Quote from: Jam The MF on August 06, 2021, 11:26:06 PM

CG = Achieving Victory for Good Causes, without constraints.  The end justifies the means.

Ends justifying the means is not a good philosophy.

For the most part I don't really use the alignment system except when certain mechanics require them, even then our group seldom uses those. For the most part, I think that a character should have their beliefs, their moral codes, and their goals - which don't have to neatly fit into the alignment system.

Quote from: Pat on August 07, 2021, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 06, 2021, 11:26:06 PM

CG = Achieving Victory for Good Causes, without constraints.  The end justifies the means.

Ends justifying the means is not a good philosophy.

Agreed. I think a better way of phrasing it would be "Chaotic Good: doesn't let bad laws stop them from doing what is right."

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 07, 2021, 10:19:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on August 07, 2021, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 06, 2021, 11:26:06 PM

CG = Achieving Victory for Good Causes, without constraints.  The end justifies the means.

Ends justifying the means is not a good philosophy.

Agreed. I think a better way of phrasing it would be "Chaotic Good: doesn't let bad laws stop them from doing what is right."

In the movie Tombstone; once the Chaotic Evil bad guys started running over the Earp family, and they had succeeded in really pissing off Wyatt Earp, he became the embodiment of Chaotic Good.  Doc Holiday said, "It's not about revenge.  It's about a reckoning."  It was all out war, at that point.

I have a hard time with alignment.

So I rarely use it.

When I do, I prefer Law, Chaos, people who don't understand or care, and "good" and "evil" are just moral judgments. Like in Moorcock, Pure Chaos and Pure Law would both destroy humanity.

I think the 3x3 method is doomed from the start for several reasons, but mostly by mixing Anderson (chaos=evil) and Moorcock. I discussed this here:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

3rd edition at least tried to define it; "good" is what values life.

5e makes little sense to me: "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good."

So, viking raiders are lawful good because their role is expected by their society. Maybe the same goes for slavers. In fact, slavery (and serfdom etc.) will mostly exist in societies that expect this. If we ever have social credit in D&D it is lawful good because it is oppression for the greater good. You shouldn't be criticizing the government, it's against the law!

"Oh but that isn't the RIGHT THING.". So, what you mean is "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by 21st CENTURY WESTERN society". This would make more sense.

(what is worse, 5e says paladins are lawful good... something which is not necessarily true in 5e IIRC. We've got vengeance paladins, which are pretty cool, nature paladins, even oppression paladin etc.)

Other problem is that everybody will think of themselves as good. You want to prohibit ME from smoking crack, owning guns, or from watching "fake news" on Youtube? You want to turn Russia and Germany into utopia for a thousand years? You want to invade a rogue country ruled by a heartless tyrant, and the cost of millions of civilian lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars - regardless of how these civiliasn and taxpayers feel about it? In every case, I'm 99% sure you convinced yourself you have a good cause for believing that.

And people who DON'T think of themselves as being good will at least pretend they are - in ways that are often undistinguishable from good intentioned people doing terrible think (...and again, if you CAN distinguish, does it really make a difference if they both want to put you in  prison?)

Maybe one solution would be having Law x Chaos as the cosmic struggle as good x evil as a minor personal trait that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

anyway, ramble over.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 02:12:58 PM
I have a hard time with alignment.

So I rarely use it.

When I do, I prefer Law, Chaos, people who don't understand or care, and "good" and "evil" are just moral judgments. Like in Moorcock, Pure Chaos and Pure Law would both destroy humanity.

I think the 3x3 method is doomed from the start for several reasons, but mostly by mixing Anderson (chaos=evil) and Moorcock. I discussed this here:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

3rd edition at least tried to define it; "good" is what values life. 5e makes little sense to me: "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good."

So, viking raiders are lawful good because their role is expected by their society. Maybe the same goes for slavers. In fact, slavery (and serfdom etc.) will mostly exist in societies that expect this. If we ever have social credit in D&D it is lawful good because it is oppression for the greater good. You shouldn't be criticizing the government, it's against the law!

"Oh but that isn't the RIGHT THING.". So, what you mean is "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by 21st CENTURY WESTERN society". This would make more sense.

(what is worse, 5e says paladins are lawful good... something which is not necessarily true in 5e IIRC. We've got vengeance paladins, which are pretty cool, nature paladins, even oppression paladin etc.)

Other problem is that everybody will think of themselves as good. You want to prohibit ME from smoking crack, owning guns, or from watching "fake news" on Youtube? You want to turn Russia and Germany into utopia for a thousand years? You want to invade a rogue country ruled by a heartless tyrant, and the cost of millions of civilian lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars - regardless of how these civiliasn and taxpayers feel about it? In every case, I'm 99% sure you convinced yourself you have a good cause for believing that.

And people who DON'T think of themselves as being good will at least pretend they are - in ways that are often undistinguishable from good intentioned people doing terrible think (...and again, if you CAN distinguish, does it really make a difference if they both want to put you in  prison?)

Maybe one solution would be having Law x Chaos as the cosmic struggle as good x evil as a minor personal trait that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

anyway, ramble over.

Well, your objections are the same ones moral relativists had made for 40+ years now (re. the "Viking raiders" and paladins), though full marks for partially understanding why it fails (the 21st century morality part).  There is no "relative" morality in a universe with D&D alignment.  Good and Evil are real forces, and a PC's actions can be judged on an objective scale.  The problem occurs when that scale is hidden or undeveloped by the GM (leading to confusion or subjective calls).  But in the universe of D&D's alignment, good is a very real thing, defined by the universe (or perhaps the deities of the setting).  This is why a paladin can slaughter a village of orcs (in some campaigns) and still be lawful good...

I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.

You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.

You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?

I think the 1E DMG defines things in pretty clear terms.

"Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant."

This establishes the parameters for behavior (bearing in mind that, "in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment").

And so characters of any alignment can have any sort of aims or goals. What is required for a character to be considered "good" is respect for and observation of "human rights." These rights are specifically enumerated--life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness.

For evil, "purpose is the determinant." Evil characters can pursue noble goals and serve a noble purpose. It's just that this purpose holds higher priority than the rights of (sufficiently human) creatures. In other words, this is the "ends justify the means" ethos.

Neutrals are in two sorts. Those who are indifferent--having neither purpose nor respect for rights--and those who are actively seeking balance.

Can Paladins kill orc babies? It's left as a parameter to set by the DM. As the phrase "creature rights" alludes to, where exactly the line is drawn between creatures which are considered to have rights and those that are not is going to be left to the DM.

The question of slavery would link back to the tenet of "relative freedom." The simple answer is that slavery is evil. But "relative" freedom acknowledges that there could be cases where infringement on freedom might be the less bad alternative. Imprisoning a criminal where setting the criminal free would likely result in a worse violation of "human rights" would be permissible as a "good" act. Restitution via forced servitude might be an example of permissible slavery.

Torture would seem to fall under cruelty and suffering. These are considered undesirable by good creatures.

Lying for "good" intentions is not specifically prohibited from being within the range of good behavior, provided the lie (even with good intentions) does not deprive another creature of their "human rights."

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.

You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?

No, I established that some campaigns might have that as a definition of good.  Honestly, I don't understand the need for the rulebook to define this.  The DM defines the parameters of good or evil, preferably explicitly. I don't need the game to define that for me.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 07, 2021, 06:58:54 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.

You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?

No, I established that some campaigns might have that as a definition of good.  Honestly, I don't understand the need for the rulebook to define this.  The DM defines the parameters of good or evil, preferably explicitly. I don't need the game to define that for me.

Fair enough, "whatever the DM defines as good" is a clear answer at least, although I don't remind any edition of D&D resolving the issue this way.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 07, 2021, 06:46:01 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 05:25:36 PM
I think I see where you're coming from - and I'm not a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination, I was just commenting on how 5e sees things - but my question is: if good and evil are objective, how do you define them? Because, as far as I can tell, neither 5e nor any other edition has a precise enough definition that didn't generate endless discussion.

You established killing orcs is not evil. What about slavery, torture, or lying for "good" intentions?

I think the 1E DMG defines things in pretty clear terms.

"Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant."

This establishes the parameters for behavior (bearing in mind that, "in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment").

And so characters of any alignment can have any sort of aims or goals. What is required for a character to be considered "good" is respect for and observation of "human rights." These rights are specifically enumerated--life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness.

For evil, "purpose is the determinant." Evil characters can pursue noble goals and serve a noble purpose. It's just that this purpose holds higher priority than the rights of (sufficiently human) creatures. In other words, this is the "ends justify the means" ethos.

Neutrals are in two sorts. Those who are indifferent--having neither purpose nor respect for rights--and those who are actively seeking balance.

Can Paladins kill orc babies? It's left as a parameter to set by the DM. As the phrase "creature rights" alludes to, where exactly the line is drawn between creatures which are considered to have rights and those that are not is going to be left to the DM.

The question of slavery would link back to the tenet of "relative freedom." The simple answer is that slavery is evil. But "relative" freedom acknowledges that there could be cases where infringement on freedom might be the less bad alternative. Imprisoning a criminal where setting the criminal free would likely result in a worse violation of "human rights" would be permissible as a "good" act. Restitution via forced servitude might be an example of permissible slavery.

Torture would seem to fall under cruelty and suffering. These are considered undesirable by good creatures.

Lying for "good" intentions is not specifically prohibited from being within the range of good behavior, provided the lie (even with good intentions) does not deprive another creature of their "human rights."

Fair enough, this DOES sounds a lot better than the 5e bit " I've mentioned.

And "end justifies the means, screw human rights" is a good definition of evil that still allows evil people to consider themselves good.

HOWEVER... you wonder about good deities under these guidelines. Are they more preoccupied with the means than the ends? A good deity would frown upon someone losing their own life, or the lives of villains, to avoid a robbery?

Ehhh, all of the editions I have give a general definition of good and evil, not specific codes of behavior.  DM interpretation is a necessity.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 08:22:03 PM
Fair enough, this DOES sounds a lot better than the 5e bit " I've mentioned.

And "end justifies the means, screw human rights" is a good definition of evil that still allows evil people to consider themselves good.

HOWEVER... you wonder about good deities under these guidelines. Are they more preoccupied with the means than the ends? A good deity would frown upon someone losing their own life, or the lives of villains, to avoid a robbery?

You have to be very careful when trying to map morals and ethics over to deities. If you start smashing my car with a baseball bat, you're guilty of vandalism. But if I smash that same car with a baseball bat, it's not a crime when I do it. It's my car. I can do whatever I want to it.

Even a mere mortal such as myself is exempt from issues of right and wrong in this instance because of the unique position I hold with regards to my personal property as owner. Now consider the positions held by deities as Avatars of the forces that that make up the world and all the people, places, things, and ideas within it.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 07, 2021, 09:50:28 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2021, 08:22:03 PM
Fair enough, this DOES sounds a lot better than the 5e bit " I've mentioned.

And "end justifies the means, screw human rights" is a good definition of evil that still allows evil people to consider themselves good.

HOWEVER... you wonder about good deities under these guidelines. Are they more preoccupied with the means than the ends? A good deity would frown upon someone losing their own life, or the lives of villains, to avoid a robbery?

You have to be very careful when trying to map morals and ethics over to deities. If you start smashing my car with a baseball bat, you're guilty of vandalism. But if I smash that same car with a baseball bat, it's not a crime when I do it. It's my car. I can do whatever I want to it.

Even a mere mortal such as myself is exempt from issues of right and wrong in this instance because of the unique position I hold with regards to my personal property as owner. Now consider the positions held by deities as Avatars of the forces that that make up the world and all the people, places, things, and ideas within it.

One of the things the Arcanis setting did was outright declare that the gods were beyond any mortal concept of alignment. They had also been utterly silent beyond granting spells to their priests for millennia with various adventures suggesting that sections of the various holy texts had been entirely rewritten over the course of the last 2000 years or more (ex. one Living Arcanis adventure involved finding writings older than the current "bible" that portrayed one of the gods completely differently than as they were currently known; akin to early Seth vs. later Seth in Egyptian mythology).

Anyway, Good vs. Evil was basically who your means benefited. Good was giving from yourself to help others. Evil was taking from others to help yourself. Neutral on that axis was looking out for yourself, but not at the cost of hurting others.

Lawful was believing that organized systems help accomplish your goals (ex. Lawful Good believes working in the system best allows you to help others. Lawful Evil believes working in the system best allows you to take what you want from others) while Chaotic believes organized systems are an active detriment to achieving your ends (ex. Chaotic Good believes systems inevitably become too bloated or corrupt to effectively help anyone, Chaotic Evil believes the organized systems get in the way of taking what they want from others). Neutral will go with whatever best aids their goals (i.e. helping others, helping yourself or taking from others).

I like Alignment because its a roleplaying shorthand. Team colors AND preset attitudes for the play to portray. Most players barely bring any roleplay to the table (regardless of what novels they write at 1st level), so alignment fills in an easy niche to reference at the game table.

I like to use Law / Neutral / Chaos because its possible for Law/Chaos to exist in party easier than Good/Evil. When I've used Good / Neutral / Evil, then the PCs go PVP swiftly, whereas the Law vs. Chaos usually requires a big triggering incident and until then, lots of interesting interparty tension/conflict.