Alignment Sucks

[TarlSS]

It would be better if we just nixed the alignment system and alignment targeted abilities. Or built the whole thing ground up without the alignment system in mind.
D&D is far more flexible than to 'need' to target 'People with X point of view". Targetting subtypes and magically enchanted folk is fine. It makes sense if magic circles protect against demons, devils and people with the fiendish template, I've never really seen an example in literature where magic was so awesome and selective that you know, people couldn't pass through bubbles of good or something retarded like that.

[Digestor]

Hmm... the problem is undoing it would unhinge a lot of spells... smile evil, protection from, as well as the bonus abilities spells recieve when used against evil (or chaotic... or good... or etc.) opponents.

[NeremWorld]

Here's another alignment question (this time of an actual character, since that appears to be the easiest to judge), this man was a soldier in an elite military force that was effectively oppressing people who didn't specifically belong to the federation that had created the elite force. He was a consumate soldier, following orders strictly and believing that the military was the legitimate 'higher power' in the world.

He was something of a jerk though, who hated one of the good guys for a string of killing his girlfriend's in combat, and then constantly beating him down in battle. Though he was a jerk because he acted like a jerk to most people. But he has his good points, like he's willing to go out of his way to try to free this woman's soul that is bound within several cursed weapons, including his own, which he vows to use to destroy the other weapons.

Here's the kicker. At one point, late in the war, his superiors request that he mass-murder a massive town of people in order to scare people from helping the rebellion that the good guys belong to, and to end the war quickly. He is also distinctly told that if he doesn't do it, one of his friends will. He ends up doing it, and in the resulting battle he is captured by the rebellion and his group is crushed. They however spare him, and refuse to hand him over to the main government to be executed because they believe that he had no personal desire to do it, and did it out of being forced to through orders (which was true.

What would his alignment end up being?

[Neeek]

Um...Being willing to massacre a whole village? Either LG(if these were *evil* creatures there wouldn't even be a conversation on whether or not it was good.), NG, CG, CN, N, LN, LE, NE, or CE. Like every other possible series of events you post. The D&D alignment system is batshit. I mostly use it to determine which spell effects work on which guy.

[Digestor]

Yeah, Neeek managed to sum it all up pretty well...

On an aside, Nerem - was part of your character's history influenced by Tactics Ogre/cling together?

[Maj]

The above example aside (mostly 'cuz it sucks)

I wouldn't have used the term "sucks"... Just incomplete.

what about a greedy person? Someone who's willing to trample over others if the reward is great enough (so murder is usually not on his list, but... sayyyy calling the cops on his neighbors isn't too bad, nor is turning in a "friend" for a cash reward, or possibly stealing from someone) - neutral evil... right? What a bout a person who kills people, but is generally a good neighbor and friend... he just happens to love flaying children and eating their innards... not that he does it often... neutral evil... right? The two aren't even comparable...

I'm not sure that I'd classify either one of those examples as specifically neutral evil, but - with heavy emphasis in the fact that the first man's motivation is actually greed - I'd certainly dump both into the "evil" camp.

And no, they're not in the same category when it comes to the magnitude of evil-ness, but does that mean that one can't be evil? If I donate to charity, volunteer to plant some roses by the side of the highway one weekend, am a generally nice and helpful person, am I somehow non-good because I'm not Mother Theresa?

Turning in your nieghbor, or calling the cops on him is a lawful, and not an evil act by the way.

I believe that internal motivations define action. In keeping with that, a person's reason for committing to some act defines his alignment, not the act itself. Evil without action is misery. Action without intent is meaningless.

If the guy turned in his neighbor because his goal was to add to his hoard of wealth, he's being a selfish jerk. If he turned in his neighbor because he feels obligated to the law, he's being obedient. If he did it because he feared for other people's safety and well-being, then he's being thoughtful and helpful.

It would be better if we just nixed the alignment system and alignment targeted abilities.

<nod>

I use it for basic point of reference - just like "blonde" and "loves shrimp" - but that's about it.

[Digestor]

1154396865[/unixtime]]
I'm not sure that I'd classify either one of those examples as specifically neutral evil, but - with heavy emphasis in the fact that the first man's motivation is actually greed - I'd certainly dump both into the "evil" camp.

Most definitely - the only reason was greed, I tried to toss in both a lawful and a chaotic act to cancel out one another and simply provide more for the "I don't care about law, or lack of law, I care about myself".

And no, they're not in the same category when it comes to the magnitude of evil-ness, but does that mean that one can't be evil? If I donate to charity, volunteer to plant some roses by the side of the highway one weekend, am a generally nice and helpful person, am I somehow non-good because I'm not Mother Theresa?

Oh my no - but that's exactly what I was getting at - the two are both neutralish evil, but they're so different. The problem with it all is that there are a lot of key intangible factors involved that we as humans can process but the system can't.

[Maj]

The problem with it all is that there are a lot of key intangible factors involved that we as humans can process but the system can't.

And we humans don't process it the same way, either... I actually took a psychology/philosophy program at college called "Evil." Awesome program. The first day of class, the students were divided into groups and had to come up with a definition of evil. There were as many definitions as groups. By the end of the program, there were still as many definitions as there were people.

We immersed ourselves in the subject and still couldn't agree. Without the constraints of the D&D alignment system. Is it any wonder that alignment sparks so many debates?

[DP]

I propose that instead of law and chaos they have sharks and jets.

[Digestor]

1154400078[/unixtime]]

The problem with it all is that there are a lot of key intangible factors involved that we as humans can process but the system can't.

And we humans don't process it the same way, either... I actually took a psychology/philosophy program at college called "Evil." Awesome program. The first day of class, the students were divided into groups and had to come up with a definition of evil. There were as many definitions as groups. By the end of the program, there were still as many definitions as there were people.

We immersed ourselves in the subject and still couldn't agree. Without the constraints of the D&D alignment system. Is it any wonder that alignment sparks so many debates?

Are you serious about that class or was that subtle humor? If so - I'll be looking for it next semester.

[Fwib]

Evil 101 gets my vote

[Digestor]

What was the final project like? Make an over-coat out of human skin? A child encased in molten iron made into a priceless figurine? A machine that makes puppies kill themselves?

[Nidhogg]

You can't forget the unit on nefarious moustache twisting.

[Draco_Argentum]

I hear Maj got top marks in that.

Law/Chaos is crap. I can't come up with a way for their to be a law team that fights for cosmic law. Same for chaos. At least good can "protect the innocent".

[Digestor]

The inevitables! Possibly my favourite 'things' (in theory). They're basically lawful neutral constructs from Mechanus that run around enforcing laws that humanoids break!

Dragon magezine had a pretty nifty piece on them, The Ecology of ____, fun read.

[The_Matthew]

Personally I think that the inevitables are a bunch of obnoxious jerks, I mean come on some of them 'enforce' the law that everyone has to die. For some people it's cruel punishment (read anyone who became immortal early, possibly through no fault of their own) as a CR 16 robot comes and cracks open their skull, for the rest of the world they are a mild inconvenience at best.

[Digestor]

Yeah, they basically are overly-ridiculous paladin-esque enforcers of laws that suck, but they're so cool!

Plus, I imagine having a Marut help you clear out a necromancer's tomb/lair would be a pretty nifty sight... err imaginitive visage? Interestingly enough, I wonder if a Marut would also help to make sure someone doesn't die before their time?

[The_Matthew]

The way that D&D is, my vote goes for no. I mean rais dead is something that actually happens so there is no reason to enforce not dying before one's time, and that same magic can't bring someone back who died of old age, so there is no reason to piss in the clerics cheerios about it. So the Marut probably sees it a a time saver and instead goes on the business of getting punked by powerful liches.

[RandomCasualty]

1154400078[/unixtime]]
And we humans don't process it the same way, either... I actually took a psychology/philosophy program at college called "Evil." Awesome program. The first day of class, the students were divided into groups and had to come up with a definition of evil. There were as many definitions as groups. By the end of the program, there were still as many definitions as there were people.

We immersed ourselves in the subject and still couldn't agree. Without the constraints of the D&D alignment system. Is it any wonder that alignment sparks so many debates?

Yeah, I think it's unreasonable to expect an RPG to settle an age old debate about morality. In the end you're really left with two moral systems.

No morality: Evil and good have no game mechanic effects and dont' exist as descriptors for people.

DM Decides: You use the DM's moral system, as good or bad as it may be.

[The_Matthew]

I'd only accept the 'DM decides' moral option if the DM has actually studied morality in any way, because otherwise we are actually following the third moral option:

make it up as you go along, or hey look over there.

[RandomCasualty]

1154462049[/unixtime]]I'd only accept the 'DM decides' moral option if the DM has actually studied morality in any way, because otherwise we are actually following the third moral option:

make it up as you go along, or hey look over there.

Not quite. I think any decent DM can handle morality in such a way that it doesn't cause any real problems. Most people have a pretty consistent moral code, at least for judging outside actions. Now "consistent" as far as morality goes is still fairly inconsistent, but that's because you're dealing with a subject with so many permutations and grey areas that any reasonable moral system beyond a rigid inflexible code is going to have to allow for various mitigating circumstances.

Ultimately, as Maj said, everyone has their own definition of evil. Those just aren't going to agree. So regardless, you might as well forget about "agreeing" on moral systems. You're just going to have to accept the decision of the DM as the final authority, and yeah sometimes you probably won't agree with him. But so long as his moral ideas are fairly mainstream, it shouldn't be a problem.

I mean, I've been running a "call em like you see em" system of morality for the longest time and never had any major problems with it. I've always believed that alignment is just some descriptor I put on the PCs characters, not some arbitrary restriction telling them how to act. So I mean, I let the PCs do their thing and I change their alignment accordingly. But generally they could care less what their alignment is.

In the case of classes that have alignment restrictions, I pretty much let them know if they're performing an alignment detrimental act before they do it.

[Maj]

Are you serious about that class or was that subtle humor?

Oh, I'm dead serious. It was more than just a class, though... It was one of those "classes" where you'd be in school for four to six hours a day and it counted for lots more credit than just one normal class.

What was the final project like? Make an over-coat out of human skin? A child encased in molten iron made into a priceless figurine? A machine that makes puppies kill themselves?

No. The final project was taking what we'd talked about in class and forming our own definition of evil. During class, we read a lot of philosophy (Plato, Dostoevsty, Voltaire) and did quite a bit of psychology work (Elliott Aronson's The Social Animal is fantastic). We talked about evil as something big and absolute (like killing babies and putting their heads on pikes), and evil as subjective, insidious, and innate (Jane Elliott's A Class Divided {PBS, OK}). We tried to apply this information to real life (Abu Ghraib and the concept of turture, the idea of "white man's guilt"). The class was utterly fascinating and both professors were awesome.

It was also highly demonstrative of what a program at Evergreen is like. Totally nutty, yet entirely capable of being applied to your life.

I hear Maj got top marks in that.

You know it.

Law/Chaos is crap. I can't come up with a way for their to be a law team that fights for cosmic law. Same for chaos. At least good can "protect the innocent".

I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time with the Law/Chaos bit. Good/Evil is obvious (ish), yet the idea of someone being so caught up in following the rules (or so caught up in breaking them) is completely... Not understood. Would it change things to remove the "personal code" bit from the description?

[Neeek]

1154464699[/unixtime]]
I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time with the Law/Chaos bit. Good/Evil is obvious (ish), yet the idea of someone being so caught up in following the rules (or so caught up in breaking them) is completely... Not understood. Would it change things to remove the "personal code" bit from the description?

Not really. The problem with that is that walking from a utopian paradise into a tyrannical dictatorship would change your alignment immediately upon crossing the border.

What "the rules" or "the laws" are is based entirely on "where you are" not "what sort of person you are", so trying to base any sort of ethical system on such is crazy.

[TarlSS]

Well, the way to divorce D&D from alignment would be to divorce the Kantian circle from moral reasoning altoghether. Things of demonic/abyssal nature are evil, regardless of action or intention, and things of celestial nature are good. Things that are in between are neutral. So, essentially Evil=Devil Neutral=Material Good=Angel. Smite evil essentially becomes Smite demon/devil/fiend/elderthing and smite good becomes smite angelic things. Chaotic/Law would pertain to respective outsiders as well. Sure, this would nerf alignment based spells, but clerics don't really need alignment based spells to be CODzilla anyway. Paladins could just run around acting any stupid way they care to, as long as they remain officially on 'the Angel's team'

[RandomCasualty]

1154464699[/unixtime]]
I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time with the Law/Chaos bit. Good/Evil is obvious (ish), yet the idea of someone being so caught up in following the rules (or so caught up in breaking them) is completely... Not understood. Would it change things to remove the "personal code" bit from the description?

I've always considered the personal code to be the most important feature of law/chaos.

If you don't use the personal code, I find law/chaos tends to break down, since a guy who is lawful in one kingdom may be chaotic in another. Trying to equate being lawful with following the law is probably a bad idea and more than anything convinces people to disregard the law/chaos axis. Law/chaos isn't about order versus anarchy, not on a large scale anyway.

In general we see lawful characters as being true to their word, and follow the rules of their given organization (the personal code). In general, lawfuls try to honor agreements and do what is considered "ethical" behavior for their position. Note that ethics in this case is not the same as moral. A personal code could in fact be contrary to common morality, such as the legal ethics of a defense lawyer doing all he can to get a murderer off on a technicality, or a soldier who is slaughtering innocents because he is sworn to obey the orders of his commander. In both cases the characters have been ethical, following the rules, but have done otherwise immoral things.