practiced and accepted. This is, by your own lights, completely contrary to the idea of slavery being Evil as per the D&D rules. It is, by what you're saying already "anti-modern", although the reality of it is simply that slavery is not, in the modern or ancient world, a universal evil and the game does not protray it as one. Isshia
wrecan 04-27-06, 02:12 PM	I didn't know we were treating modern morality as "a system of modern morality useful for determining D&D alignments", but rather as a more abstract that we tend to apply to D&D situations where applicable. Well, I can't speak for anybody else. But that's pretty much the only reason I'm participating in this thread. And I know you really want to discuss the ethical ins and outs of Darfur, but it's not really a topic I care to discuss. Sorry. (Frankly, from what you've written, I don't think we'd disagree on very much on that subject anyway.) But "modern morality" can still be useful in other situations, where the disagreement is more one-sided. When one guy takes one position and a thousand take the other, it tends to lend weight to the second position. Most games don't have thousand of people attending. It's usually no more than a dozen. So when a dispute arises on alignment, using the dozen people at the table as a measur eof "modern morality" seems like an insufficiently large sample. That said, asking players to vote on what the alignment rules should mean also seems like abdicating DM responsibility to provide consistent adjudication. (Although in many games, voting is used to adjudicate all rules disputes, not merely alignment ones. However, nobody, to date, appears to have meant "attendee consensus" when writing "modern morality".) Why be lazy? :) Because I am uninterested in the topic. Again, I'm sorry.
wrecan 04-27-06, 02:22 PM	I don't know how many times I will have to beat you over the ****ing head trying to make my point. One clear time is all it takes You refuse to see what I am trying to say. Rhompaia, nobody has been able to see what you are trying to say. As you even admitted, Cantankerous, Rockondon and myself have all been misunderstanding you. Until your last post, you have been quite confusing. Once more, for the record, this is what I have been trying to say for the entire thread. I will let this stand on its own. Tear it apart all you want wrecan, but like I said before, you win the argument. The alignment system in D&D is not based on a singular set of morals and ethics. It never was. In order to be a fantasy role-playing game suitable for people across a wide spectrum of cultures and viewpoints, they had to start with some modern morality (things like general equality and respect for others) so we all have a 'common ground' to know the writer's intent, then throw in some sometimes contradictory morals from ages past, or some that have been completely invented (such as going into a human camp and killing everyone and taking their stuff is wrong, but doing the same to orcs is ok). It needs to be this way to make the game fun. To make the morals from completely modern, midieval, ancient Greek or any other single geographical/historical cultural viewpoint would make the game stale, boring, or even repugnant. Saying 'stop stuffing modern morality into D&D' is just as ridiculous and baseless as saying 'stop stuffing midieval/Greek/Egyptian/whatever morality into D&D.' It just doesn't make any sense to me. Finally. This makes sense and except for the last paragraph, I do not fundamentally disagree, although I might quibble whether the things you call "modern morality" are particularly modern at all. But it would be a mere quibble. But let me explain what I mean when I say "stop stuffing modern morality into D&D." As you acknowledge, the alignment system is an amalgam of modern, historical and entirely fictionalized morality. It is not a single system. When somebody insists on ignoring, say, the fictionalized or medieval elements by shoehorning a modern concept in there that has not been included, the person is ignoring the amlgamated aspect of the alignment system that we both recognize. My statement is telling that person to stop forcing the alignment system to be something it is not. It is not modern morality with D&D terms. It's a hodgepodge of various ethical concepts cobbled together for the purpose of making an enjoyable game, as you stated.
wrecan 04-27-06, 02:53 PM	Well, perhaps I should revise my statement to morality is not a major part of the game. Except all those alignment rules depend on the morality of the alignment system in order to function. When you cast "detect evil" you need to know what "evil" is. When someone is a monk, you need to know what "lawful" requires. anything on the law/chaos split doesn't really apply - morality is good and evil. It's all different aspects of morality. What I'm actually assuming if that if we go into the game with our own personal assumptions, the game will work fine. And that is belied by the fact that there are disputes posted on this board all the time in which people's personal assumptions differ. As far as I can tell, most of the problems on this board (which almost always have to do with Paladins - probably because they are the only ones with game mechanics closely tied to morality) come down to players trying to JUST follow the rules without bothering to think about what makes sense to them. Actually, I think you'll find that most people who post these things never bothered to read the rules on morality. They apply their personal assumptions and then are shocked to find out their assumptions are being contradicted by their players and may not have any actual support in the rules. Nor would I think referring to the RAW would help much to settle a dispute. I think you'd be surprised. I was explaining how one could interpret the RAW descriptions to arrive at the conclusion that looting is evil. The rules must be read as a whole. If your interpretation of RAW conflicts with another aspect of RAW, then it should be rejected. If a DM were to decide that good-aligned people could never cast a detection spell on another because it offend their dignity as a sentient being, then that conflicts directly with the existence of the paladin's detect evil ability. That interpretation would have to be rejected (or at a minimum be considered a house-rule). Similarly, if you were to interpret the rules to prohibit good-aligned characters form looting, you contradict all the rules that presume that good-aligned characters can loot. The interpretation must be discarded. I don't think that societal morality, legality, and true good/evil always match up. Going 60 in a 55 mph zone is illegal Sigh. I have been very careful to dsitinguish between criminal laws and mere prohibitions. I make that distinction because the law actually makes the distinction. Criminal behavior is reserved for those acts that carry an element of moral turpitude. (I didn't make up that phrase. Supreme Court Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Homes did when describing the difference between criminal and civil infractions.) Speeding is not a criminal act. Murder, theft, and looting are. And they are criminal as opposed to merely civil infractions precisely because we as a society find them to be morally repugnant. I have certainly seen characters have conflicts of morality. This is not the same as players having the conflicts. I assume this is one of those things that are off-topic. So, perhaps you can apply the RAW to this for me - in D&D, is it an evil act to make major changes to someone's memories? I don't know. Give me more specifics. Who was doing the changing? Why? How? With the target's consent? Without? Your situation is very vague. That's like asking if it's evil to cast a spell on someone. I note however, the the 4th level bard spell Modify Memory has no alignment restriction on its use. Presumably, in some circumstances, it's casting would not be considered evil. I also note that Pixies, which are described as "Always Neutral Good" have the power to erase memories. So my inclination is to say that it is possible that altering a person's memory is not an inherently evil act under the core rules. Rather, much like any other ethically neutral act, it depends on the purpose to which the act is put.
Tzor 04-27-06, 03:08 PM	Rhompaia, nobody has been able to see what you are trying to say. As you even admitted, Cantankerous, Rockondon and myself have all been misunderstanding you. Until your last post, you have been quite confusing. I just looked at thread so I've only glanced over the many pages, but he makes perfect sense to me. In fact I would even go one step further. Alignment has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Morality is the findamental question of right and wrong, alignment is the question of a specific set of terms that we conviently label "good" and "evil." It's convient, but since we also tend to consider "right" things "good" and "wrong" things "evil" it can be exceptionally confusing at times. There are lots of things that might be defined as "evil" under the general D&D definition which one culture or society from anchient times to the present day might not consider "wrong." In some cases there might exist a culture or society that might consider it a "right." Comparing "modern" to "medieval" morality is the creative process of creating strawmen to do battle which each other. Frankly it's silly and I am sure that a medieval person would look at modern morality an still feel smug about themselves, because we often don't see what we refuse to see. It is important, critical even, to remember that good/evil is not right/wrong. Morality is interesting, but to simply say that the morally right is "good" is blatently incorrect. Likewise to simply say that the morally wrong is "evil" is also blatently incorrect. And if you are not confused by all of this yet, the arguments between good/evil and right/wrong also apply to law/chaos. Something the right moral course is both selfish and undisciplnied. Modern morality (and when you consider that "relativitism" is often associated with "modern morality") has no place in D&D alignments because morality itself has no place in D&D alignments. Alignment is a simple way or order things based on a few simple concepts that are more or less generally easier to measure. (Are you disciplined / undisciplined? Do you place others above yourself or yourself above others?) You can map morality to alignment, but that is no different than trying to map actions in combat based on initative numbers to actual seconds within the six second round ... the mapping might become exceptionally fuzzy if not outright bizzare at times.
StormKnight 04-27-06, 04:28 PM	Except all those alignment rules depend on the morality of the alignment system in order to function. When you cast "detect evil" you need to know what "evil" is. When someone is a monk, you need to know what "lawful" requires. It requires that "evil" or "lawful" is written in the alignment block, respectively :) It is entirely possible to play D&D without knowing anything more than that. It's all different aspects of morality. Interesting. From one point of view, I suppose morality is simply social conduct, and in that sense the chaos/law aspect would be part of it. Normally, however, morality is concerned with good/evil. And that is belied by the fact that there are disputes posted on this board all the time in which people's personal assumptions differ. ... Actually, I think you'll find that most people who post these things never bothered to read the rules on morality. This would be an interesting thing to know. I've always assumed they read the rules, have no clear idea of how to proceed from that and so get into trouble. This is usually based on the idea that anyone applying a little bit of common sense wouldn't have these problems, so it must be coming from attempting to interpret the rules. I think you'd be surprised. The rules must be read as a whole. I actually find this very interesting. So far, I've been arguing from only the point of view of what is in the actual "alignment" section, where you are trying to consider the entirety of the rules and figure out how they apply to alignment. That is a very intriguing approach. I confess a fondness to looking at the rules, and then developing worlds that are logical extensions of those rules, but I hadn't thought of applying it to alignment. Admittedly, I probably would not bother because I just don't consider it a major issue. The question here, is how understandable is such a morality system? Because we have used words that have meaning to us ("good" and "evil") outside of the context of the game, there is an expectation for them to act in a way that matches what we understand good and evil to mean. If our understanding of the word differs drastically from how it is used, it ends up being counterproductive to even use the word. For example, I could make a 20 game in which "Fighters" specifically cast magical combat spells and had low HP and BAB, and "Wizards" were masters of physical combat. Looking at the game rules, you could understand this perfectly, but it would be so counter-intuitive and confusing that it would probably be a bad idea. In your experience, does using morality based on RAW lead to something that is naturally understood, or that requires scrutiny of the rules to understand? Speeding is not a criminal act. Don't stress it :) This is part of the off-topic rambling. I'm just not always sure that everyone realizes that the law does not neccessarilly relate directly to morality, and this was a very obvious example.
wrecan 04-28-06, 08:58 AM	It requires that "evil" or "lawful" is written in the alignment block, respectively :) It is entirely possible to play D&D without knowing anything more than that. It requires the DM to know whatshould be written in the alignment block. NPCs, you know, don't come with preset alignments. It also requires the Dm to accurately determine when a PC alignment has changed. So it is actually impossible to play D&D without knowing more than that or house ruling. Normally, however, morality is concerned with good/evil. Actually, in D&D, normally, ethics are law and chaos and morality is good and evil. However, since we are discussing how to resolve alignment conflicts during a gaming session, we are concerned with both, regardless of the semantics you seek to use. This would be an interesting thing to know. I've always assumed they read the rules, have no clear idea of how to proceed from that and so get into trouble. This is usually based on the idea that anyone applying a little bit of common sense wouldn't have these problems, so it must be coming from attempting to interpret the rules. Whereas rather than assuming things, I always try to read the actual posts, which often reveals that people haven't read the alignment rules, and are surprised that they actually offer guidance. I've been arguing from only the point of view of what is in the actual "alignment" section, where you are trying to consider the entirety of the rules and figure out how they apply to alignment.[QUOTE=StormKnight] For someone who professes a fondness for tules you have a very odd way of reading them. The game, particularly 3.5, is an integrated game in which the disparate sections are designed to work in concert for one another. They are interwoven threads which, by eliminating one, unbalances the others. That's why house rules should always be carefully considered before implementation. [QUOTE=StormKnight]how understandable is such a morality system? Because we have used words that have meaning to us ("good" and "evil") outside of the context of the game, there is an expectation for them to act in a way that matches what we understand good and evil to mean. No more so than realizing that a D&D Ranger is not a Texan baseball player, or a D&D monk is not a Catholic. Any time a game offers definitions, one should expect those definitions differ form the colloquial or are merely obscure. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered. In your experience, does using morality based on RAW lead to something that is naturally understood, or that requires scrutiny of the rules to understand? Depends on what you mean by scrutiny. Once you approach the rules with the idea that the alignment rules are supposed to allow for heroic fantasy characters and still inject issues of ethics and morality, the rules rather easily. Once you disabuse yourself of the notion that the rules must be tied to a modern or medieval mindset and are designed for the game, it becomes a lot easier to interpret. I don't find the alignment rules are any more difficult to "scrutinize" than the flanking rules, the spell descriptions or the magic item creation rules.
StormKnight 04-28-06, 09:58 AM	It requires the DM to know whatshould be written in the alignment block. NPCs, you know, don't come with preset alignments. It also requires the Dm to accurately determine when a PC alignment has changed. So it is actually impossible to play D&D without knowing more than that or house ruling. Sorry, but it doesn't require any of these things. You don't have to "accurately" assign alignments or have PCs follow their alignments to play D&D. It may not be how your or I choose to play, but its perfectly doable. Whereas rather than assuming things, I always try to read the actual posts, which often reveals that people haven't read the alignment rules, and are surprised that they actually offer guidance. Gosh, that's odd, I also actually read the posts, and rarely have I seen a statement of "I haven't read the alignment rules, but...". Maybe you are reading different posts than I am. I don't find the alignment rules are any more difficult to "scrutinize" than the flanking rules, the spell descriptions or the magic item creation rules. Er, I don't find the alignment rules are that difficult either - its all of about 2 pages in each of the PHB and the DMG. However, what I want to know about is YOUR alignment rules, which involve cross-referencing the rest of the books to try to come up with rules based on how they make sense across the rest of the game. I'd like to know how familiar you seem to find them. No more so than realizing that a D&D Ranger is not a Texan baseball player, or a D&D monk is not a Catholic. And if a new player came into D&D I might reasonably expect to have to tell her "D&D monks are based on the oriental fighting monks, not on European monks". These are still reasonable definitions of the words. Here is another thing we might try. What things do you find are considered "good" or "evil" by your interpretation of the rules, that you think the average person would not find "good" or "evil"?
wrecan 04-28-06, 10:07 AM	You don't have to "accurately" assign alignments or have PCs follow their alignments to play D&D.Thus the words "or house ruling" in my post. If you choose to not use "accurate" alignment assignations, you're house ruling. Which is fine, as long as it's acknowledged. Maybe you are reading different posts than I am.Apparently.I want to know about is YOUR alignment rules, which involve cross-referencing the rest of the books to try to come up with rules based on how they make sense across the rest of the game. I'd like to know how familiar you seem to find them.Those aren't "my" rules. That's the rules. The game is an integrated whole and if an interpretation contradict something else in the rules, you have to reconsider your interprtation. If a DM were to say, "Erasing memories is not something good-aligned characters can do under the SRD" shouldn't a player point out that pixies, which are always good-aligned, do exactly that? Wouldn't that indicate to you that the DM's interpretation is flawed (although he could of course house-rule it)? These are still reasonable definitions of the words.So are the alignment definitions. They are reasonable in the context of the game, which is designed to facilitate heroic adventurers.What things do you find are considered "good" or "evil" by your interpretation of the rules, that you think the average person would not find "good" or "evil"?Looting. We've been over this.
StormKnight 04-28-06, 10:16 AM	Looting. We've been over this. Yes, and we still can't agree on it. I still don't see a D&D PC in an army acting within the bounds of a legitimate and good nation being allowed to loot, and I've yet to hear anyone complain about how horrible Gandalf and Bilbo were for taking Glamdring and String from the dead trolls, nor have I ever noticed someone look aghast when Luke and Han pulled the very armor off the dead bodies of the stormtroopers they killed to infiltrate the Deathstar. Now, I would like to know what else, besides looting doesn't match up.
Tormsskull 04-28-06, 10:21 AM	I just wanted to say I agree close to 100% with wrecan. He has provided clear and concise responses, which are making a lot of sense to me. The rebuttals to his posts seem to be dancing around the issue and playing with semantics. The rules for alignment in D&D are there for a reason. If you choose not to use them, that is completely up to you. However, because you choose to not use them or alter them to fit what you are calling "modern morality" makes it a house rule. Some house rules are logical and fit into a game seamlessly, others do not. If you are playing with a group of people who have to be politically correct all the time and are offended by some D&D concepts, then I'd suggest houseruling what you consider "modern morality" into the game. Remember, it is a ROLE-playing game, not a "pretend that I am transfered into a fantasy world and grow huge muscles/have a cool sword/awesome spells/pet dragon. Your character is NOT you. It is a ROLE. That you Play. For FUN.
wrecan 04-28-06, 11:01 AM	Yes, and we still can't agree on it.If you knew it, why'd you ask?I still don't see a D&D PC in an army acting within the bounds of a legitimate and good nation being allowed to loot, and I've yet to hear anyone complain about how horrible Gandalf and Bilbo were for taking Glamdring and String from the dead trollsGee, then it sounds like this isn't something upon which there is common consensus. Looting appears to be both wrong and right depending on who gets asked. Ask an army commander and looting is wrong. Ask a Tolkein buff and looting is right. Good thing the alignment rules don't look to common consensus for guidance, then, don't it?nor have I ever noticed someone look aghast when Luke and Han pulled the very armor off the dead bodies of the stormtroopers they killed to infiltrate the Deathstar.First, they didn't keep the armor. They use dit to get out fo a tough situation. An army soldier who runs out of ammo and takes an enemy's gun in order to save his and his buddies' life isn't considered evil either. If he then keeps the gun as a trophy, he's committed looting.I would like to know what else, besides looting doesn't match up.Define common morality and I'll take a look. Since you appear to apply a "I'll know it when I see it" standard, I have no idea what you think the modern morality (or whatever term you're currently using) consists of. I've asked for a definition several times that would allow me to figure out what is or isn't consistent with modern morality and you haven't given me one. Until you do it is impossible for me to respond.
StormKnight 04-28-06, 11:18 AM	If you knew it, why'd you ask? Since you are dead set against referring to "modern morality" for use in a D&D game, I assume you must know how it differs from your interpretation of D&D morality. I would like to know this as well. Looting appears to be both wrong and right depending on who gets asked. Ask an army commander and looting is wrong. Ask a Tolkein buff and looting is right. Actually, I don't think there is a difference of opinion here about looting being right or wrong. "Looting" is wrong by definition. The word inherently has a negative connotation. Much like "murder" is wrong by definition. However, every killing is not a murder, and not every instance of taking an item off a dead body is not a looting. I've asked for a definition several times that would allow me to figure out what is or isn't consistent with modern morality and you haven't given me one. So you are arguing that its not useful or valid when you don't know what it is? Ok, what things are there (BESIDES looting) that you personally consider "good" that are not good in D&D, or that you consider "evil" which are not evil in D&D.
wrecan 04-28-06, 11:31 AM	Since you are dead set against referring to "modern morality" for use in a D&D game, I assume you must know how it differs from your interpretation of D&D morality. Except for the fact that one part of my criticism is that there is no consistent definition that is usable during an actual game. Which I've said many times. Which you've read many times. Which you seem to forget when convenient to you. So tell me how you would use "modern morality" as a resource for resolving alignment conflicts in a gaming session and then I'll be able to look at this resource and tell you how it differs from the alignment rules as written. Since I don't even think there is such a thing as a uniform clearly defined system of modern morality, there's no way to answer the question. Actually, I don't think there is a difference of opinion here about looting being right or wrong. "Looting" is wrong by definition. The word inherently has a negative connotation. Much like "murder" is wrong by definition. However, every killing is not a murder, and not every instance of taking an item off a dead body is not a looting. Man, this is the semantic b.s., you've been using all thread. Either there is a difference of opinion of whether looting is wrong or there is a difference of opinion as ot what looting is. Either way, there is a difference of opinion, which is the important point. Ok, what things are there (BESIDES looting) that you personally consider "good" that are not good in D&D, or that you consider "evil" which are not evil in D&D. Why is my personal definition of good and evil relevant? It's not like I have a manual of "Wrecan's Personal Morality" that I would hand out to players before a session ot let them know what is expected of them. But since you asked, I should let you know that I am a Reform Jew. So here are some things that are personally not good but which I wouldn't penalize a good character for in-game: 1) Taking the name of the Jewish God in vain 2) Worshipping idols 3) Being disrespectful to your parents (even if not physically) 4) Eating a live animal (such as swallowing a goldfish as a prank) In real-life, I find these things to be morally wrong. If a paladin were to commit such acts in-game, he would suffer no alignment consequences. Please don't try to explain to me why you don't think these things are particularly non-good. I didn't share aspects of my personal system of morality to have them criticized. But since for some unknown reason you seem to think that my listing things that I find personally non-good but not in-game non-good would be relevant to this discussion, there they are.
StormKnight 04-28-06, 12:48 PM	Except for the fact that one part of my criticism is that there is no consistent definition that is usable during an actual game. Which I've said many times. Which you've read many times. Which you seem to forget when convenient to you. Your original contention was basically using "modern" morality is not useful because D&D morality does not match up with it. Here is an example <insert cops burning building example> "Modern morality is not useful because it is too vague to be useful" is a potentially valid argument, but it wasn't your original assessment, which is what I have been arguing with. So tell me how you would use "modern morality" as a resource for resolving alignment conflicts in a gaming session..." I'd use it as an assumed foundation to start with, and would be unlikely to have conflicts in the first place. Man, this is the semantic b.s., you've been using all thread. Either there is a difference of opinion of whether looting is wrong or there is a difference of opinion as ot what looting is. Either way, there is a difference of opinion, which is the important point. Its not just semantics BS, its the crux of the issue with looting. Taking the possessions of the dead is not inherently "evil" in our society. Its not even inherently "wrong". It DOES have very strict restrictions on how and when it can be done and what rules it follows. Deviate from those restrictions and society will judge you "evil" or "wrong". The classic D&D treasure acquiring situations do not have direct correlations in the modern world. So here are some things that are personally not good but which I wouldn't penalize a good character for in-game: 1) Taking the name of the Jewish God in vain 2) Worshipping idols 3) Being disrespectful to your parents (even if not physically) 4) Eating a live animal (such as swallowing a goldfish as a prank) As an aside, are these "non-good" or "evil"? But, more to the point... #1 should be irrelevant in a D&D game. #3 and #4 will probably rarely come up, and even if I see them as just "non-good" and you see them as "evil", that's unlikely to cause any issues at all in the game. #2 is the only real possible issue. I assume that as a mature, intelligent person, you can recognize that a character of a different religion will naturally have different ideas on what constitues appropriate behavior for that religion. If you do not recognize this, then no amount of the rules telling you "its ok" will make it ok for you (as evidenced by certain anti-D&D individuals). I think that if you come into the game with these assumptions, we can happilly play a game, slay monsters, gain treasure and whatnot, without ever running into a problem. If you believe, outside of the game, that something is actually "good" that I consider "evil", its likely we have problems beyond what any rules could handle. I probably do not want to associate with you as a person, regardless of whether or not we can agree on a common morality to use within a game.
wrecan 04-28-06, 02:01 PM	Your original contention was basically using "modern" morality is not useful because D&D morality does not match up with it. Because I assumed that those folks using the term "modern morality" had a workable definition in mind. It was only after much probing that I concluded that there is no workable definition. To date, none has been provided to me. I'd use it as an assumed foundation to start with, and would be unlikely to have conflicts in the first place. The thread has been discussing means for resolving alignment disputes. One cannot "use" and "assumed foundation". What you are discussing is a theory, which is academic and unhelpful in any practical sense. Its not just semantics BS, its the crux of the issue with looting. Taking the possessions of the dead is not inherently "evil" in our society. Its not even inherently "wrong". Depending on the context, for which we would call the evil context "looting" and the non-evil context "borrowing" or "using". It's still avoiding the issue: reaosnable minds can disagree on the line between the two and there is no useful reference for a DM outside the game materials for distinguishing the two. It DOES have very strict restrictions on how and when it can be done and what rules it follows. Where can I find these strict restrictions written down? (This is the fourth time I've asked you and I'd really like some sort of answer.) You keep referring ot them as if I can verify your statements somewhere and I suspect you're just making it up base don what your gut tells you. As an aside, are these "non-good" or "evil"? Judaism doesn't recognize good or evil in a D&D sense. I recognize them as "transgressions against God" which is pretty close to evil. Certainly not as serious a transgression as murder or looting, but a transgression nonetheless. But, more to the point... #1 should be irrelevant in a D&D game. Even if the game is set in a campaign based on ancient Judea? #3 and #4 will probably rarely come up So what? The point is they exist. You asked for it and I gave it to you. It doesn't matter if it's rare or not. if I see them as just "non-good" and you see them as "evil", that's unlikely to cause any issues at all in the game. I was trying not to insult people in real-life who might have done this. Boy, you're obtuse. If it helps to further the discussion, assume I think of such actions as evil. I assume that as a mature, intelligent person, you can recognize that a character of a different religion will naturally have different ideas on what constitues appropriate behavior for that religion. Screw you. I asked you as a courtesy not to judge the beliefs I was writing down and you're doing it anyway. You asked me to provide personal beliefs and then you slam me for them. You have no right to judge me.
StormKnight 04-28-06, 02:48 PM	Because I assumed that those folks using the term "modern morality" had a workable definition in mind. It was only after much probing that I concluded that there is no workable definition. To date, none has been provided to me. I don't know what the definition of the original people who brought up modern morality would be. I would define it as your personal morality (you being a modern person). My statement (with the pre-condition that we are two people that can get along well enough to play a social game together) is that if you use your own personal morality to judge what is good or evil in the game, it will not differ from what my personal morality judges good or evil in the game enough to interfere with the playability and enjoyment of the game. It's still avoiding the issue: reaosnable minds can disagree on the line between the two and there is no useful reference for a DM outside the game materials for distinguishing the two. I agree; reasonable people can disagree on the guiding line. I think there is a useful reference outside the game. I agree its not a comprehensive reference, but its certainly as good as anything in the game. However, maybe I'm way off. How do you see the D&D rules providing a clear line of when and in what circumstances to take the property of the deceased? Where can I find these strict restrictions written down? (This is the fourth time I've asked you and I'd really like some sort of answer.) You keep referring ot them as if I can verify your statements somewhere and I suspect you're just making it up base don what your gut tells you. I have no idea. However: 1) People sometimes are killed. 2) Someone else winds up with their stuff. #1 is true. #2 is normally true (any disagreements). I think it is logically true that for a person to have a thing, they must either take it or be given it. Since the deceased cannot give it, someone must have taken it. Even if the game is set in a campaign based on ancient Judea? Then following D&D rules morality probably won't provide you with guidelines appropriate to those times anyway. So what? The point is they exist. You asked for it and I gave it to you. It doesn't matter if it's rare or not. It matters very much if its rare or not, because the issue is coming up with a playable way of resolving issues, not an absolute or exhaustive way of resolving issues. I was trying not to insult people in real-life who might have done this. Boy, you're obtuse. If it helps to further the discussion, assume I think of such actions as evil. Well, "not-good" in real world terms implies bad, but in D&D terms this could mean evil or neutral. Neutral does not imply bad. Hence the confusion. Screw you. I asked you as a courtesy not to judge the beliefs I was writing down and you're doing it anyway. You asked me to provide personal beliefs and then you slam me for them. You have no right to judge me. I'm genuinely sorry if you feel I've judged you in any way. I just said that if you are an intelligent person, you should be able to distinguish that this piece of morality will not carry over to the game (assuming its even relevant to the game) without having to be given a "rule" for it. Some people (And I do NOT mean you here, for you are CLEARLY not such a person) feel that the portrayal of religion and magic in D&D violates their idea of right and wrong. Telling them "the rules say its ok" won't make it ok for them.
Tormsskull 04-28-06, 03:10 PM	My statement (with the pre-condition that we are two people that can get along well enough to play a social game together) is that if you use your own personal morality to judge what is good or evil in the game, it will not differ from what my personal morality judges good or evil in the game enough to interfere with the playability and enjoyment of the game. I just said that if you are an intelligent person, you should be able to distinguish that this piece of morality will not carry over to the game (assuming its even relevant to the game) without having to be given a "rule" for it. So what you are saying is that two like-minded people should be able to sit down, apply modern morality to the D&D game, and not have any issues because they are like-minded. However, if you have two unlike-minded people, then one would should be able to distinguish that certain parts of morality (namely specific religious beliefs) would not apply to the D&D game unless there was a specific rule for it. If I am understanding you correctly, you are basically saying that the majority define modern morality as it applies to the D&D game, correct? So if someone from a minority group joined your D&D group, they should understand that what they consider modern morality does NOT transcend into the game, because their views are in the minority? This seems like it opens a whole can of worms. Essentially you are allocating more value to your understanding of modern morality than to others understanding of it. None of this should pass through to the game, because no matter if you are Native American, Chinese, African American, Russian, or whatever, you all are playing the ROLES of CHARACTERS in a D&D game. Tordek, Jozan, Mialee, and Lidda have NO CLUE what you think modern morality is. To them modern morality = what the books say. To the OPer, check the sig, visit the thread, sign if you so choose, save yourself the headaches :)
wrecan 04-28-06, 03:15 PM	I would define it as your personal morality (you being a modern person).Right, and by definition, if two people disagree on whether a PC's action is immoral, your system of perosnal morality is never of any use. That's the point.How do you see the D&D rules providing a clear line of when and in what circumstances to take the property of the deceased? Since the rules contemplate and even rely on the idea that PCs get to keep the treasure of those they kill, the rules provide a pretty clear line that looting should not have any alignment consequences. See? Easy. Since the deceased cannot give it, someone must have taken it.Sometimes stuff is buried with a person. Sometimes the head of state uses it to supplement the state treasury. Never does the stuff go to the person's killer. In the real world, historically or presently.Then following D&D rules morality probably won't provide you with guidelines appropriate to those times anyway.Of course it will. The alignment system, which is at its heart a game mechanic, does not have to comport with the in-game morality of the campaign world. Just because the Slobarkan Regency believes elves must be slain as demon-spawn and goblins are the blessed children of peace, doesn't mean that killing elves is "good" and killing "goblins" is evil. It means that the Slobarkan Regency has an in-game morality that differs from the aligntment system. Just like people in real life do.It matters very much if its rare or not, because the issue is coming up with a playable way of resolving issues, not an absolute or exhaustive way of resolving issues.What?! no, we're trying to determine how to resolve issues in-game. The more exhaustive the better. 99% of actions taken by PCs should not cause an alignment discussion. By definition, therefore, all alignment-sensitive actions are going to be rare.I'm genuinely sorry if you feel I've judged you in any way. I just said that if you are an intelligent person, you should be able to distinguish that this piece of morality will not carry over to the game (assuming its even relevant to the game) without having to be given a "rule" for it.The point is that people's personal moralities will differ. I've seen folks who claimed that eating meat is obviously evil and paladins must be vegetarians. (Seriously!) I've seen folks who claim that paladins "obviously" must use non-lethal damage before lethal damage is ever used against them. I've seen so many stupid ideas about paladins that I would never presume to advocate the use of common sense or personal morality as a guidepost for adjudicating rules.Telling them "the rules say its ok" won't make it ok for them.Neither will telling them "I personally feel it's deserving of a paladin's fall." That's the very definition of arbitrary DMing.
StormKnight 04-28-06, 03:48 PM	Since the rules contemplate and even rely on the idea that PCs get to keep the treasure of those they kill, the rules provide a pretty clear line that looting should not have any alignment consequences. See? Easy. Right. The townspeople tell the good PCs about the terrible ogre that raided their town and stole the sacred talisman that has protected the town for generations. The good PCs track down the Ogre and slay it. The good PCs take the sacred talisman. The good PCs say "Wow, we can probably get a few thousand for selling this over in the big city" and head off to pawn their loot without the slightest pang of guilt. Never does the stuff go to the person's killer. In the real world, historically or presently. Unless it would be rightfully be theirs anyway. Unless they need it to survive. Unless the organization they work for sells it to help pay expenses which winds up back in their paycheck. I've seen folks who claimed that eating meat is obviously evil and paladins must be vegetarians. (Seriously!) Not being a vegetarian myself, I would assume that such a person would consider ME evil and wouldn't want to game with me. :) I've seen folks who claim that paladins "obviously" must use non-lethal damage before lethal damage is ever used against them. Ok...so would you be able to use the rules in such a way that it would actually persuade these people? Tormsskull - No, I'm not saying the majority determines morality. I'm saying with a group of normal people it usually just won't matter. Since doing things this way will avoid most problems, its a valid way of doing things. No, it won't avoid ALL problems, but then neither will following only the rules. I mean, c'mon, in all of human no one has defined a code of deciding what's good and evil that comprehensively covers all situations in a way anyone reading it can agree on. Why in the world do you think RPG designers would have managed to?
wrecan 04-28-06, 04:18 PM	Right. The townspeople tell the good PCs about the terrible ogre that raided their town and stole the sacred talisman that has protected the town for generations. The good PCs track down the Ogre and slay it. The good PCs take the sacred talisman. The good PCs say "Wow, we can probably get a few thousand for selling this over in the big city" and head off to pawn their loot without the slightest pang of guilt. The looting has no alignment consequences. Leaving a town defenseless and endangered when they could have done something about might. Unless it would be rightfully be theirs anyway. They still can't loot. It's up to the state to do that. Then they receive it, not through looting but through inheritance. Yeesh. I've gone over this with you already. Unless they need it to survive. You mean if I am poor and starving I can kill a shopkeeper and take his groceries? I'm pretty sure most people think that to be evil. Unless the organization they work for sells it to help pay expenses which winds up back in their paycheck. Nope. Never happens. The police do not receive funding from the proceeds of the people they kill. The army does not get funding for the proceeds of the people they kill. When that happens in the real world we call it... guess what? That's right! Looting. Ok...so would you be able to use the rules in such a way that it would actually persuade these people? As I'm learning, some people would refuse to acknowledge the paladin is a player class even by shoving the right pages of the PH in their face. I'm saying with a group of normal people it usually just won't matter. Since doing things this way will avoid most problems, its a valid way of doing things. It's not a "way of doing things" at all. It's merely a complicated way of explaining your presumption that a group of like-minded players won't have problems in the first place. But that is belied by the fact that alignment disputes are posted all the time. That's a fact that's been pointed out to you and to which your only response seems to be that you think these players actually do fundamentally agree, but are being confused into disagreeing by the written alignment rules. no one has defined a code of deciding what's good and evil that comprehensively covers all situations in a way anyone reading it can agree on. Why in the world do you think RPG designers would have managed to? They don't have to cover all situations. Just ones that would arise in a game.
StormKnight 04-28-06, 05:23 PM	wrecan - well, I think this is back to the point of going hopelessly in circles. I can refute what you say, you'll refute what I say, so on out to infinity. I'll go ahead and quit here. I'll just stick with doing what works with me. You keep sticking with doing what works for you. And if the poor fellows who think a paladin should fall for frowning at an inopportune time want help, maybe if we each say "no" in a different way they are twice as likely to actually listen. We can hope. As I'm learning, some people would refuse to acknowledge the paladin is a player class even by shoving the right pages of the PH in their face. Sadly very, very true. I can't count how many times I've had people argue (about things much less controversial than morality) something that is right on the fnerking piece of paper in front of them! P: "I use scorching ray to fry all the goblins!" DM: "Um, scorching ray only hits one target." P: "No it doesn't! It can get everything in line of sight!" DM: "Look, here's the spell description, right here, ONE TARGET!" P: "I've played this game for years, I know how the spell works!" (Hoping I actually picked a one target spell for the example)