here is a problem that has been popping up in my game over the last couple decades and I would like to hear how many of you other gms handle it. In your game, how is Good and the others defined. Is it cultural; come from the dieties perspective, is there some overall Good and Evil, perhaps personified.
These questions invariably come up when you play in a world with more than 3 dieties or rather more than one for each alignment. So we have had two various Lawful Good or Chaotic Good or Nuetral Good guys due to disagreements on who to handle various volitile situations because of percieved religious doctine; come to blows, both being "right" and neither really violating their alignment.
I pretty sure this stuff has popped up in your games if alignment is played so I am not going to illustrate a few examples unless they are neede and I am wondering how you GM's approach this or how you have modified your game and how you present such things over time.
I run it as Good and Evil being tangible forces in the cosmos; the game just seems to be built for that and I've no interest at the moment in coming up with an alternative approach. It's a fun fantasy standard, I think.
Anyway, as far as game purposes go, D&D seems to state that Good and Evil are objective. The PHB does a good job of outlining what each means in their section on alignments in chapter 6. I can't really recommend either the Book of Vile Darkness, which seems to equate evil with the gothic "Look at me, I'm dark and deep and blah blah blah" crowd, or the Book of Exalted Deeds, which states that if a paladin is confronted with the choice of torturing an evil person for information or letting a million people die, the right thing to do is let the million people die.
So, the PHB sets out good guidelines. After that, it comes down to the DM as arbiter of what is right and wrong, Good and Evil. So long as one doesn't abuse the power, it shouldn't be a big deal.
As to the possible situation of two Lawful Good people fighting each other, even to the death, that is entirely possible without changing the nature of Good and Evil. Say one is guarding an artifact, and knows that it must not find its way back into the world at large. Another is seeking a cure for his king, who is dying and the fate of his kingdom and thousands of lives hangs in the balance, and the only way to prevent disaster is recover this same artifact.
They are at dire odds, and if totally committed to their cause, as many Lawful Good people are, could even fight to the death. Tragic, to be sure, but not necessitating a re-writing of moral standards in the game. The DM may also wish to intervene at this point with a little "deus ex machina" and have a celestial appear and offer another solution. This might sound like a "cop out," but when would the appearance of a heavenly and divine agent be more appropriate?
here is a problem that has been popping up in my game over the last couple decades and I would like to hear how many of you other gms handle it. In your game, how is Good and the others defined. Is it cultural; come from the dieties perspective, is there some overall Good and Evil, perhaps personified.
I define good and evil objectively, and I believe that my definition applies to both D&D and the real world.
Good = You care for the world at large, and actually go out of your way to act on this compassion more than once in a blue moon.
Neutral (Most folks' alignment) = You care for others in one concordance or another. For example, family is first, then community, then religion, then nation, then everyone else. As a result, you only commonly go out of your way to help others at the top of your concordance.
Evil = You act in one of two ways: You actively persecute certain groups, while caring for your own. Or, you're just plain selfish and don't care about anyone else.
I realize that these definitions are vague, but that's fine with me. I've never had an interest in turning alignment into lawyer-like definitions and mechanics (sorry Sebastian!).
I don't have any problem with two good beings disagreeing and even coming to blows. We make such a big deal about 'evil turning on itself', but the truth is that evil only does it a bit more often than good does. Now, I would get irritated if this were to happen between two PCs. In the interest of continuing the adventure, not obstructing others' fun and not needing to replace a dead PC, they and the DM should find a way to work it out without coming to blows.
Thanks for the responses so far; while my game certainly has the concepts of absolute goods and evils; these are rather abstract; most people choose dieties for the dieties and demigods book and base themselves on that culture which is also represented in various regions; so in my homebrew world we have the fantasy versions of the Romans/Greeks, Persians, Vikings, Finns, Arthurians, Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, a few others as well as the racial dieties of the Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, etc. so a real hodgepod of conflictin religions and cultures so I get a lot of questions about good and evil all based on certain points of view and some interesting actions of people doing the good of their religion and a lot of it starts to sound like those tapes of conversations after WWII of the Nueremburg Trials. A lot of "I was just following orders".
The rework of the game and extra explainations of alignments and then the Exalted and Vile books have really shaken things up. I am considering really cutting down the dieties and just having a few that are have various aspects cross culturally followed with the same guys with different names more or less. Nuetral gets to be a bit sticky as a lot of people consider it to be taking no stance on things, but I see it as taking a selfish stance, but not having evil aspects; kinda like a snake; you irritate it; it bites you; you leave it alone; it generally leaves you alone unless you are its dinner. There is no malice or ill intent; just response to preserve its self interest.
If you run a game like mine that has many dieties that are not in the same pantheon and have no known codified alliances; has the good and evil thing broken down to who is stronger and has that sort of thing made you rethink how you run the concepts. I have found that my players love the versatility of being able to find a diety and culture for their concept; I really have no problem with bad guys or even good guys fighting over differences. But as I read the post about the ghost storm giant, I began remembering all the kinds of alignment conflicts in my game whereas some good dieties require actions that are not really considered good in our 20th century views and that seems to be the real problem. Most arguements seem to be the stuff in the Exalted book about absolute good and stuff in conflict with a good dieties who defines actions they require as being good regardless of other concerns.
take this example for instance; a ng rogue puts on a female disguise to sneak into a place to get information on the bad guys; the bard casts that second level spell that makes you look one of the race your infiltrating, so the rouge wants to check his disguise with the party that has two CG vikings; they take one look at him; shrug and hack him to pieces; the others in the party complain; they say; Dane law; no man is permitted to wear womens close on pain of death; their right, but now the party has to deal with that situation and the rouge player who doesnt know and his character doesnt either know the viking or northman culture is wondering why is character has been butchers when he was just trying to help the party by using his skills to get information and stuff.
This sort of thing happens from time to time. Both groups did the right thing and followed their ideas of good, but wow did it throw a monkeywrench in things.
In your game, how is Good and the others defined.
...it comes down to the DM as arbiter of what is right and wrong,
I don't have any problem with two good beings disagreeing and even coming to blows.
From Wickepedia...
Unintended consequences are situations where an action results in an outcome that is not (or not only) what is intended. The unintended results may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action. For example, it is often conjectured that if the Treaty of Versailles had not imposed such harsh conditions on Germany, World War II would not have occurred. As such, war was an unintended consequence of the Treaty of Versailles.Unintended consequences can be classed into roughly three types:
• a positive unexpected benefit, usually referred to as serendipity or a windfall
• a potential source of problems, according to Murphy's law used in Systems engineering
• a negative or a perverse effect, which is the opposite result of what is intended
-----------------------------------------
Does a character care that his/her actions may have adverse consequences for others?
If the answer is, “No,” then that character’s alignment very probably falls into “Evil”
If the answer is , “Yes,” then the character’s alignment very probably falls into “Good”
Anything else can easily be classed as “Neutral”
Respect for others and an attentive concern for your own actions and their consequences to others is, to me, a solid key to determining whether a character can truthfully claim a “Good” alignment. Paladins may be an exercise in “reducto ad absurdum”, but they’re a very good example to use. Righting the wrongs of consequence stemming from others’ “ill-considered” actions is big part of the bread and butter of what they do. Trying to teach others to respect those consequences, and avoid them when possible (and make reparation otherwise) is some more of it.
When a “bad guy” does something that hurts people, he either doesn’t care or is doing it on purpose. That’s what makes it evil. The eternal conflict (ref. classic Greek theatre) between the two camps is what makes a story interesting. The suspense over who will win and how is the essence of good story telling.
But, when you have two or more camps of “Good” vying against each other, that gets into moral soul-searching.
From our modern society, examine the abortion issue. I will make NO statements about my stance either way and DON’T expect anyone else to either…ok? Thank you…
The conflict comes when both sides see themselves as right. They both have arguments that are based on moral, ethical, religious (or secular), legal, logical, etc., etc. srguments that are very pointed. They both make at least some sense. Yet, they are diametrically opposed on this one issue and unwilling to give an inch for fear the other will take a mile.
We, as individuals, can do nothing to resolve that conflict except listen, chose the side we feel best for us, and then take whatever action we deem most fit for defending that position.
The same goes for characters in the game. If they’re both right, and neither is willing to compromise, then there is conflict even if it means a throw-down. Let them have at it. If fact, I try (only occasionally, mind) to engender it, just for the spice .
There's nothing wrong with it and, and as a game tool, you could hardly have a better, pre-constructed conundrum for throwing at the players.
Enjoy
Thanks LG; guess you have had this in your game too; these conundrums do come up from time to time
take this example for instance; a ng rogue puts on a female disguise to sneak into a place to get information on the bad guys; the bard casts that second level spell that makes you look one of the race your infiltrating, so the rouge wants to check his disguise with the party that has two CG vikings; they take one look at him; shrug and hack him to pieces; the others in the party complain; they say; Dane law; no man is permitted to wear womens close on pain of death; their right, but now the party has to deal with that situation and the rouge player who doesnt know and his character doesnt either know the viking or northman culture is wondering why is character has been butchers when he was just trying to help the party by using his skills to get information and stuff.
Not trying to nitpick, but this seems like a very goofy PC scene. The rogue doesn't know that two of his heavily-muscled pals have serious issues with cross-dressing? Beyond that, hacking a foreign companion to pieces because he violated your own cultural taboo doesn't sound very good (killing a companion for such a benign action) or chaotic (at least in my mind, chaotic folks recognize that everyone has different standards and norms). Maybe there are details which I'm not aware of?
Valegrim, was the example of the NG rougue hacked up by two CG vikings a real incident from your game?
Would not the rogue and the bard discuss with the other members of the party what they were attempting to do?
Yeah. Totally. I think that's the equivalent of a culture with a taboo against adultry sitting by as their friend and a married gal go from flirting, to drinking, to going off together--and then suddenly kill him when he crosses the line.
If something is truly that against their values wouldn't they express outrage? Wouldn't they tear the girl clothes out of his hands and burn them and spit on their vile rogue friend for even SUGGESTING he might do something that is OBVIOUSLY a killing offense.
This kind of thing seems more like players engaging in happy PKishness without much regard for playing in character rather than a philosophical moral conundrum.
well, you might say my pcs are not the best communicators around. Their lack of sharing important details, information and clues has gotten them into all kinds of trouble; seems a few of the player think knowing something is like having one cookie and not wanting to share it with others, I haven't really figures that one out yet either. An yes, it is real and no they didnt discuss it and sure the viking felt a little sad over it; but not much; they were just like dude; it was our duty, and by the way; we dont dance and you cant make us and uh; hmm, you test a girls fidelity by throwing axes at her and besides, that wasn't a horse your character rode but an oversized dog; yep; these are real comments before they broke into what happened in this or that old viking saga. Before that they mostly just drank beer and were afraid of the fog 'Midgard Serpant breath' as it were; I am just the gm; I set the stage; they did all that on their own. They were currently discussing the ramnifications of getting him raised at which I expect the Roman/Greek cleric to object as Hades is quiet jealous about such things so is really a breakdown, but that was just one example.Some of this stuff over the years has really amazed me, but there is not really anything I can say a person did outside his alignment; sure, could it be avoided, sure, but like I said, they are more a bunch of people together doing their own thing that what I would think of as a classic party with a leader and a group that together formulates a plan.
They are not hopeless players or anything; just rather closed mouthed and individualistic and when they get to a problem; each kinda follows their own solution rather than all pitching behind the most probable or likely solution; I have learned to stay out of this sort of stuff; just set the stage and have the npc and mobs act accordingly. I tend to think that most of my players stay away from lawful alignments as that would require them to work as a team and they know it; currently of my six players; none have a lawful aspect; half are good and half are nuetral and half are choatic; ie cn, ng, cg mostly. Not the most team oriented alignments and since they have no leader or strong pc personality; this sort of breakdown tends to occur.
hmm; leads me to wonder if certain actions as justified are the same as good or the right thing to do and if this is basically the problem.
When you think about it in simple terms; basically most dungeon adventures seem to boil down to our race against theirs; and as our belief in good means that it is justified that we can break down your door and invade your home and wipe everything out and loot the place it is good and acceptable, but when you do it with your evil descriptor; the action are contemptable and a holy good/evil war ensues. Very few dungeon adventures, i dont mean specifically from the mag either, really have anyone ponder a groups right to exist or co exist or have an area to do their thing. It is really just; well, your a bad guy and we are gonna wipe you out using any means necessary; doesn't sound to good by the definition, but this is in my view the average pre generated adventure. I tend to give my group a lot of moral quandries, but the whole law, duty and justice thing vs good and evil tends to get wiggy now and then.
hmm; player PKishness; is very rare in my game; we been playing together for long, long time and this sort of thing almost never happens; I really think they did it out of duty to their character concepts and the rogue player kinda was trying something clever and it backfired on him. I didn't see anything like player malice or such. We broke up with yet another discussion about law and if there is absolute law or if you follow one set of laws you do keep following it or do like Romans while in Rome even if you dont know the laws of the land your in. Serious questions to be sure, you cant just abandon your dieties beliefs in whatever rules they profess and some cultural rules are certainly gonna fly with other cultural beliefs. I tend to let players work this stuff out; if they ask a cleric or something then I play that part and say what those rules are or according to whomever they ask.
Certainly there's nothing wrong with this sort of open-ended interpretation of alignment, but it is likely why your players end up having so many disputes over it. Generally what's considered lawful is any strong and more or less consistant set of guidelines set down to govern a society. According to this model, "Japanese" paladins in a "Roman" kingdom would apprehend criminals and hand them over to the Roman authorities (barring any sticky extradition concerns) to be dealt with according to Roman law. If the people got off too light for the tastes of the paladin, he might speak before the senate to try and see the laws made more stringent, but would be unlikely to just kill the guys because according to justice back home, they deserve to die. The laws of the land prevail.
As far as indiscriminate slaughter of those different than you, I agree provisionally with what you're saying. If you're dealing with a peaceful group of orcs who live a quiet hunter gatherer lifestyle, venerating their ancestors in amidst the craggy cliffs of their holy mountains, then wiping out the whole lot of them and stealing their stuff (though what stuff a group of orcs like that might have, that's desirable in the slightest is a bit beyond me...) would be fairly detestable stuff. On the other hand, a good number of "monster" races are described as despoilers. They fester in an area for a while and then begin raiding settlements and killing everyone. I could see the culling of groups like this to be a benevolent service rather than leaving them to rape and pillage the countryside. Certainly this applies for creatures like gnolls, giants, orcs, goblinoids, ogres, kobalds, and any number of similar species. In a lot of settings there are human societies, often viking-style barbarians, who are purged by adventurers in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason.
It's often less "you're not like me so whatever I do to you is okay" and its more "you pose a serious threat to nearby settlements, so I break the back of your organization so you no longer pose a threat to innocents".
That's the take I've always gone by.
well, I certainly agree and understand what your saying and very much have the same thoughts; but, identification of supposed enemies got us into the cold war and if everyone just sat around waiting for a political war to break out; it wouldnt be much of a game.
Basically, I give players background information based on their cultures belief system, but they mostly argue about it among themselves rather than ask me about it; I, of course, have a well developed sytem of measureing alignment and it doesnt change based on culture; whenever I represent a good diety or clergy of a good dietie I coach things in the terms of ultimate good and things to strive for, some clergy is of course corrupt like anyone else and can do or say things for selfish reasons or for personal advantage or misrepresent the truth to gain some advantage. As I dont have my dieties come down and personally smite this peeps as i use them for plot hammers, well, sometimes the pcs get misled or confused.
I am really wondering if anyone has these type games in their multi diety games or even in their games with only a few dieties; guess if your dieties are in harmony there wouldnt be any issues of good, nuetrality, and evil.
I guess I have to go back to what I've said in another thread about alignment (dealing with Law vs. Chaos). It comes down to what the dominant culture says it is. "When in Rome be a Roman candle." You follow the rules of the place where you learned morals and ethics, you're "LawfulL" there. Do things that benefit society as a whole and don't cause any more trouble to others (consideration of consequence) and you're "Good" there. Anywhere you go that has the same or substantively similar rules and you can keep the claim to your Lawfulness and/or Goodness. When their dominant culture (as opposed to your "oursider just passing through" status) conflicts with yours, then who is Lawful and/or Good then becomes a matter of perspective. They might be hideously Chaotic or Evil to you, while you're they one they view that way, because you don't conform to their dominant norm.
'Tis folly to be sane in a world gone mad. Or so I've heard it said.
I usually run homebrew so have enough of a cration load to take care of without having to detail multiple religions and the attitudes and abilities of every diety within each pantheon. So, I play lazy and use the stuff someone else has already set up. I keep up with the basic real-world mytoligy cycles so I can make informed decisions about deity expectation and reaction. When a character declares worship for a particular deity, that deity allots some of his/her devine attention to that character and begins measuring their performance agianst the "Norm" of the social structure form whence he/she comes. As long as the character followes the rules of that norm everything is a-ok. When they misbehave they get consequences. The more inentional the misbehavior, the worse the consequence.
I do try to put moral traps and ethical fogs in the way to make the players think. It helps with the character development and growth cycle. At times I've had players abandon deities, change alignment and even begin proselytizing against what they once believed. Kind of like a former secular humanist becoming born-again christian. They get pretty fanatic about it and, oh boy, are there consequences!
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I merely give them the setting and help everyone come to an agreement on how these alignment definitions are going to be interpreted by the group (me included). Then, during game play I'll lay out the morality traps and let them decide. Consequences are then on their heads. It's a game, as we all know, so there is no ultimate right or wrong way to do it. But, I'd say that if you're having difficulty with what's happening now, try something different, whatever it is and see how it fits. If you like it, great. If not, you might reexamine what you think is wrong with what you were doing before. Maybe it's not so bad after all.
It seems I've got some very different ideas about alignment than you do, Val. If I had to categorize those two warriors by this little sceniorio, I'd say LN or LE.
Law and Chaos are not directly related to actual laws, to me. Law is the firm belief in one or more universe-encompassing dogmas. Chaos is the total lack thereof.
So in my mind, if these guys were really CG, they'd recognize that their companion doesn't have the same taboos that they do and would respect it, even if respecting it makes them uncomfortable. Seeing as how their immediate reaction to their companion's breach of taboo (which he may not have even known about) was to kill him, it infers some belief in a unified world-spanning code of behavior. It also doesn't say much about their supposed Goodness that they showed a complete lack of regret in having to kill the guy.
Like I said, you probably have different ideas of alignment and that's great if it works for your group. Now that I've completely went off on a tangent, good night.
|
Since I set my game in the Forgotten Realms setting, I have the PC's choose a god that most fits their "alignment" and read the dieties' dogma. The dogma is a great way to have players determine how their PC's would react in certain situations. It makes it alot easier for me as DM to say, "how would this fit in the dogma of Tyr for Bob the cleric?" instead of me saying, "How would a Lawful Good person view this?"
it is not so much a difficulty really; was just wondering how much this sort of thing happened in other games and how you handled it and if you instituted any game changes because of it. I have been noticing a pattern of tension and confusion concerning alignment vs cultural norms and mores.
Since I set my game in the Forgotten Realms setting, I have the PC's choose a god that most fits their "alignment" and read the dieties' dogma. The dogma is a great way to have players determine how their PC's would react in certain situations. It makes it alot easier for me as DM to say, "how would this fit in the dogma of Tyr for Bob the cleric?" instead of me saying, "How would a Lawful Good person view this?"
This is fine, but I dont remember that setting very well; is Tyr universally worshipped all across the land? If he is then you really dont have the problem I have been noticing. If Tyr was only worshiped in one land; and his followers went to other lands and were laying down his law; would they still be good or would their actions be evil as it violates the law of that land and they would be proselytizing by the sword. If I remember right; he is a war diety so maybe war is good to his followers. Since, when they die they to to his realm; best they follow his word; but is there a greater sense of Good that would modifiy his actions? I am wondering how you differentiate good, is there an ultimate good or is what the diety says is good the good. I guess I am not to clear, having the exact problem Socrates warned us about.
Superman = Lawful Good
Batman = Chaotic Good
Magneto = Lawful Natural
Punisher = Chaotic neutral
Lex Luther = Lawful Evil
Joker = Chaotic Evil
True Natural = the Watcher.
That is how I keep it straight.... I sound about 12 years old :P
Not that there is anything wrong with that :P
hmm; I understand all but the Punisher; please explain CN, basically he seems a bit of a ruthless robin hood to me; he kills bad guys; steals their loot to fund a war agaisnt bad guys. This guy seems very hard to pin down on an alignment; some might argue NG as he will use any tactic as long as good wins out in the end; ie ;the streets safer; whatnot. Some might argue LE; he believes in law and justice; just wants it applied as him as the arbitier who deals out both in a twisted malign way; this too seems a good arguement. I can even see an arguement for CE but it is a bit weak.
I am interested in your CN idea. Do you have an idea to keep NG and NE different from other alignments?
I don't have any problem with acting 12 years old, but I don't like using commonly known figures to demonstrate alignment just because everyone has a slightly different idea of each figure.
well, most of what was chosen is pretty uniform; like suggested in the Palladuim aligments, I just am unclear about the Punisher is all, it would make it hard for me to play that alignment if I were to play in that game for instance.
There is nothing written in the books that says that you have to use the alignment system, and many campaigns work much better without it. You have to alter how some spells and abilities work, but other than that it's pretty easy. I have dabbled with the taint mechanics (found in various forms in a number of different books) and they can work just fine.
If you insist on using the alignment system then I think its incumbent on every DM that they set the parameters of what they think alignment is, otherwise your campaign can get out of hand. Alignments as they are written are pretty cut and dried, but that's the whole point. They are laid out like they are so PCs know how particular alignments are supposed to act. Did those vikings follow viking law? Probably, but their actions were certainly evil and lawful by the standards of the game (killing a supposed friend in cold blood and following viking law to the letter even when doing so was both detrimental and ridiculous).
If a DM is going to use the alignment system in all its apparent simplicity then he/she actively have to enforce it, and create situations where the PCs aren't testing the obvious flaws in the alignment system on a continuous basis. If you expect the NG and LG PCs to infiltrate an orc stronghold and kill everything in it, then you should be giving them a good reason for doing so (the orcs are planning to awaken a hideous half-fiend orc warlord from his imprisonment thereby bringing bloodshed and destruction to the land, etc). Start throwing in defenceless women and children orcs, and the situation becomes a lot more complicated.
If you want to stretch the alignment system in your games and your players can handle it then go right ahead. If you think it would create more trouble (out of game) than its worth then please don't. Ultimately, it isn't worth the arguments, infighting, etc.
Finally, if your players don't like the alignment system (or worse, find it impossible not to break it) then perhaps you should do away with the alignment system or keep them on a tighter leash. Its better that than the alternative (other player's PCs stupidly dying, etc).