back to the point. Alignment is a matter of perspective and absolutes. It all depends on who's reference it is.

Because if we start trimming too much the game becomes worthless. Just look at D&D 4th edition, it was so embarrassing, they didn't even call Next 5th Edition.


Depends on if there's sufficient consumption to risk causing harm (as I said whether it's financial, physical, psychological, social, etc) to a sentient being. If so, that's wrong. Whichever one allows/supports by his tennants that kind of excess is wrong.

Because the victim could have experienced any other means of death, and the attacker prevented that choice.

I find it funny how this conversation still confuses and blurs the lines of Morals and Ethics. Once you realize the two are mutually exclusive, your perspective on everything (in and out of game) changes.

Anywhere else apart from rpol that phrase might sound a bit weird!

I'm not sure I understand the question, but it looks like you're asking if a single action can conflict with a general alignment. I'd answer yes to that, if the action isn't an extreme deviation, or repetitive.

I'm referring to the entity itself. For example, if the Joker (or Hitler...gotaa' get the Nazis in here someplace) is just taking a nap, is the Joker/Hiter evil at that time.

When one describes Hitler as an evil man, are we saying that we consider most off, or his most significant, acts evil?

But what's good for the goose might also be just as good for the gander.

Strange question. A person is evil as a result of evil acts that are either significant, frequent, or both.

EDIT: Or a lack of remorse, but I'd consider that a significant evil act on its own.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:36, Tue 22 July 2014.

For real life, yeah. For a game with Alignments, not so much on most circumstances.

The problem with the alignment system isn't that its clear cut, or restrictive or any other thing. Its just us players. We who play our characters do not have alignments. Our moods, emotions, and thought process determines our actions. While playing the game, we might spare that little kobold because clearly killing it isn't going to grant any extra xp or loot, but we might slaughter a group of merchants to get to the goods they carry for profits. We might dismiss the lovely barmaid who asked for a little help with her boyfriend troubles because we can't be bothered with a side quest but jump up and down yelling "pick me" to join a group that is off to raid a temple for the loot.

No matter the circumstances, as players we always prefer to take the monetary adventagous position wheter it be for xp, or loot. And most of the time(operative word being most), the only thing our Alignment determines is whether or not our characters are effected by certain spells or effects, and can or cannot use certain equipment.

When we delve outside the dice rolling and adventure and words became our weapon, most of us would just check our character sheets to remember what our Alignment was to see if we can act irritatingly or snubly against the NPC's so we can mess with the GM and his perfectly assembled plot.

Again, that's all from an outside perspective. Hitler did not see himself as evil. He saw himself as good. By his morals, he was cleansing the human race. Did the Church consider itself evil during the Spanish Inquisition or any of its numerous Holy Wars? No. Again, they were acting in accordance with their morals.

Morals are a personal set of values that cannot be weighed or measured against another's.

In reply to Patsup (msg # 48):

And that's easily solved by using a Dynamic Alignment system. Imagine alignment as a grid system. Law and Chaos being one axis, Good and Evil being the other and there are assigned value ranges for everything (I typically do 1-40 Good/Lawful, 41-60 Neutral, 61-100 Chaos/Evil). Whenever a player acts in or out of alignment (say, sparing the life of the surrendered thug vs killing him), that player is given/penalized points. While I love this system, it is generally met with a lot of resistance because people realize they will actually have to be held accountable for their actions.

In reply to PsychoJester (msg # 49):

Yup they can't. That is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, morals and ethics are already taken into the equation for the Alignment system. Orcs are evil because the powers that be and most of the "civilized" world belives so.

Likewise, Hitler is evil because we believe him to be. If most of the human race tomarrow started to believe that red was actually blue and blue was actually red, it would be so. Anything and everything is subjective and mostly determined by what most of us believe. Unless otherwise scientifically proven, and sometimes even after that; we are weird like that.

What is morally right or ethically right is determined by the majority of the population. In the past, slavery was accepted and it was okay to enslave others. Now we believe that it is a morally and ethically wrong thing to do and classify that as a crime against humanity. Why? Because most of us believe so. If, in the future generations it turns around on its head again (I so hope not) it would once again be an okay thing to do, would be an everyday activity.

In games, to simplify things like morals and ethics we have this horrible system of Alignment which are born from morals and ethics but have nothing to do with them. Lawful Good gods and characters are dutiful, care for and protect the people, Lawful Neutral ones fight to maintain order, Chaotic Evil deities and characters just want to watch the world burn in pretty colors. There is nothing moral or ethical about the general consensus of the Alignments, they are just there to say "This is an evil person. He kicks puppies, steals candy from children, and occasionaly tries to bring forth the armageddon. You should kill him for xp and loot".

Whether or not we agree or disagree, we are actually defending the same point. Morals, ethics, good and evil in real world are totally different from what they are in the game world. In the game world a Lawful Good state can be a totalitarian regime, while a Lawful Evil one can be a democracy while we ourselves consider totalitarian regimes in real life as bad political systems and democracy as the only preferable one out of the rest.

In reply to PsychoJester (msg #50):

I have played in the Dynamic Alignment System, the problem with that system is not about being accountable but to do with certain things. For example, it forces Monks and Paladins to be much more strict characters. When using the normal system a Paladin wouldn't be concerned too much about his actions, in the Dynamic Alignment System he would be hard pressed to make decision and I have seen people outright refuse or fight against certain plans and ploys the party comes up with in fear of loosing their Good or Lawful status regardless of wheter it would fit their deity, character, both or not.

What I prefer are games that hardly have any Alignment or Moral system. Take the Fantasy Flight's 40k RPG. You act pretty much however you want, with all sorts of ramifications and accountability problems that can arise, but still you will be able to play your character. Other than the inquisition's Puritan and Radical sects, there aren't much clear cut definitions of ones view of approach to situations; much like how it is in the lore and setting.

Same could not be said in a D&D setting. It makes a clear cut of what you are. If you are slaughtering millions for the good of your people, in the end the game will label you as evil. There are no moral conundrums or morally questionable acts that makes you wonder if the person infront of you is evil or not. You just cast a "Detect Evil/Good" spell and voila your questions are answered. Same for anything, you can use various spells to determine whatever you are planning to do will fall within your alignment or not. Basicly, the system forces you into being either good or evil, lawful or neutral.

Right, but time and time again I see people play out of their alignment. I've seen the chaotic good barbarian plan an assault, I've seen the lawful good fighter slay a surrendered enemy. When Alignment isn't really taken in to play, it lets people not play their alignment. With a Dynamic system, players come to realize the kind of characters they are truly playing. As far as it forcing the Paladins and Monks into "stricter" roles, I think that's a farce. If someone is playing a type of class that loses abilities for falling out of alignment without worrying about losing those abilities, then they're only playing the class for the abilities, not for ROLE playing. Besides, if they are that worried about slipping out of alignment, then they need to do things to gain points.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:30, Tue 22 July 2014.

I absolutely, totally %100 agree with you on that.



This is where I see the problems occur in my personal experience. Paladin and Monk players become MORE concerned with keeping their alignment as opposed to staying in character or Role Playing. Experiences do vary, I might have got stuck with those types of players, I don't know.

Personal opinion, D&D needs a system better than Alignments. It needs a system that would make a player go "What have I done?" after killing a clearly evil looking creature. That could be done by role playing, GM input and setting as a whole; but when the Monster Manual or Bestiary or whatever is telling you an Orc is evil and your character sheet is telling you that you are good and the quest is telling you to kill X number of Orcs, the players usually go "Whatever man, how much xp and loot did we get, tell me about that".

I agree, alignments are kind of an archaic thing. That's why I like World of Darkness's Virtues and Vices. It's a much more real thing that occurs and rewards players when it comes into play.

Edit to add: But that's not perfect either b/c I've seen games where every player has taken the same "safe" virtue b/c they knew it would come up a lot.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:37, Tue 22 July 2014.

Actually, that's part of my reasoning for liking GURPS. WoTC d20 doesn't really tell you how someone's 'evil' manifests. It just says you're evil. GURPS lets you pick from things like Greed and Sadism. Or on the flip side Pacifism (various degrees), Honesty, and Truthfulness.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 55):

In regards to that, it's not up to the system to tell you how you became "evil." That's on the player.

Been there, done that, not really proud of it, but at least I somehow managed to lie my way into that and shoehorn it into the character.

On the topic of GURPS, never really played, never really read anything related to that, which makes me sad but the material kind of looks scary piled together, so I can safely sleep at night with that justification. But that system looks more or less like an improvement on the Alignment idea.

As I said I prefer the 40k system. It doesn't tell you what is evil and what is good, it doesn't even tell you what ramifications and accountability you will face. You just know that getting caught in deals with ruinous powers would be bad for your reputation and health, the rest is up to how good you can lie your way out of it or how good you can justify it. Anything and everything else is left the creativity. You can make deals with clearly insane persons to improve your standing, exterminate planets, backstab allies, send your underlings to their doom and call it a days work with a nice wine and good music and still be the shining hope and beacon for mankind and sleep like a baby, until you fail at the dice roll that will turn you into a bloated bumbling buffoon that is clearly unfit for anything other than target practice.
This message was last edited by the user at 09:06, Tue 22 July 2014.

First, how we define what is good or evil determines whether it is subjective or objective.

I gave an objective definition of good and evil that also explained why people can have different ideas about what is acceptable or unacceptable. (seemed to have been missed though.)

Second, Being lawful does not in anyway mean that we have to follow the written law, regardless of who wrote it. That is a strangely persistent misconception. Likewise, being lawful does not men one has to have no respect for the written law.

Third, the alignment system is messed up, but not that bad. I think the issue here stems from two things, a: poorly written descriptions of what the alignments meant, and b: players bringing their own definitions of not only what is good or evil, but also what do the words good and evil mean.

Steelsmiter has a very different definition of the word "good" then I do, and we both have completely objective definitions for it, and others here have voiced their own subjective definitions for the word good. If we can't use the same definition for the words themselves how can we ever expect to agree, even within a single game, about what actions fall under each each word.

Fourth, words are just symbols. They have no inherent meaning. We learn what they mean by inferring what we believe others to mean by the way others use the word. So truthfully, many words have a different definition for each person because each person infers something different when seeing a word used. Luckily, we talk so much that our personal word definitions tend to become similar, obviously, that isn't always the case (as this discussion shows).

Fifth, I actually like the alignment system based on the psychological motivations (there are a couple wandering around, mine is here, https://sites.google.com/site/...me/rnr-srd/alignment)
This message was last edited by the user at 09:38, Tue 22 July 2014.

This may help.

After extensive discussion, analysis, testing and verification, we
have determined the following classifications:

(Please note, we have considered dining preference irrelevant, these
classifications refer to the vegetables themselves and not those who
eat them.)

Lawful Good: Carrots, Cucumbers, and Asparagus

Neutral Good: Endive, Yams, Cauliflower, Turnips, Corn

Chaotic Good: Lettuce (Romaine and Boston) Spinach, Garbanzos
(Chick Peas)

Lawful Neutral: Celery, Peas and Artichoke.

Neutral: Potatos, Broccoli.

Chaotic Neutral: Cabbage, Lima Beans, Pinto Beans, Raddiccio,
Rhubarb.

Lawful Evil: Brussel Sprouts, Radishes

Neutral Evil: Habanero Peppers, Lettuce (iceberg, Okra.

Chaotic Evil: Scotch Bonnet Peppers, Rabe, Kale, Kidney Beans.

Classification Being Reviewed: Eggplants, Tomatos*, Watercress,
Parsley, Onions, Bell Peppers, Squash.

*While not yet classified, Tomatos clearly cannot be lawful because
of that whole "Is it a fruit or a vegetable" issue. Lawful
vegetables KNOW what they are.

Hopefully some may find this useful.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 58):

When you are looking at an individual, good and evil will always be subjective to that individual.  Talking about objective good and evil (or Natural Law or whatever label you put on it) is only relevant when philosophizing or looking at public opinion, not when talking about individual characters or their motivations.

So the question is whether the alignment labels apply to the individual's subjective viewpoint or society's view of them.

No, that's wrong, an evil act is always an evil act. The only thing that changes is the acceptability of the act, which yes does differ with circumstance, but the act is no more moral for all the reasons in the world.

I think i will disagree with Steelsmiter here.  Who decides what is good and what is evil?  To a certain zealot group blowing yourself up to kill your 'enemy' is a good and honorable thing but to the people getting blown up it is very much a bad thing.

this is why I dont care of the alignment system that DnD has in it (its the only system i know of that uses it) and I would get rid of it in my games except for game mechanics centered around it.

That's probably honorable, but it's wrong and acceptable (er... to his comrades anyway). It's both wrong and unacceptable to us. The morality hasn't changed in this situation, rather the acceptability.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:44, Tue 22 July 2014.

I'm having a hard time coming up with an act that we all would agree to call evil regardless of any circumstances or point of view.