Making D&D morality less repulsive.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't want to play in a fantasy land where society is somehow feudal, yet somehow supposedly possesses our modern values and morals are enforced.

Then you want to play in an RPG that's not D&D, because D&D leans a whole lot fucking more in the direction of 'modern society morals' than 'Iron Age morals'. The whole 'kill faceless goons and still be a hero' thing is a single but very unfortunate blip in moral consistency, not a pattern meant to reflect an older mentality.

How the hell can you say that D&D favors playing classic heroes according to your definition when non-ironic good guys aren't even supposed to own slaves? I don't think that any classic hero would've lost their classic hero status if it was revealed that they kept a few slaves, so why does D&D cockblock people here?

Seriously, if you want to see a heroic fantasy game that actually endorses the moral frameset you want, Exalted is that fucking way.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Again, you're asking one side to, please, avoid gunning the other side down in a war story. That's stupid.

Uh, a war story? What war story? Sure, D&D very easily supports war stories because it's a land of constant conflict and war is the golden goose of plot generators, but it's not necessary. See: Baldur's Gate and Shadows Over Riva.

Playing Flying Circus: the RPG or Hamburger Hill would be a war story because without a war you couldn't have a story. But you could totally play a satisfying D&D campaign from level 1-20in a world that's nominally at peace.

DnD characters cannot afford Superman's morality because they both aren't as powerful as Superman, and don't have the same backing (half the world isn't openly ruled by supervillains in DC's universe).

That's strange. I recall Batman (regular Batman, not the plot-fellated Batgod) being able to regularly take down enemies without killing unnecessarily. Same for Green Arrow. And you know what's extra strange? D&D characters totally become as powerful as Superman anyway.

If D&D was supposed to be a 'low powered' RPG where Fireball was the end-all/be-all of spells I'd be willing to accept this reasoning more because there isn't a way for VAHs to regularly put people down with nonlethal force. But D&D starts out putting people just shy of the power level of Batman and gets much crazier really soon. I think that the assertion that a high-level paladin can decapitate an ancient wyrm red dragon in one shot but can't knock it out with a single sword swing without great difficulty is rather flimsy.

[erik]

Heh. I just played a session of DnD yesterday and we came upon a town where all the townspeople were sort of brainwashed by some powerful wizard such that they spent much of their day documenting their lives in magical tomes that they all were compelled to carry around with them, and they'd befriend each other and write on each other's books. Yes, it was a parody of facebook. I was the last person at the table to make the connection from all the innuendo and references, probably because I am the only one not actually participating in that fine internet venture. But I digress. The wizard apparently somehow gains power or longevity from these shenanigans but all in all she seemed like a decent person who thought they were doing what was best for the villagers. There were even a couple hold-out villagers who hadn't gotten their own facebooks and there was no coercion, it seems like all the participant villagers were willing.

Anywho, our newest member (and a new player to DnD) was appalled at this abuse of the towns people.

The rub was that the wizard also protected the villagers such that they no longer worried about the tons of monsters and undead that live not even a day's walk away from their town limits. All the other veteran players thought that this was about as close to a utopia as they'd ever seen in DnD. Commoners going about their lives, all very happy, and actually safe from the terrors of the land.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's pretty grimdark, erik, in that the only way to feasibly protect everyone is to brainwash and mentally abuse hundreds of people.

[FatR]

Uh, a war story? What war story? Sure, D&D very easily supports war stories because it's a land of constant conflict and war is the golden goose of plot generators, but it's not necessary. See: Baldur's Gate and Shadows Over Riva.

Baldur's Gate is still a war story. Because a constant low-intensity war is still a war. There are hostile, raiding barbarian tribes fucking everywhere. You just have some (not many) islands of civilization where you can walk out of your home without being armed to the teeth and have reasonable chances of living trough it. By the end of the game these islands persist mostly because you totally kill off several evil armies by yourself and your party. Didn't play Shadows Over Riva.

That's strange. I recall Batman (regular Batman, not the plot-fellated Batgod) being able to regularly take down enemies without killing unnecessarily.

That's because Batman (in Gotham setting) is of so much higher level than almost all of his enemies. And still has a very formidable plot shield, which you don't notice because it is standard-issue for comics characters, but which DnD PCs lack. But as the only reading of Batman that I don't consider a repulsive hypocrite is "psychopath that only holds himself morally above the Joker by devotion to a black-and-white moral code", I think this example is wasted on me anyway. Know nothing about Green Arrow.

Same for Green Arrow. And you know what's extra strange? D&D characters totally become as powerful as Superman anyway.

And Superman does kill enemies as powerful as himself (which such characters will routinely fight), because he cannot afford other solutions - they are apocalyptic threats that can't be contained otherwise.

But again, trying to bring characters like Superman and Batman as examples is pointess, unless you explicitly hand PCs plot immortality at the very least.

[K]

You know, you can encourage "good" roleplay with XP. You just give 50% XP bonuses for captured intelligent monsters and flat XP bonuses for hostages rescued.

And what do you do with the monsters?

Use them as tokens in the plot. So you spent them to get concessions from the tribe, or you get them to promise to leave human lands and never return, or something like that.

Non-intelligent ones, robots, and undead can just be killed.

[shadzar]

But again, trying to bring characters like Superman and Batman as examples is pointess, unless you explicitly hand PCs plot immortality at the very least.

Or more to the point it is pointless, because you are dealing with outlaws just hanging on else they be no different for working outside the law and treated as any lesser capable vigilante would be, and locked up for their crimes.

Every criminal captured by Superman or Batman is illegally held hostage, because they don't have permission by the law to hold them. Superman can hardly be stopped, and Batman just gets the benefit of looking the other way when he does it.

D&D however is people working within the law. What they are doing isn't outside of the law of the world in which they are doing it. D&D characters are HIRED to go hunt and kill certain creatures to every last adult male, female, and child.

You want to change that, then you have to rewrite the laws of the world that D&D is played in. But be warned that you can only do it for your own game, because those that don't agree with your way...will continue to play it their way...even if in the same group as you.

Look at superheros more closer to a D&D group and you will noticed not a single person off having the adventures, but a group of people that are always working together more or less like Fantastic Four. Sure moving you form DC to Marvel but...

Johnny and Ben would just as soon as kill so a threat can not be repeated by someone as to give them a chance to reform, but Sue and Reed keep them in check. Guess what, society agrees with Ben and Johnny on many levels, because there is still the death penalty in the world.

So to reach the utopia in gaming, you will first have to reach it in the real world, so people have something to relate to. Dont expect to see it in any of our lifetimes.

[Fuchs]

Seriously, if you want to see a heroic fantasy game that actually endorses the moral frameset you want, Exalted is that fucking way.

D&D endorses killing your enemies and taking their stuff, aka raiding. I don't think most people think "overcome your enemies in non-lethal ways and make them rethink their lives" as a common goal in D&D.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Baldur's Gate is still a war story. Because a constant low-intensity war is still a war.

The point is that you don't actually need to have the war for the story to work. Baldur's Gate plot still works with just a couple of tweaks to it. It's the difference between telling the story of Lieutenant Dan and Malcom X. Even though the Vietnam War is happening in the background of both characters, you don't need it to hit the most important parts of Malcom X's story. Lieutenant Dan's story is impossible to tell without the Vietnam War or some facsimile thereof.

That's because Batman (in Gotham setting) is of so much higher level than almost all of his enemies.

No, he's not. He only seems that way because he's survived hundreds of battles and the only way that makes sense in a game without plot armor is to make him actually invincible (i.e. high level), but that's not what's going on in-universe. In-universe Batman can still be killed by some robbers with guns or a speeding truck. He's good enough so that it's not generally a worry, but it's not like it's impossible. If you were playing a Batman videogame where he performs similar feats sans plot armor then it's totally possible to see him get his shit wrecked by Thug #4.

But even with these in-universe restrictions in place he can take down enemies nonlethally. Why would it be impossible for a PC to do the same, who fight in easier scenarios and whose abilities will quickly come to eclipse that of Batman anyway?

And Superman does kill enemies as powerful as himself (which such characters will routinely fight), because he cannot afford other solutions - they are apocalyptic threats that can't be contained otherwise.

And THOSE are okay because when he decides to lobotomize Cyborg Superman or Doomsday or Darkseid they are named characters and we understand their motivations. It doesn't have the very unsettling morals of 'it's okay to kill people we don't know anything about' of him taking out faceless goon. It's not cool of course for Superman to get away with doing this to Random Lexcorp Guard #9--even though in a squadron of 30 armed with LexCorp tech they are actually a threat to him.

D&D endorses killing your enemies and taking their stuff, aka raiding.

I'm not against raiding, I'm against killing faceless goons and taking their stuff. It's morally acceptable to steal the stuff off of the Dark Lord after you kill him because you were going to kill him anyway for being a genocidal bastard even if he was naked. Killing faceless goons has the subtext of 'the reason why I killed these guys was not because they were a threat but because they had l33t gear I wanted'.

I don't think most people think "overcome your enemies in non-lethal ways and make them rethink their lives" as a common goal in D&D.

Why not? Solving all, or even most your problems by fighting is really lame. Not even Chuck Norris is that shallow. Unless you're specifically playing a one-dimensional anti-hero, 'save the frontier town by negotiating a lasting peace between orcs and elves is a more satisfying and moving adventure than 'save the town by murder all two hundred of the orcs one village over'.

[PoliteNewb]

Oh, for fuck's sake, Lago...you're not saying anything you haven't already said. This is just more bullshit hand-wringing about a problem that doesn't fucking exist.

There is nothing fucked up about killing evil people. I'm sorry you think so, and I'm sorry you want to play a white-hat boy scout who doesn't sword bad guys, but I say tough nuts to that.

No, D&D should categorically NOT purge that shit from the game. Because that is the game. Heroic fantasy fiction by and large IS about stabbing your enemies in the face, for the greater good. From just about every fictional source that inspired D&D in the first fucking place, that's what it's about.

I mean, shit, you're sounding less sane than Shadzar. Isn't that a warning sign?

With default D&D you can have an evil character and a good character in a party and by the end of the day if you take out all the fluff and gloss it is hard to even tell them apart.

This is total bullshit. Or maybe not...if by "all the fluff and gloss" you mean "all the background story that explains WHY all the face-stabbing was happening".

In Star Wars, can you tell the Rebel Alliance from the Evil Empire? And if so, how/why? Here's a tip...it isn't about who killed a bunch of folks, because both sides totally do that.

Casually killing 20 faceless punch-clock goons isn't as bad as killing 2000 of them, but Dudley Do-Right and Superman aren't supposed to be killing any.

D&D is not an appropriate game or setting for playing Superman or Dudley Do-Right. Any more than Toon is an appropriate game for playing The Punisher, or D20 Modern is an appropriate game for playing Cthulu, or Rifts is an appropriate game for playing Sherlock Holmes.

I see no reason to try to get D&D to encompass all character archetypes, when it already models the major character archetypes it was designed to...knights, wizards, sell-swords, rogues, vampire hunters, and so forth.

That's only a partial solution, tzor, there's still the sadly-common situations of 'you meet an orc hunting party on their way back to town' or 'faceless goons are guarding the door to the Dark King's throne room'.

Why is this a problem?

a.) Orcs hunting in the woods. Either they're clearly evil (the PCs know this tribe has been slaughtering villagers, they have skulls and scalps hanging from their belts, they attack the PCs on sight, etc) or they aren't. If they aren't, and the PCs attack them "for the XP", your PCs are bastards. If your PCs are trying to play Aang or Batman, they shouldn't attack mystery orcs in the woods (at least, not without trying to parley or avoid them or whatever).

b.) Faceless guards. I'm assuming that they work for the Dark King (since they're guarding his throne room)...this makes them just like Nazis or Imperial Stormtroopers, and the PCs can sword them with a clean conscience. If you want to portray them as poor working stiffs who have to work for the Dark Lord but don't really believe in evil, have them throw down their swords and beg for their lives when the PCs are about to stab them to death...then the PCs can (again) choose to be bastards, or choose not to.

So how is this not exactly what I said pages ago...you trying to induce moral hand-wringing in your players for no good reason? For that matter, since the DM is presumably controlling what sort of encounters the PCs run into, why are you giving them morally grey encounters anyway?

I'm also tired of your attempt to portray everything as a sharp dichotomy with Aang and the happysmile crew on one side and bloodthirsty amoral bastards on the other. There is a fine middle ground occupied by guys like Lancelot du Lac, Han Solo, Eddard Stark and Perrin Aybara. You don't kill baby orcs, and you do kill guys with swords in their hands who work for Dark Lords. It's a simple morality, but it works well enough to get you through an adventure or a sword-&-sorcery novel.

Solving all, or even most your problems by fighting is really lame.

Why the fuck are you even playing D&D? That's practically written on the book: "here is a game where you solve most of your problems by fighting". When most of what's written on your character sheet are spells, powers, and items for turning your enemies into corpses, why is this a big surprise to you?

[Lago PARANOIA]

There is nothing fucked up about killing evil people. I'm sorry you think so, and I'm sorry you want to play a white-hat boy scout who doesn't sword bad guys, but I say tough nuts to that.

You know, for someone who accuses me of saying the same thing over and over you sure didn't read what I said on any of those occasions. I didn't say that I had a problem with killing bad guys, I had a problem with killing faceless goons and calling yourself a hero while doing it.

I see no reason to try to get D&D to encompass all character archetypes, when it already models the major character archetypes it was designed to...knights, wizards, sell-swords, rogues, vampire hunters, and so forth.

PoliteNewb, stop being a moron. I didn't literally mean that you should play a character in spandex and a fluttering cape, I meant that you should play a character who can espouse modern humanistic values without being a hypocrite. Superman is just a really easy character to point to. And I don't see why it's impossible to RP any of those guys without also having the character trait of 'also I am a murderous bastard'.

You don't kill baby orcs, and you do kill guys with swords in their hands who work for Dark Lords. It's a simple morality, but it works well enough to get you through an adventure or a sword-&-sorcery novel.

It's only simple because it's utter bullshit. Compartmentalization and moral inconsistency is retarded. And yes, it is a double standard to declare that it's wrong to kill orc babies but it's not wrong to kill faceless goons working for the Dark Lord--because the reason why you're sparing orc babies is because they're innocent and relatively harmless. That same reasoning applies to goons, too; yes, not all of the goons are going to be innocent or even decent, but you're killing the ones who don't deserve to be killed along with the bad ones. You can't justify your killing of hundreds of guards, not without dehumanizing them.

I'm also tired of your attempt to portray everything as a sharp dichotomy with Aang and the happysmile crew on one side and bloodthirsty amoral bastards on the other.

Sorry, but the dichotomy really is that sharp. There's no middle ground between 'kills undeserving people out of thoughtlessnness, style, and/or convenience' and 'bloodthirsty amoral bastard' no matter how much you whinge on about it. If you don't want to be a bloodthirsty amoral bastard, then just don't do it.

I'm beginning to see why you're so upset over this; you just don't like being called out on your bullshit. I'm sorry if you don't like to think about these things. If you want to play a sociopath like Caim or Kratos, just fucking admit it.

a.) Orcs hunting in the woods.

Uh, you're invading their territory and/or they perceive you as a threat (either they have a good reason or they don't) and attack you. If you defuse the situation nonviolently, good for you, but once the violence goes down then what do you do? Do you just kill them over a misunderstanding and/or misplaced pride?

b.) Faceless guards. I'm assuming that they work for the Dark King (since they're guarding his throne room)...this makes them just like Nazis or Imperial Stormtroopers, and the PCs can sword them with a clean conscience.

There's that compartmentalization I'm talking about again.

If you want to portray them as poor working stiffs who have to work for the Dark Lord but don't really believe in evil, have them throw down their swords and beg for their lives when the PCs are about to stab them to death...then the PCs can (again) choose to be bastards, or choose not to.

Yes, because there's no such thing as guards who believe that even though they don't agree with the Dark King's goals that they have a code of honor to uphold. There's also no such thing as guards who were duped by the Dark King's pretty words and are fighting for a guy who they think is great. There's also no such thing as guards who would rather die fighting then to be accused of desertion or treason when the dust settles--which is a death sentence anyway.

Why the fuck are you even playing D&D? That's practically written on the book: "here is a game where you solve most of your problems by fighting".

This is a pretty dumb statement, PN. You and I both know that every edition of D&D has taken increasingly great pains to increase the amount of non-combat stuff a player does. This is a good thing, because dungeon crawls and mindless violence that magically resolves plots is pretty dumb. D&D is a wargame and places a lot of emphasis on violence, but the average violence per plot arc isn't that much more than the amount of violence in your typical heroic fantasy story unless you're in love with padding.

So how is this not exactly what I said pages ago...you trying to induce moral hand-wringing in your players for no good reason? For that matter, since the DM is presumably controlling what sort of encounters the PCs run into, why are you giving them morally grey encounters anyway?

I'm not in favor of giving PCs stories where the choice is 'put this orphanage to the sword or demon apocalypse'. But shit like 'these orcs are only trying to defend their territory' or 'these guards were forced into conscription and will be killed for disobeying orders' is very common and very tame. If you can't handle that tiny amount of grey without whining that the DM is putting you in a moral trap then you just suck.

[Fuchs]

You can't handle that tiny amount of grey (killing guards who are not that evil) without ranting about how evil your character becomes?

[Fuchs]

Also, for those "take prisoners and hand them over to the law" approach: What about laws where theft/robbery/treason/rebellion/serving evil gods/etc. is punished by death?

[Gods_Trick]

Why not play a bloodthirsty hero? As an actor, I find playing the villain is the most fun. And in D&D, I get to use my explicitly intended to be deadly Banes and Banshees Wail to kill 'bad guys', and yet get to be the hero too. To the people who count, the pretty ones *cynical smile*.

TNot my morality in RL, but Conan and Captain Jack are both valid tropes to RP, as much as Kenshin or Optimus Prime are.

Theres a lot of options man, and as long as theres no inter-party conflict, play what you like. Rangers are mean lean racist killing machines (well the fluff anyway) for a reason.

D&D runs a basic black and white childhood morality. Anything more is what the GM or player puts in.

[Fuchs]

Not to mention that there are a few quite significant differences concerning the defintions of modern values. Like the Death Penality, reviled as evil and barbaric by many, and loved as just by others.

[Wrathzog]

Yes, because there's no such thing as guards who believe that even though they don't agree with the Dark King's goals that they have a code of honor to uphold. There's also no such thing as guards who were duped by the Dark King's pretty words and are fighting for a guy who they think is great. There's also no such thing as guards who would rather die fighting then to be accused of desertion or treason when the dust settles--which is a death sentence anyway.

None of those things protect them from LOAC. If a guard has a sword in his hand and I feel that my life is threatened, I have a right as a humanoid being to end the threat presented to me.
I would murder every single one of those guys and I would feel great about all the orphans I've just created. This is in no way the same as killing orc babies.

You can't justify your killing of hundreds of guards, not without dehumanizing them.

Yes, you absolutely can. They dehumanize themselves the second they pick up a sword and try to end my character's awesome life. It's technically not even Murder, it's simply self-defense.

If you want to play a sociopath like Caim or Kratos, just fucking admit it.

My old D&D group was an entire party of Sociopaths. I got stories that I don't think that you'd appreciate on any level.

[MGuy]

I've already said this but since hey shit is being repeated might as well say it again. If you wanna play a non-violent character, a hero that puts themselves at more risk to not kill their enemies then go ahead. However the entire game need not be adjusted for that crap. It is absolutely meaningless to even do that if by default you set someone on fire and they live because the game says they do. If people want to play the altruistic goody two shoes that does everything to not kill people they should:

A) Have to work harder for it because otherwise you're just doing the same shit anyway, still thoughtlessly, but with that stupid "No Death" safety net for opposition that doesn't make sense as soon as you realize your abilities light fuckers on fire. If your want is to make people care about it then that's up to each individual person, or~ there should be awards that give an incentive for people caring. In either case it should take extra effort to do otherwise its meaningless and you still have people not paying attention to it.

B) Expand the non-combat section of the game so that people have more interest in resolving conflicts that don't involve face stabification. That way there is an interesting mini game that (hopefully) is as exciting as combat that people will want~ to be a part of. This will make not fighting more appealing.

However just because you're on this high horse and can say "This shit is fucked up" doesn't mean you have the right to tell me that the combat system being lethal is wrong. You can make essays about how mindless murder is bad should be avoided and have people on board. You can't say something retarded like "These Guards should not be killed because they may~ be serving Dark Lord Alpha for good reasons. If they pick up the sword in his name they are picking up all the associated risks for working for the Dark Lord and thus are entirely and justifiably killable.

I don't know what kick you're on where you think "Killing Solves all plots in DnD" but I don't think anyone has asserted that killing is anymore than what it is. It has definite uses in various situations and ends specific threats (hopefully) forever.I don't think anyone has referred to it as a plot-solving coupon

[FatR]

The point is that you don't actually need to have the war for the story to work. Baldur's Gate plot still works with just a couple of tweaks to it.

Like cutting the first game to about 1/4th of its length, due to removal of most early dungeons, removing the climax of the second game and most of Throne of Baal?

No, seriously, stop denying that default DnD needs serious reworking to get away from miliary conflict/raiding model. It is bizarre.

PoliteNewb, stop being a moron. I didn't literally mean that you should play a character in spandex and a fluttering cape, I meant that you should play a character who can espouse modern humanistic values without being a hypocrite. Superman is just a really easy character to point to. And I don't see why it's impossible to RP any of those guys without also having the character trait of 'also I am a murderous bastard'.

Then you have picked really fucking bad example. Because traditional superheroes are pretty much a bunch of utter hypocrites ever since authors refused to adjust their morality to the fact that their opponents are no longer forbidden from doing anything really bad, or at least succeeding in their attempts to do anything really bad.

Now, the logical consequences of that in traditional comics verses are significantly obscured by the fact, that even though numerous villains there are technically capable of rampages that will make Kid Miracleman envious and psychotic enough to mass-murder people just because, they don't actually do so very often. Innocent bystanders still have a degree of plot shielding there. Still, even though I read few comics, I can name at least two unrepentant mass murderers that were even considered legally clean in DC universe the last time I checked (Poison Ivy and Lex Luthor). Never mind those who get little more than slap on the wrist and a brief visit to a cardboard prison for racking immense body counts.

So even in the verse, where superheroes and general forces of law are generally powerful and dominant enough to drive supervillains into hiding - which is usually not the case in DnD - they cannot really afford retaining their traditional morality anymore. Even with plotshielding for themselves (I loled when you brought a Batman videogame as an example - I suspect my Batman's adventures in Arkham Asylum would have been rather short without Save Game feature - which is not available in DnD, of course) and partial plotshielding for the population, even with taking exceptions for particularly dire threats, they still look like fucking hypocrites, who are placing villains' lives above that of the normal people, because the latter are unnamed mooks and not worty of caring about.

Tl;dr - screw your comic books morality, even in its own setting it is bankrupt, and I don't want it anywhere close to my DnD.

I'm not against raiding, I'm against killing faceless goons and taking their stuff. It's morally acceptable to steal the stuff off of the Dark Lord after you kill him because you were going to kill him anyway for being a genocidal bastard even if he was naked. Killing faceless goons has the subtext of 'the reason why I killed these guys was not because they were a threat but because they had l33t gear I wanted'.

Then don't give them l33t gear and make them less willing to blindly throw themselves at the PCs.
For a change, I actually agree with you, that DnD (and by extension Pathfinder) too often incentivizes treating goon killing like mob farming, either directly or indirectly, and that this is bad. There are, however, better solutions to that, that imposing moral expectations that are bullshit for the assumed setting. Such as removing actual incentives for wiping out goons, and making said goons less than blindly and unrelentigly aggressive towards PCs.
Again, I should mention, that actual players tend to be quite willing to accept surrender, when it is offered, or to parley with the enemy which demonstrates interest in talking. What they are generally not willing to do is being considerate towards foes who are currently trying to kill them. And because this is goddamn DnD, where PCs are not plot shielded, fights with completely outmatched foes you can disable without risk or expending resources are the exception, and stakes are often pretty high, I'm totally against blaming them for that. If goons didn't want to die, they should not have drawn weapons, intending to kill. This is how stuff works in RL, this is how it works in fantasy genre, and this is how it should work in DnD.

[sabs]

Don't pull a gun on someone, and then get surprised when you end up dead. D&D is not morally bankrupt, it's a Medieval setting where life is cheap, and there are actual things that are /evil/. I'm not going to shed a tear because some Drow got killed, or some goblins. They're not misunderstood, they're FUCKING EVIL. This is not, oh look at the poor, they gang bang because of their dire economic situation. It's, Oh look at the Goblins who worship the God of Hatred and Evisceration, they raid our farms and kill everyone, keeping the babies for stew meat, because they're EVIL.

[icyshadowlord]

Sabs has it right. In most campaigns that I have seen (though not all) EVIL is objective to a certain degree. Demons, Yugoloths and Devils are the best examples of this, because they're FUCKING EVIL INCARNATE, no matter what morale system you decide to go by in your games, because they are ALWAYS EVIL. As for individual cases like "is it right to grant mercy to this vile person" and such, those are (or I think usually SHOULD BE) left for the DM to decide. After all, he decides whether certain actions affect your alignment or not.

[Username17]

Pulling the "D&D says it's alright morally, so in that context this is alright" card is very circular. D&D's morality system doesn't make any fucking sense and cannot be squared even with itself. Committing genocide on the gnolls "because they are evil" just raises of the questions of what evil is and why evil is bad. Which probably ultimately comes down to assertion that evil things are going to do bad things... like genocide. And then we're back to the starting point of the whole damn argument.

The thread is about making D&D's morality less repulsive and contradictory, not on justifying things in D&D's bullshit incoherent moral system on the grounds that they are in D&D's bullshit incoherent moral system. You cannot derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement.

But FatR had a great point about inherently evil races: they have to go. They don't make any sense, and their mere existence is incredibly grimdark. If ogres are inherently wicked and feed off of suffering and are compelled to hurt and kill throughout their lives - the correct solution is to murder all the ogre babies. But even if that's true, you're still setting the players up to kill babies, and that is nauseating. If you want to make D&D less morally repulsive you're going to have to set up solid incentives to resolving conflicts and capturing criminals, but you're also going to have to do a lot less dehumanization of the other races.

-Username17

[sabs]

The way to start doing that is getting rid of the Alignment system, in toto. Then races, are just that. Races.

Goblin's aren't evil. They're tribal. One of my favorite D20 settings is Iron Kingdoms, because there is not much actual Evil. There is politics, there is National Pride. War is fought between kingdoms for the Traditional reasons, not because Kingdom X is filled with CE assholes, but because it's filled with people who have stuff we want.

You can have extra-planars that are absolutes. Devils, Demons, Angels. But even then, A good Angel might still fuck you over because his mission is in conflict with your continued breathing. And honestly, you're probably pretty fond of Breathing.

Two of my favorite races to play are Kobolds and Goblins, but in a world where Kobolds are small, populous, highly skilled (to make up for their lack of awesome), and involved in deep deep Machiavelli style politics with each other.

[icyshadowlord]

I wonder why I wrote what I did now that you two mentioned all of that. Because you guys just reminded me of a pal of mine in our D&D group who said "The alignment system just DOES NOT WORK", which is pretty much what you said now. Also, how can conflicts be even justified if the Goblins are only tribal? Then it's just being xenophobic when you kill them, which is not much better than "killing them because they are EVIL", but yeah. I'm not trying to mess the logic, I'm just trying to get rid of every possible obstacle.

[sabs]

Have you seen Darfur? Rwanda? Conflicts justified over tribal differences aren't that hard.

If Goblins send raiding parties down to kill the farmers and take all their stuff, you need to get rid of them. It doesn't really matter why they come down. The only difference is, if Evil Incarnate, then really like Frank said, you need to genocide them. If they're tribal, you just need to kill enough of the warrior caste that coming to raid YOU is a bad idea, and also, you might be able to find a diplomatic, none, we kill everyone solution. And you don't need to kill the 5 month old Goblin girl.

[Username17]

The way to start doing that is getting rid of the Alignment system, in toto. Then races, are just that. Races.

Pretty much. D&D's morality system is wholly unsalvageable. There is no reason why the things it wants you to do or not do to maintain your "good" alignment are better than any other set of things to not do or do.

You can have extra-planars that are absolutes. Devils, Demons, Angels.

That is the kind of thing that sounds good, but ultimately isn't a great idea. Even if you restrict "Good" and "Evil" to some incredibly limited subset of the creatures in the game, you're still stuck explaining what "Good" and "Evil" are in some way that makes any fucking sense at all. And if the last 40 years of D&D have taught us anything, it is that that is an unreasonable expectation to have of D&D writers and MCs.

-Username17