Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Conskite 08-19-06, 01:49 AM	I think it is time to debate the meaning of good and evil in D&D. SO, what do you think it means to be good? What does it mean to be evil? [See thread: I dare you to make good interesting].
jagggar 08-19-06, 02:02 AM	Well, off the top of my head. . . . (And straight from the SRD. . .) "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Does that count? :P To some degree I think the details of alignment are dependent upon the DM and campaign. There's a different feel when the NPC who runs around and kills all of "stereotypically evil creature A" is good and when he's evil.
Conskite 08-19-06, 02:26 AM	What actions are evil, and when is it ok for good characters to perform them ?
OneWinged4ngel 08-19-06, 02:27 AM	I think it is time to debate the meaning of good and evil in D&D. SO, what do you think it means to be good? What does it mean to be evil? [See thread: I dare you to make good interesting]. Really, alignment in D&D cannot be defined without contradicting canon, because all our sources on alignment (right down to the PHB) are hardly thought out and self-contradictory. The BoED and BoVD are even worse on that matter (Some contradictions being obscenely obvious. For example: Ravages) There could be an objective standard and definition of morality, but Wizards never really agreed on what it should be... and as such we have the mess we have right now. A better subject, and perhaps more appropriate to these boards, would be to discuss how Eberron defines alignments. It is not in fact truly different from the normal alignment system in any way except that "always" alignments are banished from monsters, and clerics need not be beyond one step from their deity in alignment. The only thing is that alignment confuses a lot of people, and Eberron tries to lay down something of a rough definition for how its alignment works, clarifying from the PHB somewhat. Now then, to say that killing is Evil is sort of a conundrum for D&D; your average paladin goes out and kills things all the time. Your adventurers and characters in D&D are going to go out and kill stuff... that's a part of what the game is about, even in a very high RP game. Let's get to the cause of alignments. In Eberron, alignments are not about the intentions or even really the bigger actions, but the way you go about solving problems. Again, people seem confused by this, which is why we get so many threads about why Kaius is LE and why Aurala is NG. Kaius is LE because, while he promotes peace across Khorvaire and fights evil (the Blood of Vol) and seems to have a genuine interest in the well-being of his nation and its people... he is completely ruthless in attaining his goals. He *would* kill people in his own court, or use torture, or throw his own son in a deep jail cell and make him forever mute. It's for the greater good, after all... Aurala is NG because, while she aims for war to engulf Eberron and wants to subvert the other nations to her will by her scheming, she thinks she's fighting the good, noble fight, and believes there CAN be noble war. She *won't* say it's better to kill a few allies to win a major victory, she won't kill people in her own court, and so on and so forth. Another thing worth noting is that Eberron encourages sentient people to be... well... people. For example, let's take the Oathbreaker drow. We can say they're CE, right? But they can love, they can care for their own, and they can be intensely loyal. However, they resent authority and break from tradition, live by their wits, and they'd torture or slaughter any outclanners without a second thought. This doesn't mean that they do evil for the sake of evil. That is the domain of the truly insane, or the saturday morning cartoon villains. Likewise, making a mistake doesn't make you evil. As for Chaos and Law, these things are even more poorly defined in the PHB and other sources, and people tend to be confused over them even more, right up to coming up with silly ideas like "Lawful people have to follow the law of the land." The stereotypical organized crime boss is Lawful Evil, because he's organized, not because he follows the laws of whatever land he's in. Actually, it's his living to break those laws ;) I'm under the impression that, at least in Eberron, Law and Chaos are measured as degrees of order and disorder. One who follows a stringent code, or behaves in an orderly and more predictable fashion is lawful. Someone who acts on whim and feeling, who seems to be more random and unpredictable, would be chaotic. Chaos embodies change, while Law embodies rigidity.
Conskite 08-19-06, 02:39 AM	Really, alignment in D&D cannot be defined without contradicting canon, because all our sources on alignment (right down to the PHB) are hardly thought out and self-contradictory. The BoED and BoVD are even worse on that matter (Some contradictions being obscenely obvious. For example: Ravages) There could be an objective standard and definition of morality, but Wizards never really agreed on what it should be... and as such we have the mess we have right now. A better subject, and perhaps more appropriate to these boards, would be to discuss how Eberron defines alignments. It is not in fact truly different from the normal alignment system in any way except that "always" alignments are banished from monsters, and clerics need not be beyond one step from their deity in alignment. The only thing is that alignment confuses a lot of people, and Eberron tries to lay down something of a rough definition for how its alignment works, clarifying from the PHB somewhat. Now then, to say that killing is Evil is sort of a conundrum for D&D; your average paladin goes out and kills things all the time. Your adventurers and characters in D&D are going to go out and kill stuff... that's a part of what the game is about, even in a very high RP game. Let's get to the cause of alignments. In Eberron, alignments are not about the intentions or even really the bigger actions, but the way you go about solving problems. Again, people seem confused by this, which is why we get so many threads about why Kaius is LE and why Aurala is NG. Kaius is LE because, while he promotes peace across Khorvaire and fights evil (the Blood of Vol) and seems to have a genuine interest in the well-being of his nation and its people... he is completely ruthless in attaining his goals. He *would* kill people in his own court, or use torture, or throw his own son in a deep jail cell and make him forever mute. It's for the greater good, after all... Aurala is NG because, while she aims for war to engulf Eberron and wants to subvert the other nations to her will by her scheming, she thinks she's fighting the good, noble fight, and believes there CAN be noble war. She *won't* say it's better to kill a few allies to win a major victory, she won't kill people in her own court, and so on and so forth. Another thing worth noting is that Eberron encourages sentient people to be... well... people. For example, let's take the Oathbreaker drow. We can say they're CE, right? But they can love, they can care for their own, and they can be intensely loyal. However, they resent authority and break from tradition, live by their wits, and they'd torture or slaughter any outclanners without a second thought. This doesn't mean that they do evil for the sake of evil. That is the domain of the truly insane, or the saturday morning cartoon villains. Likewise, making a mistake doesn't make you evil. As for Chaos and Law, these things are even more poorly defined in the PHB and other sources, and people tend to be confused over them even more, right up to coming up with silly ideas like "Lawful people have to follow the law of the land." The stereotypical organized crime boss is Lawful Evil, because he's organized, not because he follows the laws of whatever land he's in. Actually, it's his living to break those laws ;) I'm under the impression that, at least in Eberron, Law and Chaos are measured as degrees of order and disorder. One who follows a stringent code, or behaves in an orderly and more predictable fashion is lawful. Someone who acts on whim and feeling, who seems to be more random and unpredictable, would be chaotic. Chaos embodies change, while Law embodies rigidity. Lawful characters are those who follow the law (out of respect or fear). It is what seperates the criminals from the upright citizens.
Comus 08-19-06, 02:41 AM	I don't think it's about actions. It's about reasons. Killing someone is wrong - unless you're defending yourself, unless that person is sentenced to death, unless, unless, unless. Any action can be Good or Evil depending on the reason. If someone does something solely because they will profit, that can be neutral or evil. If he hurts others to do it, then that's evil. If he does something to help others, that can be neutral or good. If he's willing to make sacrifices to help them, it's good. At least, that's how I feel about it.
King_Bulba 08-19-06, 02:47 AM	Lawful characters are those who follow the law (out of respect or fear). It is what seperates the criminals from the upright citizens. But monks are lawful because they are disciplined and that has NOTHING to do with following the law.
Moon-Lancer 08-19-06, 03:10 AM	the alighnment system is too simple. basicly if you break up lawfull to mean order/disiplin and law and break up chaotic to be chaotic and freedom or something like that, it makes more sense. most classes are broken up that way, they just get lumped into lawfull and chaotic. a paladin is lawfull while a monk is disiplined
Mitchell 08-19-06, 03:11 AM	I think it is time to debate the meaning of good and evil in D&D. SO, what do you think it means to be good? What does it mean to be evil? [See thread: I dare you to make good interesting]. When is it not time to debate good and evil in DnD? Lawful has multiple meanings. Is it a personal code of conduct or is it respect for rightful authority? Maybe it's both. If the rightful authority is evil, what's the poor, confused paladin to do? To say that a lawful character obeys, or must obey the law is tantamount to saying that the chaotic character must break it, and that is patently absurd. The CG bard has to kill someone, because, well, it's against the law, and that's what they do. Don't forget to penalize them for every citizen un-murdered and every gold piece un-stolen. Neutrality? Good grief. They have to try and balance everything. Help the lost child find her parents (good), then kill the child, or better yet, kill the parents (evil). After developing a sound battle plan for the party to follow (lawful), disregard it completely no matter the consequences( chaotic). Letting alignment straight-jacket players is, in my experience, the wrong way to go. Let the players do what they want to and let the DM keep track. It's overblown, overplayed, and over analyzed. If you can't figure out what good is, or what evil is, I can't help but think you aren't trying. I try to keep games on that axis. Law and chaos are secondary. If the barbarian becomes a pillar of society and the voice of reason, then maybe they have went a little too far to the lawful side. If the paladin becomes an impulsive hothead with a larcenous streak, they have went too far to chaos. That' all that really matters. If you want to set games up on a Law vs. Chaos axis, consider the effects. This would have paladins standing side-by-side with devils to stop the Eladrin army. If you play all sides equally, it puts the paladin in a bad place. The Eladrin become just as bad as the Devils in the paladin's eyes. Only demons are worse, but if your world is so divided, then the degrees of seperation are probably inconsequential anyway.
OneWinged4ngel 08-19-06, 03:13 AM	I don't think it's about actions. It's about reasons. Killing someone is wrong - unless you're defending yourself, unless that person is sentenced to death, unless, unless, unless. Any action can be Good or Evil depending on the reason. If someone does something solely because they will profit, that can be neutral or evil. If he hurts others to do it, then that's evil. If he does something to help others, that can be neutral or good. If he's willing to make sacrifices to help them, it's good. At least, that's how I feel about it. Maybe, but I'm trying to outline how it's handled in Eberron by the designers, as far as I can see, and NOT how you feel it should be. Kaius's intentions are to strengthen Karrnath as a nation and provide it with a better future, while sorting out its problems. Aurala's intentions are to start a war and conquer the Five Nations. Kaius is the one who's LE, and Aurala is the one who's NG. It's about methods and personality. Kaius is ruthless, while Aurala is kinder. Furthermore... saying that any action can be good or evil based on the intention completely brings down the "objective alignment" idea, which D&D alignment is based on. Once you do this, it is completely subjective. As such... while it fits for real morality, it does not fit with D&D's version of it, and can't really be arbitrated as any sort of rule. You may very well think that some Evil action is the right thing to do, like torturing someone for information that could save many, or dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, killing 100,000 (including many innocents) in order to avoid a land war which would kill millions of innocents and soldiers. It's still Evil. You might think a Good thing to do would be evil. Regardless, since D&D has an objective system, you're supposed to go by a set standard of rules for what is right and wrong and orderly and disorderly, and this is fine. Everyone has a different idea of what is right and what is wrong, and if it was subjective then you couldn't really assign an alignment to anyone. Also, it's worth noting that these are general categorizations based on the quotient of the person's actions and personality. People absolutely should be doing things "counter to their alignment." It's something humans do. Alignment should not be a straitjacket for stereotypical characters without depth or personality, and I think Eberron definitely encourages that it should not be so. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil have various meanings only because they are not consistently defined by the "objective" moral code of D&D, which in actuality constantly contradicts itself. Law equates to the force of order, not following the law of whatever place you happen to be in. Honestly, while not outright WRONG to treat alignment this way (you can treat it however you want in YOUR game) I honestly think it is a completely ridiculous notion. It's a universal philosophy and personality trait, not your degree of adherence to some little system of some meaningless nation (By comparison to a universal principle). Law does not nescessarily mean "rules that you get arrested for if you don't follow them." Law is synonymous with order and axiom. A chaotic person can follow the law to the word, and a Lawful person can break it at his heart's desire. No bickering about this righteous law stuff either, as the principle of law and chaos are on their own axis entirely seperate from Good and Evil, and a Chaotic Evil person isn't any more Evil than a Lawful Evil person, and vice versa. A mob boss is an iconic Lawful Evil person... who doesn't give a gorram copper piece about any silly laws of the land. Really. Couldn't care less. This idea of Law and Chaos equating to the Law of the Land is overdone and rather senseless, and the result of what is pretty much a misnomer. It's pretty much a level or organization, order, and consistency. There are many ways to interpret Good and Evil, as well as Law and Chaos, but you run into a whole lot more concrete logical problems if you want to equate Law and Chaos to following the Laws of the Land than with many others... Alignments are handled a different way in various settings, and by various DMs. All of these ways are actually valid by the way the PHB lays things out, as it's pretty vague and self-contradictory. While I've described how it basically works in Eberron, the case is different in Faerun, for example. There is no universal "correct" way to handle alignment, because the only thing we have to go on as far as book references don't actually define anything for us, and canon is the only thing we can rely on for pan-D&D "correct" claims.
Comus 08-19-06, 02:12 PM	Maybe, but I'm trying to outline how it's handled in Eberron by the designers, as far as I can see, and NOT how you feel it should be. Kaius's intentions are to strengthen Karrnath as a nation and provide it with a better future, while sorting out its problems. Aurala's intentions are to start a war and conquer the Five Nations. Kaius is the one who's LE, and Aurala is the one who's NG. It's about methods and personality. Kaius is ruthless, while Aurala is kinder. No, that's pretty much how I said it was - it's about the why, not the how. Furthermore... saying that any action can be good or evil based on the intention completely brings down the "objective alignment" idea, which D&D alignment is based on. Once you do this, it is completely subjective. As such... while it fits for real morality, it does not fit with D&D's version of it, and can't really be arbitrated as any sort of rule. You may very well think that some Evil action is the right thing to do, like torturing someone for information that could save many, or dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, killing 100,000 (including many innocents) in order to avoid a land war which would kill millions of innocents and soldiers. It's still Evil. You might think a Good thing to do would be evil. Regardless, since D&D has an objective system, you're supposed to go by a set standard of rules for what is right and wrong and orderly and disorderly, and this is fine. Everyone has a different idea of what is right and what is wrong, and if it was subjective then you couldn't really assign an alignment to anyone. Any action can be good or evil, depending on the circumstance it takes place in. Look, torturing someone - bad. Torturing someone to save others - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The nuclear bombing at the end of WWII - good, not evil. It got the Japanese government to surrender, saving the lives of countless Japanese and American people. And yes, D&D has a set morality system. But the set part is the motivations, not the actions. Whenever there are two choices, and the person takes the lesser evil, then that was the best "good" choice they could make. People are good or evil because of why they do what they do - doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just as evil as doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is good.
shadowflamedancer 08-19-06, 02:38 PM	I think it may have been better to name the axis "Order vs Chaos" as opposed to "Law vs Chaos." It really is a miniscule change, but I think it would have been enough for people to not asociate a lawful alignment with following the laws of the land. While in real life I would consider choosing the lesser of two evils as a (slightly) good act, morality is handled differently in D&D. These kind of situations are "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for D&D characters who want to be good. Murdering a man before he kills many others, for example. While destroying a life may not be the most noble of actions, it is certainly more "good" (in both my opinion, and in my understanding of the D&D alignment system) than sitting back and allowing inoccents to be murdered. However, while being more "good" than sitting back and watching, I don't think that the murder itself (in terms of the D&D alignment system) is a "good" action. Perhaps a neutral action, since this is one of those "ends justify the means" kind of situation. Slightly veering off from the main concept, has anyone here run games without alignment? I have toyed with the idea, and for spells such as Detect Evil, or Unholy Blight one could just make an educated guess as to how the target of the spell as been acting lately and work from that. I love alignment threads where people discuss things intelligently. It is marvelously interesting to read all kinds of people's opinions, and it only turns bad when people close their minds, refuse to listen, and act like children. I'm glad this thread (so far) seems to calm and reasonable.
OneWinged4ngel 08-19-06, 04:52 PM	No, that's pretty much how I said it was - it's about the why, not the how. No, it's not. I said their methodology and personality are what defines their alignment, NOT what their intentions and goals are. Kaius's are arguably noble and good, while Aurala's, many would say, are evil. However, by the system that Eberron uses to define alignments, Aurala is NG and Kaius is LE, and this makes perfect sense when you follow their reasoning. People are good or evil or lawful or chaotic based on how they go about pursuing their goals. Say someone wants to make money... a Good person would want to make an honest living, while an Evil person would be willing to steal or cheat to earn money. Making money is the intention, and it is neither Good nor Evil by D&D's system. Likewise, neither is killing things. If Killing Things was on the list of Evil things to do, then you wouldn't have any Good paladins, because they kill things all the time (Yes, I realize some always use nonlethal damage or whatever, trying to be Exalted or whatever... but this is generally not the case) According to Eberron's take on the alignment system, the end does not justify the means. Any action can be good or evil, depending on the circumstance it takes place in. Look, torturing someone - bad. Torturing someone to save others - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The nuclear bombing at the end of WWII - good, not evil. It got the Japanese government to surrender, saving the lives of countless Japanese and American people. And yes, D&D has a set morality system. But the set part is the motivations, not the actions. Whenever there are two choices, and the person takes the lesser evil, then that was the best "good" choice they could make. People are good or evil because of why they do what they do - doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just as evil as doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is good. This is not how alignment works in D&D, something that you consider to be good (like bombing innocents to prevent the deaths of others, playing the numbers game with real lives) are NOT Good. Torturing someone in order to get information out of him to help others is probably the most reliably reinforced idea in alignment discussions from canon we have: It's BAD no matter why you're doing it. It's an Evil thing to do. It is entirely possible with an objective alignment system to think that someone is all good, and may well be good by your own moral judgment, but be EVIL by D&D's, and vice versa. Is the torturer a bad person? Not nescessarily. Is he doing an Evil thing? Most definitely. Actually, this is EXACTLY why a Good paladin should NOT smite people because they ding on the Evil-dar. If everything is made good or evil by subjective circumstances, you are NOT using an objective alignment system, by definition. If you are saying "I think that this guy is doing the right thing in this case, so he's Good" you are using a subjective alignment system. It's perfectly okay for you to do this, but this is not how the alignment system in D&D typically works, and it is impossible for a subjective alignment system to work as a rule, as it will work entirely differently based on every person's bias and opinion. __ If you are using an objective alignment system, you have to decide what is Good, and what is Evil, and what is Lawful and what is Chaotic. It is important to note that these are different from the noncapitalized versions in that they reference a distinct code by which actions and personalities are measured, and puts people into psychological categories. It is not there to argue philosophically over whether torture is right or wrong, but rather to just say it falls under one category. The problem with D&D alignment as it stands is that while it claims to be an objective system, it doesn't actually outline these things in any sensible way. In fact, it directly contradicts itself on a rather constant basis. It *IS* possible to put together a codex and standard of morality based on objective factors, and there are books on philosophy and moral codices that define these things quite rigidly... but D&D designers never really could agree one what was Good or Evil or Chaotic or Lawful. That's why we're left with the mess we have today, and as such there is no purely correct way to handle alignment. It is because of this that I am not discussing what is Good and Evil to do, but rather how such things are arbitrated and how such systems are meant to work in D&D, and what they mean. As to the Order vs Chaos wording fix... yes, I believe it would solve quite a few issues, and reduce the whole silly idea of Lawful meaning law-abiding.
Conskite 08-19-06, 05:08 PM	"Any action can be good or evil, depending on the circumstance it takes place in. Look, torturing someone - bad. Torturing someone to save others - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The nuclear bombing at the end of WWII - good, not evil. It got the Japanese government to surrender, saving the lives of countless Japanese and American people." This is a very controversial view. Many, many people feel that the bombing was not a good action. There are good arguments on both sides. I would say, at the least, it is not black and white. It may have saved many American and Japanese soldiers, but it killed bucket loads of civilians.
OneWinged4ngel 08-19-06, 05:12 PM	"Any action can be good or evil, depending on the circumstance it takes place in. Look, torturing someone - bad. Torturing someone to save others - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The nuclear bombing at the end of WWII - good, not evil. It got the Japanese government to surrender, saving the lives of countless Japanese and American people." This is a very controversial view. Many, many people feel that the bombing was not a good action. There are good arguments on both sides. I would say, at the least, it is not black and white. It may have saved many American and Japanese soldiers, but it killed bucket loads of civilians. You're describing a subjective alignment system, rather than an objective one, and that's a key difference here. D&D has an objective one. Objective means that something fits or it doesn't, and that's a constant principle. Subjective mean it's arbitrated by the situation. Setting the needs of the many to outweigh the few generally falls under Evil in most official examples I've seen, and the way they seem to be handled in most settings. However, doing so will not TURN you Evil, as your alignment is the average bearing of your personality rather than the result of your most recent action. Changing alignment should definitely require a degree of consistency. I personally feel that the bombing was the correct choice, but my opinion doesn't change whether it was Evil or Good. This is the essence of an objective alignment system. Plenty of Evil people think they're morally justified and often think they're more "good" than plenty others.
Comus 08-19-06, 05:46 PM	Let me try and restate what I mean. I believe in objective alignments, where there is a solid, grounded basis for "X is good, Y is bad." However, I believe that the objective part is the reason why the action was taken - the reason is my X and Y. Like, for example, we've got Evil Steve. Evil Steve goes out and gives money to the poor - but he does it where other people are watching, and makes sure that he gets a reputation as being generous and kind. He runs a legitimate store, because he needs something as a cover for his other, ah, hobbies. He is always polite, no matter who he's speaking to - because he doesn't want the law to even look at him twice. Then we've got Joe Good. Joe Good is a master of breaking and entering, and he puts those skills to use - but he gives the money to charity. He helps other thieves plan their own robberies - because he wants to make sure they can do their job without hurting anyone. He's rude, he gets locked up at least once a week, and they've threatened to hang him more than once. But he's still Good. Not very good examples, I know, but do you see what I mean?
OneWinged4ngel 08-19-06, 06:04 PM	While that's all very true, the thing to note here is that a single action or aspect of your behavior doesn't define you. In this case, while the breaking and entering certainly isn't the nicest thing to do, the giving to the poor is good. Actually, out of more context I really can't decide whether this is a Good person overall, but I'll have to assume so because his name is Joe Good :D On the flip side, the Evil guy is defined more by his hobbies. In any case, the Alignment is a general measure for where you stand in the bigger picture. It's where you predominantly stand on the moral scale, and all these things about Good acts and Evil acts don't really matter all too much because it's a matter of consistency and general behavior and manner. I certainly don't argue that these people are still good. You can do all sorts of Good things and still be Evil, and do all sorts of Evil things and still be Good. Doing something within your alignment ALL THE TIME works if you're some iconic embodiment of a moral extreme, like a devil, but it just doesn't work for humans who are anything like realistic. Take Eberron's drow (not FR's... that's a perfect example of stereotypical alignments, which I am strongly opposed to!). Actually, let's look at the Oathbreaker drow. They've pretty much got a CE culture, but they can love, have consciences, are fiercely loyal to their own, and will make sacrifices for others in their tribe, as well as having their own sense of nobility and honor and valor. However, they wouldn't waste a second thought on brutally torturing and killing outclanners. Realistic evil people don't do evil for evil's sake, either. Again, that's the domain of the truly mad, the demons and devils and other evil incarnate things, or saturday morning cartoon villains who want to destroy or conquer the world for no particular logical reason. Some philosophers would argue that no one really does good for Good's sake, either, but that's a more controversial claim. Alignment is inherently a flawed system, as without any real hard way of judging a moral basis we're left with inane disagreements that really can't be right or wrong, and it's basically trying to impose a rigid standard on something that people inherently have conflicting views on. Take any 4 countries with diverse populations in the real world, and they'll give you a COMPLETELY different idea of what Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law mean, as will just talking to several different people. It really falls to DM interpretation and a bit of ad hoc, so there's not much point in arguing over what is and is not an act of a certain alignment in a pan-D&D sense. Meanwhile, I'd suggest checking out this alignment thread. Alignment Sucks (http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=21)
Conskite 08-19-06, 06:12 PM	You're describing a subjective alignment system, rather than an objective one, and that's a key difference here. D&D has an objective one. Objective means that something fits or it doesn't, and that's a constant principle. Subjective mean it's arbitrated by the situation. Setting the needs of the many to outweigh the few generally falls under Evil in most official examples I've seen, and the way they seem to be handled in most settings. However, doing so will not TURN you Evil, as your alignment is the average bearing of your personality rather than the result of your most recent action. Changing alignment should definitely require a degree of consistency. I personally feel that the bombing was the correct choice, but my opinion doesn't change whether it was Evil or Good. This is the essence of an objective alignment system. Plenty of Evil people think they're morally justified and often think they're more "good" than plenty others.e Yes, but there will always be a certain subjectivity to it. I was responding to a question about specific acts and whether they were good or not. In the case of the Bombing of Hiroshima, I took the position that it was not. Applied to a D&D scenario this would be the case as well. If a party wipes out a whole city (killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people) to rid the world of an evil, then that is not a good action.
Comus 08-19-06, 06:18 PM	Alignment is inherently a flawed system, as without any real hard way of judging a moral basis we're left with inane disagreements that really can't be right or wrong, and it's basically trying to impose a rigid standard on something that people inherently have conflicting views on. Take any 4 countries with diverse populations in the real world, and they'll give you a COMPLETELY different idea of what Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law mean, as will just talking to several different people. It really falls to DM interpretation and a bit of ad hoc, so there's not much point in arguing over what is and is not an act of a certain alignment in a pan-D&D sense. Yeah, you're right. Alignment is just so poorly defined that it's more of a burden than anything else, and a cause of endless arguments. And, as you've said, any real solid definition would just exclude the views of at least some portion of the population. I usually just rule alignment stuff on the fly, after all.
OneWinged4ngel 08-19-06, 06:42 PM	Yeah, you're right. Alignment is just so poorly defined that it's more of a burden than anything else, and a cause of endless arguments. And, as you've said, any real solid definition would just exclude the views of at least some portion of the population. I usually just rule alignment stuff on the fly, after all. Pretty much. Check out this thread Alignment Sucks (http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=21) It explains pretty handily why Alignment doesn't work in quite a few of the posts there, and saves me a ton of typing. Either you do away with alignment and throw in a ton of house rules to try and keep the D&D rules intact, or you pretty much just ad hoc it, and you lay out your own set of rules and definitions.
Wopple 08-19-06, 06:46 PM	Lawful characters are those who follow the law (out of respect or fear). It is what seperates the criminals from the upright citizens. Not exactly, tho that is a common misconception, and I often wish they'd use a diffrent word. It's more of just having a code. For example, a character can be lawful evil if he believes in alot of things, like a fair fight. If an opponent dropped his weapon, he may return it to him, etc. Neutral and chaotic characters tend to go for whatever is good for them, or just not even care and be kinda crazy. For example, I think Mal from firefly is Lawful Neutral, which is about the single weirdest thing I can come up with, but I think it's true.
skogenlives 08-19-06, 06:52 PM	I can't remember who asked, but I have played in a Alignment-less campaign. We pretty much completely ignored it; things which were dependant upon it were ignored, such as the Detect X spells. At the time, we did not have a Paladin in the party, which made things slightly easier. Overall, we didn't make really any house rules to change things. The DM removed things which would have caused problems; for example, we never recieved any Holy or Unholy weapons, etc. In terms of spells, we just removed them; spells which dealt with alignment seem to be pretty much exclusively the domain of Clerics, and Clerics certainly have more than enough spells to cast, even with the removel of a few. ~Skogen~
Conskite 08-19-06, 11:21 PM	But monks are lawful because they are disciplined and that has NOTHING to do with following the law. Monks are freaks who ruin the perfection of the alignment system.