Morality of 'stealing life'

[garhkal]

Many moons ago on the old PADND board i had a few threasd on morality of life stealing weapons/clerics of good being allowed to use reverse of restoration to energy drain people.. Its been a while since that old thread(s) disappeared so let's bring it back up.

Do YOU feel its ok for pcs of good alignments to use life stealing swords (or weapons that even temporarily reduce enemy's levels), or for good priests/mages to cast spells that steal life levels??

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I would say yes, unless the cleric's god specifically prohibits killing. I don't see the difference between killing the evil villain by bashing his head in with a mace (death by loss of hp) and killing him with a sword that sucks his life out (death by loss of life). Either way, he's dead.

Same for spells like restoration/energy drain. Would a cleric of Horus be allowed to energy drain the evil priest of Set? Of course! He's weakening and/or trying to kill his mortal enemy.

I can see restrictions on good clerics against animating the dead, as he would be tormenting the souls of possibly innocent people. But with the other issues, I don't see a problem.

[garhkal]

But to me destroying the life force/soul being seen as LESS evil than just tormenting their soul for a little while (animate dead) is dumb.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I would say those items don't destroy the soul, though. The sword +2, Nine Lives Stealer:

"has the power to draw out the life force from an opponent".

It essentially kills the person (reduces him to 0 hp). the person can still be raised, resurrected, etc. If not, that person has gone on to eternal rest, his final reward, etc. So that to me would be no different (and a lot less painful!) than having your life force dwindled to 0hp by being repeatedly bashed in the head with mace, for example.

But animating the dead, that is like grabbing the soul from its eternal rest and tormenting it by trapping it inside a decaying, dead body.

Note that the reverse of raise dead (slay living) is not noted as being an evil act, whereas the spell description for animate dead specifically says:

"Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priests will use it frequently."

Likewise, neither the reverse of restoration (energy drain) nor resurrection (destruction) are described as evil acts.

[lanir]

TL;DR: You have found a can of worms. There are a lot of them around. Why open this one but not others? Won't opening this one cause you to open others?

Alignment in D&D is always annoying. It rarely maps out to actions and never to morality. Discussions of morality involving alignment are therefore pointless. You're already asking the wrong question.

The morality of life stealing would depend on a couple factors that are deliberately left vague and up to DM interpretation. It's world building. For example, this thread seems to have a common consensus that undead are animated using the souls of their previously living selves. This is never stated or even particularly implied outside of a few powerful and rare examples. For all we know the force animating a zombie is not much different from the elemental force animating a flesh golem. Other factors that would come into play are the rules for the specific religion. They're generally left unstated for a reason in most D&D games; it's a lot of work to do for every religion and the "payoff" is just going to annoy most players. And there's also the question of what "stealing life" really entails. Real world theologies/philosophies that embrace the concept of reincarnation tend to have an aspect that removes memory of past lives. Isn't that what level drain does? And isn't level draining clearly presented as a partial life stealing? The only two clues you have that this is somehow an "evil" thing is that it's an attack and it's using "negative" energy from the negative energy plane. The attack part we can safely ignore as you're asking about "stealing life" in the absence of context. The negative energy bit is all you're left with and there isn't a lot there.

Basically this is a can of worms. The answer to the question either blithely assumes a lot of the vague areas above are answered in particular ways or you actually do the world building to answer them explicitly. The former assumes everyone else at your table will leap to the same conclusions without prompting. That can lead to miscommunications and issues at the game table. The latter is a lot of work, at least some of which may not pay off very well. Want the easy answer? Punt! Tell your players to justify whatever it is they want to do and then make them stick to it later.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Lanir wrote:

Alignment in D&D is always annoying.

I have to admit, I've never understood the thinking of people who hate alignment. It sorta reminds me of people who for some undefinable reason hate gods in the games. And you can tell them a mile away because they always refer to the gods as "gawds". That latter part always gnaws on my nerves for some reason. But personally I have never seen alignment to be annoying. I've seen people ignore or abuse it. I've seen people misunderstand it. But it would not be AD&D without it.

The morality of life stealing would depend on a couple factors that are deliberately left vague and up to DM interpretation.

I'm not sure it's all that vague though. Killing (except in self defense or to overcome evil enemies) is universally seen as "evil" by those of good alignment, as in the example Gygax so wonderfully penned it back in 1E:

"Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal!)."

- 1E PHB, pg. 28

Always loved that quote!

So stealing the life force of an innocent intelligent being would be no different than killing him with a mace.

For example, this thread seems to have a common consensus that undead are animated using the souls of their previously living selves. This is never stated or even particularly implied outside of a few powerful and rare examples. For all we know the force animating a zombie is not much different from the elemental force animating a flesh golem. Other factors that would come into play are the rules for the specific religion.

While I'll admit it's never been covered in excruciating detail in the core rules, the basic understanding of the situation would seem to suffice. Many undead retain the memories, intelligence and skills they had in life. So that implies their souls are somehow trapped in an undead state. The energy from the Negative Material Plane is what animates and empowers them, but their souls/spirits are trapped in undead bodies. The fact that spells such as resurrection will restore certain undead to a living state implies as well that their spirits are retained. Yes, religions play a role, dictated by alignment. A god of forgiveness or goodness or healing would never allow clerics to animate the dead and create such horrible suffering. Druids would never want to see such unnatural abominations wandering about, etc.

They're generally left unstated for a reason in most D&D games; it's a lot of work to do for every religion and the "payoff" is just going to annoy most players.

That's a pretty huge blanket statement, although I can assure you it doesn't fit all players. A lot of players (like most of mine) just love specialty priests with well developed ethos and religious duties, etc. I know a lot of people who absolutely loved the 3 gods books for Forgotten Realms (Faiths & Avatars, Powers & Pantheons...I forget the third title at the moment). Or Demihuman Deities. So many people loved how it developed the priesthoods and added tons of flavor to the game. No more "generic good cleric" nonsense. Now there were actual religions to follow.

And there's also the question of what "stealing life" really entails. Real world theologies/philosophies that embrace the concept of reincarnation tend to have an aspect that removes memory of past lives. Isn't that what level drain does?

Not really. What it does it is removes personal power, some aspect of spirit, that makes the PC less potent, less able to function. Sorta like how someone experiences the death of someone close (perhaps a husband or wife) and they just lose their ability to do much. With level drain you have all your memories intact, you simply don't have the spiritual energy, the mental power, the physical vigor you once had.

And isn't level draining clearly presented as a partial life stealing?

In a sense, yes. But again, if a good priest used such an attack on a non-evil creature, he would be in trouble. Spells such as the 9th level wizard spell energy drain can turn victims into ju-ju zombies. While it's not specifically notated as being "evil", we all pretty much understand that it would be an evil act if done to an intelligent, non-evil being.

The only two clues you have that this is somehow an "evil" thing is that it's an attack and it's using "negative" energy from the negative energy plane. The attack part we can safely ignore as you're asking about "stealing life" in the absence of context. The negative energy bit is all you're left with and there isn't a lot there.

I don't see the problem here. A good cleric who calls down lightning on a group of villagers for not donating to the church would be committing an evil act in his god's eyes. And if he bashed in the inn-keeper's head who refused him room and board, that would likewise be a very evil act. However, if he used destruction (opposite of resurrection) spell to destroy the evil high priest who's been kidnapping and sacrificing children to his demon master, that would be a good act even though it would likely be using energy from the Negative Material Plane.

I just don't see the problems some people see with alignment.

Basically this is a can of worms. The answer to the question either blithely assumes a lot of the vague areas above are answered in particular ways or you actually do the world building to answer them explicitly. The former assumes everyone else at your table will leap to the same conclusions without prompting.

Really, all it takes is for everyone to understand the rules of the game, i.e. the alignment system. I don't see it being that hard. It's a pretty simple system. Of course, all of these rules can open up some very intense and/or interesting debate, but that doesn't necessarily make them a can of worms or annoying or difficult.

[lanir]

I have to admit, I've never understood the thinking of people who hate alignment.

It's pretty simple. Lots of people lie about their behavior and you can't tell them that without drama at the table. I've had people murder neutral defenseless NPCs casually, bully other PCs, and threaten to cut down other PCs over minor issues, all while being "good". Also, a lot of your own justifications here amount to saying that once someone gets labelled as "evil" there is no more need for thought. Aside from maybe raising them as undead, there's not much you can't justify doing to them. That's an inherently evil thought process. If you don't believe me, just consider the mess you'd get into when you have a gathering of adventurers at an inn and your group finds out the innkeeper is involved in some evil plot. They kill him. But no one else knows and they just see your guys murdering the innkeeper. Immediately your guys are "evil" and anything goes. Mayhem and murder ensues. Which of these adventurer groups was performing good acts?

It sorta reminds me of people who for some undefinable reason hate gods in the games.

Not really a thing for me. I'm an atheist so the only time I mind religion in a game is when it feels like a stealthy way of shoving real world religions in my face. Or when it gets so involved that it reminds me of times that I've had religion pushed on me. And I guess I'm not really keen on the boring pantheons like the Greyhawk gods but that's because they're not very interesting.

So stealing the life force of an innocent intelligent being would be no different than killing him with a mace.

Probably. Unless you make some pretty specific assumptions.

Many undead retain the memories, intelligence and skills they had in life.

Just liches and vampires I think? At least out of the basic group. I'd rather not get into the dozens of custom jobbies people have made because they can get weird fast. And some are really poorly designed, completely impossible nonsense like Caller in Darkness: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monst ... rkness.htm

A lot of players (like most of mine) just love specialty priests with well developed ethos and religious duties, etc.

I would probably be one of them but my experiences would seem to indicate that is an uncommon view. The fluff parts I mean. Most people tend to be on board with things that give them more tricks or more power.

With level drain you have all your memories intact, you simply don't have the spiritual energy, the mental power, the physical vigor you once had.

That's oddly specific for something that is mainly described in terms of what it does to your level, hp, attack chances, etc.

I don't see the problem here. A good cleric who calls down lightning on a group of villagers for not donating to the church would be committing an evil act in his god's eyes. And if he bashed in the inn-keeper's head who refused him room and board, that would likewise be a very evil act. However, if he used destruction (opposite of resurrection) spell to destroy the evil high priest who's been kidnapping and sacrificing children to his demon master, that would be a good act even though it would likely be using energy from the Negative Material Plane.

We seemed to be agreeing here but you seemed to word it like you're arguing against me. This is puzzling.

Really, all it takes is for everyone to understand the rules of the game, i.e. the alignment system. I don't see it being that hard. It's a pretty simple system. Of course, all of these rules can open up some very intense and/or interesting debate, but that doesn't necessarily make them a can of worms or annoying or difficult.

It is simple. But it's also very, very artificial. And THAT is what makes it less comprehensible. If you look at too many things like this you're bound to weird someone out not because it's too complex for them but just because it stops making sense to apply it at some point. It works if you keep the situations really simple though. Black hats, white hats, it helps if everyone is as obvious about their intentions as a black and white Lone Ranger episode.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Lanir wrote:

It's pretty simple. Lots of people lie about their behavior and you can't tell them that without drama at the table. I've had people murder neutral defenseless NPCs casually, bully other PCs, and threaten to cut down other PCs over minor issues, all while being "good".

But that's neither a problem with nor an indictment of the alignment system. That's an example of really shitty players who don't understand alignment or who are simply too immature to play the game, and possibly not a strong enough application of DM authority. "Good" PCs who engage in the acts you describe will suffer punishment from their deity, lose specialty class status, lose spell casting abilities, lose special powers, etc. (if they are clerics, druids, rangers or paladins), they will endure forcible, self-induced alignment change (to evil alignment), and they will become fugitives wanted by the law. The DM must enforce the consequences.

A paladin or ranger who commits those evil acts should immediately become aware of the fact that he is now just a fighter. If the player whines, the DM should simply say "Your character committed an evil act, he's lost his special class status, that's how the rules work". If the player whines some more, there's the door.

Likewise for the "good" cleric committing evil acts. His god will turn his back on the wayward cleric. I guess he can now wander around adventuring as an artificial cleric - he'll have the cleric's hp, thaco, etc, but no special powers, no spell casting abilities, etc. Hell, his fellow church members may even hunt him down or order him executed for heresy!

A druid who consistently engages in evil acts out of special self interest loses his neutrality and is in the same boat as the cleric. Have fun being a semi-PC!

Others such as fighters or thieves who "are good" but behave in an evil manner likewise become actual evil characters regardless of what the player has scribbled on his player character sheet. And they will answer for their crimes. The city watch, heroic paladins, good clerics, and all enemies of evil will oppose them and hunt them down. Word will spread and notoriety will engulf them until they have to sneak around just to stay alive.

And again, if the players whine, show them the door. I'd never tolerate such stupidity by shitty, immature players. I'd rather not even play, if that was the choice.

Also, a lot of your own justifications here amount to saying that once someone gets labelled as "evil" there is no more need for thought.

Actually, that's not the case. If the PCs defeat a group of villains and some survive, no way is the ranger - and no way in hell is the paladin! - going to condone slitting their throats. Not if they want to remain rangers or paladins. Fighters or thieves who decide to slit their captives' throats move another notch into evil alignment. Should the "good" fighter or thief wish to slit the throats of helpless captives or engage in some other evil act, then that character will need to face up against the paladin, good cleric, ranger, etc. Properly played by a player worthy of the game, those fellow adventurers are not going to "turn a blind eye". A paladin who conveniently turns his back to "go to check on the horses" while it's obvious the thief is going to slit the throats of some helpless captives will instantly and permanently cease to be a paladin the moment he turns his back and takes his first step.

And note that even for those classes such as fighters or thieves who do not lose powers or class due to committing evil acts (the way paladins and rangers, clerics and druids do), there is still the issue of aligned items, weapons, etc. A NG fighter carrying an intelligent sword of NG alignment who starts committing evil acts and becomes NE will not be able to even touch that sword without taking damage. That sort of thing. So there are consequences. A cleric of good who goes around animating the dead to build an army of servants is being evil and will pay a price. So there is always a need for thinking about one's actions.

Aside from maybe raising them as undead, there's not much you can't justify doing to them. That's an inherently evil thought process.

Again, see my example earlier about slitting throats.

If you don't believe me, just consider the mess you'd get into when you have a gathering of adventurers at an inn and your group finds out the innkeeper is involved in some evil plot. They kill him. But no one else knows and they just see your guys murdering the innkeeper. Immediately your guys are "evil" and anything goes. Mayhem and murder ensues. Which of these adventurer groups was performing good acts?

The adventurers were committing an act of utter stupidity and so they got what they deserved when the other patrons attacked them. I can spot a terrorist with a backpack walking through a store buying parts for bombs, recognize him and know what he's up to, but if I just whip out my gun and start shooting at him, no one will know I'm the "good" guy. "Being good" is no magical amulet that protects against the consequences of stupidity.

Not really a thing for me. I'm an atheist so the only time I mind religion in a game is when it feels like a stealthy way of shoving real world religions in my face. Or when it gets so involved that it reminds me of times that I've had religion pushed on me. And I guess I'm not really keen on the boring pantheons like the Greyhawk gods but that's because they're not very interesting.

Same here, I need an interesting pantheon. Boring ones don't work for me. And yeah, I despise players and/or DMs who inject real world religions into the game. Won't catch me playing!

Just liches and vampires I think? At least out of the basic group.

Liches, vampires, spectres, ju-ju zombies, arguably zombie lords and wraiths, ghosts, mummies, shadows (though it also turns them insane), and a bunch of others (non-core group).

I would probably be one of them but my experiences would seem to indicate that is an uncommon view. The fluff parts I mean. Most people tend to be on board with things that give them more tricks or more power.

Well you're absolutely right there. Who would want to play a specialty priest of a god who grants no cool powers or abilities? But most of my players who've played clerics have wanted to know more about their PC's religion as well. Are there duties or sacrifices that need to be performed? Rituals to engage in? Days of observance? Etc. Having a well-developed church behind the cleric PC makes for a lot of extra layers of fun in the game.

That's oddly specific for something that is mainly described in terms of what it does to your level, hp, attack chances, etc.

I'm not saying that's any official answer. It's just my own personal interpretation (explanation?) for why it works that way. I've always referred people to Carlos Castenada's works, especially Journey to Ixtlan, for an explanation of how I see level drains being related to "personal power" as he puts it. It's just one interpretation that works.

We seemed to be agreeing here but you seemed to word it like you're arguing against me. This is puzzling.

I thought you were saying that all we have to judge it by is whether it was related to energy from the Negative Material Plane. I might have misinterpreted what you said.

It is simple. But it's also very, very artificial. And THAT is what makes it less comprehensible.

I don't understand what you mean by "artificial". The alignment system makes sense and it works. Sure, it can be abused. But that's not a fault of the rule itself. The individual alignments are spelled out pretty well, but also leave some room for interpretation. I call that flexibility. I'm not understanding what you mean when you call it "artificial".

If you look at too many things like this you're bound to weird someone out not because it's too complex for them but just because it stops making sense to apply it at some point.

In my experience that only happens when someone doesn't want to look at facts, rules, logic, etc. There are some things that, despite years and years of examination, cannot be made to make sense (such as demi-human level limits - I've never seen an argument for them that stands the test of logic, rules as written, internal consistency, etc. that I could not rip to shreds a dozen different ways), but what happens is people decide they like a rule or agree with a rule and they stop thinking and/or listening. Been through that so many times at DF it isn't funny. You just cannot bring people back to a single point of the issue to hash out - they evade, obfuscate, conflate...they do everything they can to avoid thinking about and actually debating a point of the argument. I've rarely ever seen anything being the case where it stops making sense. 99% of the time it's just people not being able or willing to think about it analytically and put the effort in.

It works if you keep the situations really simple though. Black hats, white hats, it helps if everyone is as obvious about their intentions as a black and white Lone Ranger episode.

To me that would be a totally boring game. Everyone would always follow their alignment 100%, there would be no moral or ethical conundrums to figure out, etc.

[garhkal]

It's pretty simple. Lots of people lie about their behavior and you can't tell them that without drama at the table. I've had people murder neutral defenseless NPCs casually, bully other PCs, and threaten to cut down other PCs over minor issues, all while being "good". Also, a lot of your own justifications here amount to saying that once someone gets labelled as "evil" there is no more need for thought. Aside from maybe raising them as undead, there's not much you can't justify doing to them.

But that's neither a problem with nor an indictment of the alignment system. That's an example of really shitty players who don't understand alignment or who are simply too immature to play the game, and possibly not a strong enough application of DM authority. "Good" PCs who engage in the acts you describe will suffer punishment from their deity, lose specialty class status, lose spell casting abilities, lose special powers, etc. (if they are clerics, druids, rangers or paladins), they will endure forcible, self-induced alignment change (to evil alignment), and they will become fugitives wanted by the law. The DM must enforce the consequences.

And for those Non priest/paladin/ranger classes, there's still the penalty for Alignment changes. 1e that penalty is LOSS OF A FRIKKEN LEVEL!! For 2e games its a little more generous, in that you need to now earn double xp to level up.
Additionally, there are SOCIAL penalties they can face. If they are known as bullies, then why would enemies bother showing them mercy? Better hope you don't all get held, knocked out, cause if you are expecting mercy from foes, you are outta luck.
If the higher up npcs in the towns know of your bully/lying status, good luck getting certain help. Hell, certain churches might stop assisting you period (a church of law/truth/honor)..

I would probably be one of them but my experiences would seem to indicate that is an uncommon view. The fluff parts I mean. Most people tend to be on board with things that give them more tricks or more power.

Well you're absolutely right there. Who would want to play a specialty priest of a god who grants no cool powers or abilities? But most of my players who've played clerics have wanted to know more about their PC's religion as well. Are there duties or sacrifices that need to be performed? Rituals to engage in? Days of observance? Etc. Having a well-developed church behind the cleric PC makes for a lot of extra layers of fun in the game.

As long as they are willing to live with the downsides, its all good to me. Such as one of my gods. Grants major bonuses to casting detection spells, and in quizes/puzzels. BUT has no undead turning and D4 for hp..
Or another one who grants use of the mage spell, protection from normal missiles, a certain @ of times at higher levels, but they are prohibited from ever using missile weapons not also usable in melee (so all bows, crossbows and darts are out).. And they must also break those bows they come across unless owned by someone else. HOWEVER they can suffer minor 'transgression' penalties if they ever HEAL that person.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

And for those Non priest/paladin/ranger classes, there's still the penalty for Alignment changes. 1e that penalty is LOSS OF A FRIKKEN LEVEL!! For 2e games its a little more generous, in that you need to now earn double xp to level up.

I've always preferred the 1E method , though the 2E method sorta makes more sense.

Additionally, there are SOCIAL penalties they can face. If they are known as bullies, then why would enemies bother showing them mercy? Better hope you don't all get held, knocked out, cause if you are expecting mercy from foes, you are outta luck.

So true! The roleplaying aspect can never be overlooked!

If the higher up npcs in the towns know of your bully/lying status, good luck getting certain help. Hell, certain churches might stop assisting you period (a church of law/truth/honor)..

Indeed! A fall from grace carries heavy consequences. Shitty players endure shitty consequences.

As long as they are willing to live with the downsides, its all good to me. Such as one of my gods. Grants major bonuses to casting detection spells, and in quizes/puzzels. BUT has no undead turning and D4 for hp..

It does need to balance out, and that's what I like about most of the specialty priest books - they do have good balance. No one really becomes overly powerful.

[lanir]

I'm not saying that's any official answer. It's just my own personal interpretation (explanation?) for why it works that way.

This is what I was refering to as world building in my original reply. Only by defining some elements like this do you get a specific result about morality for life stealing as I mentioned earlier. So I think we're agreeing with each other again?


As far as the discussions of alignment go... You guys are talking about how it works in the book. I'm aware of the explanations. You're also extrapolating in ways that make sense to me in applying it to newer situations like the really odious schtick of the paladin "going to check the horses" at convenient times. But while alignment is a social mechanic it is still a game mechanic. And there are reasons why it doesn't work very well.

1. People in real life want to see themselves as the hero in their own story. Or at least as generally good people.
2. PC morality is not entirely unrelated to the morality of the player and can be identical at times.
3. Fiction presents lots of antiheroes who are allowed to be the "good guys" in their own stories. The entire story is usually setup to allow the justifications for their actions to be presented in as favorable a light as possible.
4. Considerable effort has been expended in the recent past to make torture look like it might possibly be reasonable in the real world.
5. Demonizing opponents so that you can do anything to them is a popular tactic.

Put all these together and you have a culture that encourages excuses, people that are probably expecting those excuses to pass muster in your games, and who will be unpredictably insulted that you're criticizing their real world morality. There's even a really strong history of #5 in D&D. For example in B2 Keep on the Borderlands the PCs end up fighting orcs and goblins because caravans have been raided nearby. Do the PCs go up to the caves these creatures live in and demand the goods be returned and the guilty parties handed over? Of course not. It's assumed they have their excuse and they sneak in to murderhobo their way through the homes of the monsters. Indeed, once the excuse is given it's wholly abandoned after the fact, you never run into merchants anxiously asking if their goods have been found. In some ways it sort of breaks the game if #5 is not a viable option.

Just to give one example, #4 is pretty troublesome as well and directly ties into the "checking the horses" nonsense. I have a player that is not too bright and can't imagine torture beyond the perfect cinematic setup of some evil person wholly in control of the situation who is slowly put under duress that they obviously deserve until their control erodes and they admit their wrongdoings. In most other respects the guy would bend over backwards to help people but he's specifically referenced the "checking the horses" thing to me. I can tell him "I don't allow torture in my games, it's off the table." That's fine and he would understand even if he didn't agree with me. If I tell him "Torture is evil and can never be anything other than an evil act and allowing it to happen also makes you an accomplice to evil" then he doesn't see that as me enforcing a pretty basic morality in the game. He sees it as me criticizing his politics!

This is why I don't want to get into this generally. It would turn my game into a contentious series of lessons in morality. I'd rather have fun instead. And frankly, even D&D "good" is not good because it requires #5 or the game breaks. It fails it's own morality checks, has for decades, and is seriously into "neutral" territory. But like my players it would still rather call itself "good", thank you very much. Do you see how even the game designers fell into this issue of wanting to label themselves as good while abandoning the moral high ground to accept convenient excuses instead?

Any game mechanic that causes this much trouble is worth chucking out the window. I used some extreme examples from past groups earlier but my current group is mostly pretty decent, yet we'd still have disagreements over strict enforcement of alignments. Alignment is just a fake way of modeling these things to begin with. A heavy-handed "the universe itself passes judgement on you" mess that isn't even consistent across games. My solution is to remove the mechanic and go entirely with social responses to actions. You might want to argue with me about this but really. Doesn't that just reinforce this point?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Lanir wrote:

This is what I was refering to as world building in my original reply. Only by defining some elements like this do you get a specific result about morality for life stealing as I mentioned earlier. So I think we're agreeing with each other again?

Well, yes. If you're saying the DM needs to flesh out the guidelines in the books. Most of the alignment stuff is obvious, but the nitty-gritty sometimes needs to be detailed by the DM.

As far as the discussions of alignment go... You guys are talking about how it works in the book. I'm aware of the explanations. You're also extrapolating in ways that make sense to me in applying it to newer situations like the really odious schtick of the paladin "going to check the horses" at convenient times. But while alignment is a social mechanic it is still a game mechanic. And there are reasons why it doesn't work very well.

1. People in real life want to see themselves as the hero in their own story. Or at least as generally good people.

Unless of course the player wishes to play a greedy thief and explore playing a person who isn't necessarily the hero, and who can get away with murder (literally sometimes), or perhaps play a druid who is above the petty concerns of the world of politics and wealth.

2. PC morality is not entirely unrelated to the morality of the player and can be identical at times.

Or, conversely, it can be absolutely opposite. That's the fun of a roleplaying game. The player can play a holy paladin, an aloof druid, a conniving thief, etc.

3. Fiction presents lots of antiheroes who are allowed to be the "good guys" in their own stories. The entire story is usually setup to allow the justifications for their actions to be presented in as favorable a light as possible.

I'd say they can be fit into the alignment system just fine. Many would be CG or perhaps NG.

4. Considerable effort has been expended in the recent past to make torture look like it might possibly be reasonable in the real world.

Torture in the real world is totally reasonable. While there are usually other, better ways to extract information, torture definitely has a place. There are situations where time is of the essence and there is simply not time for slower methods. Marcinko, who formed Seal Team 6, also holds this stance on the issue. And believe me, there are times he's had to do it and it works.

5. Demonizing opponents so that you can do anything to them is a popular tactic.

Yes, that's an age-old tactic. Dehumanize the enemy to make it easier to kill him (hence, the terms "Japs", "Nips", and "Krauts" in WWII). But that doesn't mean you can "do anything" to them. American soldiers were prohibited from torturing the enemy even though they saw them in dehumanized terms.

Put all these together and you have a culture that encourages excuses, people that are probably expecting those excuses to pass muster in your games, and who will be unpredictably insulted that you're criticizing their real world morality.

Yes, a culture of shitty players. Period. Shitty players cause shitty games. They suck. And they don't sit at my table. It's that simple. You're trying to blame alignment for shitty players when it has nothing to do with alignment. If you find good players, this will never be an issue.

There's even a really strong history of #5 in D&D. For example in B2 Keep on the Borderlands the PCs end up fighting orcs and goblins because caravans have been raided nearby. Do the PCs go up to the caves these creatures live in and demand the goods be returned and the guilty parties handed over? Of course not. It's assumed they have their excuse and they sneak in to murderhobo their way through the homes of the monsters. Indeed, once the excuse is given it's wholly abandoned after the fact, you never run into merchants anxiously asking if their goods have been found. In some ways it sort of breaks the game if #5 is not a viable option.

Your example is wrong because you're trying to apply human-to-human morality onto human-to-monster game alignment. That doesn't work. To give a better example in real-world terms, say you have a cell of terrorists, with a few amongst them who take hostages. You don't send Seal Team 6 or Delta Force in to demand the hostages be released and for the terrorists to turn over the actual perpetrators of the kidnapping. You go in and kill them all in cold blood, period. It's assumed that the orcs are engaged in murder. Orcs are uniformly evil in AD&D terms. They're evil, murderous creatures hated by every civilized race (because they are thoroughly evil and destructive). Similar to real world terrorists.

Just to give one example, #4 is pretty troublesome as well and directly ties into the "checking the horses" nonsense. I have a player that is not too bright and can't imagine torture beyond the perfect cinematic setup of some evil person wholly in control of the situation who is slowly put under duress that they obviously deserve until their control erodes and they admit their wrongdoings.

Underlined emphasis mine. "Not too bright" player. There's your problem. It has everything to do with shitty players and nothing to do with the alignment system.

In most other respects the guy would bend over backwards to help people but he's specifically referenced the "checking the horses" thing to me. I can tell him "I don't allow torture in my games, it's off the table." That's fine and he would understand even if he didn't agree with me. If I tell him "Torture is evil and can never be anything other than an evil act and allowing it to happen also makes you an accomplice to evil" then he doesn't see that as me enforcing a pretty basic morality in the game. He sees it as me criticizing his politics!

Why then is he still at your table causing trouble? The guy is obviously an idiot. Period. Most likely a liberal snowflake that can't handle differing opinions or anything that goes against his ill-informed world view. Get rid of him. He would not last more than a session at my table.

This is why I don't want to get into this generally. It would turn my game into a contentious series of lessons in morality.

The solution? Get better players. I've never had this problem because I'm picky when it comes to who my players are. These issues you bring up are player issues, not mechanics/game issues. And we know this from experience because shitty players suck. Good players, on the other hand, don't suck and don't cause these sorts of problems.

I'd rather have fun instead.

If that's your goal, you need to find better players.

And frankly, even D&D "good" is not good because it requires #5 or the game breaks.

That's completely false. It certainly does not require dehumanizing the enemy in order to work. Have you ever witnessed the aftermath of a police shooting or the shooting of an enemy in combat (military)? In the vast majority of cases, when the bad guy is down, the police or military steps in and renders medical attention to the wounded and still living. They don't spit on them or light them on fire or torture them. They treat them as fellow human beings. You don't need to dehumanize an enemy to kill him. I do security work, and if an active shooter enters the area, I have to kill him. I go into the situation knowing that the shooter is a fellow human being who simply stopped being able to cope with life and is almost certainly on mind-altering anti-depressants (many of which cause suicidal/homicidal thoughts). He's not a monster. He may be a 15 year old kid who's messed up. But if I'm on the scene, he's getting multiple head wounds and the event is over. Sucks to be him. Sucks to be me. Oh well. I'll actually feel for him and be very sad the situation had to happen. That doesn't mean I have to dehumanize him to be the good guy. But yes, I need to be the good guy and shoot the bad guy who's trying to kill everyone there.

Now in AD&D it's a bit easier because, for example, orcs are vile, hateful, thoroughly evil inhuman monsters that constitute an ongoing threat by their very existence. But a paladin, for example, will not allow the murder of disarmed evil beings or children regardless of the situation.

It fails it's own morality checks, has for decades, and is seriously into "neutral" territory.

Only in a poorly run, poorly played game.

But like my players it would still rather call itself "good", thank you very much. Do you see how even the game designers fell into this issue of wanting to label themselves as good while abandoning the moral high ground to accept convenient excuses instead?

Sorry, that's simply not true at all. Not at all. A paladin will not condone torture. Neither will a good cleric. I think you have an issue with alignment. It's not a design flaw. I'm not trying to pick on you, but whenever I see someone so thoroughly at odds with such a major aspect of the game it always turns out to be an issue with the person, not the game.

Any game mechanic that causes this much trouble is worth chucking out the window.

It only causes problems with bad players and/or DMs. The alignment system is not broken by any means. It's one of the best designed mechanics in the game, actually.

I used some extreme examples from past groups earlier but my current group is mostly pretty decent, yet we'd still have disagreements over strict enforcement of alignments.

Two words. Better players. It really is that simple.

Alignment is just a fake way of modeling these things to begin with. A heavy-handed "the universe itself passes judgement on you" mess that isn't even consistent across games.

It's not the universe passing judgement on the PCs. It's the gods. See what I mean? You're blaming the wrong thing. You're looking at it wrong.

My solution is to remove the mechanic and go entirely with social responses to actions. You might want to argue with me about this but really. Doesn't that just reinforce this point?

I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by "go entirely with social responses to actions". That doesn't tell me anything. Do you mean like the Antifa and Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists who assault innocent people and riot and commit vandalism and arson because they so deeply hate those awful, evil, Nazi-like Americans (conservatives, Trump supporters, etc)? Because they all think they're "good" and yet their "social responses" are thoroughly evil. They have no morals, no alignment guidelines. They're essentially Chaotic Evil. They don't respect democracy. So putting this into game terms, they are not and cannot be (objectively speaking) of good alignment. "Social responses" are going to align with one of the alignments in AD&D. Villagers whose "social response" to an unpopular king (who perhaps demands high taxes or whatever) is to protest, refuse payment, and fight for their rights are Chaotic Good. Should those same villagers have a "social response" similar to that of our current domestic terrorist groups, and they start burning their neighbors' homes and businesses to the ground, assaulting those in the village who actually like the king (perhaps they know he needs to charge high taxes to pay for defense of the kingdom), and generally cause damage and bloodshed, that "social response" would see them labeled Chaotic Evil.

Social responses, if I understand them to mean what I think you intend them to mean, would be assigned to whatever alignment they match. So that can't be a substitute for alignment. Social responses will determine alignment. You can't separate the two.

[lanir]

This has wandered off-topic. I'll close it out as succinctly as I can.

Now in AD&D it's a bit easier because, for example, orcs are vile, hateful, thoroughly evil inhuman monsters that constitute an ongoing threat by their very existence. But a paladin, for example, will not allow the murder of disarmed evil beings or children regardless of the situation.

... This is an example of how integral demonizing opponents is in D&D. And it's being used as an example that demonizing opponents isn't necessary for D&D to work? What happens if someone wants to bring an un-killed orc child back to a human city to raise it? Leaving it to starve doesn't seem much better than killing it outright. Can the paladin teach it to be better? What about half-orcs?

There are other things I could comment on and disagree with but mostly they fall into two broad categories. Either I've said something basically like "X can happen." and you reply with "But Y can happen too." This is not really a rebuttal unless I ruled out Y happening. So nothing to say there. The other broad category are things that would get us into a discussion of real world morals, philosophies and politics. That has no place in this thread and I'm not sure it's even an appropriate topic for this board. Or one I'd want to waste time on (it's fair to say there would be many areas of disagreement).

As for my game, I've previously stated that my players are fine. I may have neglected to say so but I have fun in our games. It's been suggested I remove whatever doesn't work in my games with the strongly stated suggestion that it's my players. This is bizarre because I've already done that. When the group works without the alignment system but does not with it, the alignment system is the obvious thing to go. I sit down to game with my friends and if I'm lucky, I make new ones. I'm hardly going to kick them to the curb so I can enjoy quality time with a rule I don't even like.

Instead of alignment I use a variant of something from my MUSH days: ICA=ICC. In-Character Actions have In-Character Consequences. This is the "social response" I mentioned before that was probably poorly worded. Basically the world reacts to the things the PCs do. If the players find it more comfortable to interpret an alignment from that, they're welcome to it. I don't need to (and no, I don't think that makes me a shitty GM or a shitty player for whatever that's worth).

I won't reply here again as I've already covered the on-topic stuff.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Lanir wrote:

This is an example of how integral demonizing opponents is in D&D. And it's being used as an example that demonizing opponents isn't necessary for D&D to work?

You're conflating real life with fantasy, is what I'm trying to say. In real life, there is no universally evil group. Not all Germans were Nazis. Not all Japanese were kamikazes. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Southerners are racists. We see bad and good in every group. Not so in AD&D. Orcs are a universally evil race. They are a war-like, destructive, violent race of monsters. It's not like a real world situation where a majority (or at least a large portion) of a particular group are good, non-violent, etc, and only a particular subset is evil. In the fantasy game world, all orcs are evil. There are good humans and bad humans and neutral humans. There are good, bad and neutral elves. Etc, etc. But orcs are evil.

And that is precisely why we had to demonize entire nationalities and races in WWII. Most American soldiers understood that Germans were not all evil and some were forced to serve as Nazis. They also saw them as fellow human beings. That's a huge issue. It's not as easy as many think, to look at another human being eye-to-eye and kill him without realizing this is a human life you're taking. Only psychotics fail to feel something in a situation such at that. There are studies that have been done showing how a great number of soldiers either shot to miss on purpose or simply didn't shoot, because of the natural inhibition against killing another human.

In AD&D, orcs are not human. It's not just a matter of killing another race or nationality - it's the killing of an entirely different species - a thoroughly evil species that is hell bent on the genocide of other races and species. In the real world, we kill and eat other species all the time. Cattle, chicken, fish are all raised as food sources and slaughtered en mass then consumed. Now imagine the indifference humans would have towards cows if cows were intelligent monsters who raided their farms, stole their food, killed their children, etc. You simply cannot compare the real world to the fantasy world in this way.

What happens if someone wants to bring an un-killed orc child back to a human city to raise it? Leaving it to starve doesn't seem much better than killing it outright. Can the paladin teach it to be better? What about half-orcs?

Perhaps. And that's where alignment becomes interesting. Is it more cruel to let the orc baby starve than to cut its throat? Can it be raised in human society and turned good? Gygax himself once commented on the appropriateness of a paladin killing unarmed baby orcs. If I remember correctly (and I bet Garhkal can find that quote at DF or Enworld), Gygax argued that orcs are evil and baby orcs become mature orcs who kill, so paladins could kill baby orcs.

There are other things I could comment on and disagree with but mostly they fall into two broad categories. Either I've said something basically like "X can happen." and you reply with "But Y can happen too." This is not really a rebuttal unless I ruled out Y happening. So nothing to say there. The other broad category are things that would get us into a discussion of real world morals, philosophies and politics. That has no place in this thread and I'm not sure it's even an appropriate topic for this board. Or one I'd want to waste time on (it's fair to say there would be many areas of disagreement).

Well that doesn't really tell us anything. You seem to be skipping over a whole lot of stuff that would certainly be appropriate to discuss within the context of the game.

As for my game, I've previously stated that my players are fine. I may have neglected to say so but I have fun in our games. It's been suggested I remove whatever doesn't work in my games with the strongly stated suggestion that it's my players. This is bizarre because I've already done that.

To be honest, that's not what it sounded like to me. You were describing a crybaby snowflake who started playing the victim and blaming you for attacking his real world morals or political views because of something you ruled on in the game dealing with alignment. I'm referring to this quote:

In most other respects the guy would bend over backwards to help people but he's specifically referenced the "checking the horses" thing to me. I can tell him "I don't allow torture in my games, it's off the table." That's fine and he would understand even if he didn't agree with me. If I tell him "Torture is evil and can never be anything other than an evil act and allowing it to happen also makes you an accomplice to evil" then he doesn't see that as me enforcing a pretty basic morality in the game. He sees it as me criticizing his politics!

This response to me is both childish and stupid. The only thing that pops into my mind is: "What is going on in this guy's head?". He's ok with a blanket statement of "torture is not allowed in my game" with no justification or explanation of the ruling (just DM whim), but when you describe the alignment system and how condoning or allowing torture is evil (by game standards), he has a meltdown and whines about being offended?

Does he even understand that he's playing a fantasy game independent of his real-world views and that the game has particular rules? He sounds to me like someone who would, while playing Monopoly, whine in protest about how offended he is because the game emulated the "evil, rich white patriarchal 1%" when he landed on Park Place and had to pay rent.

And the DM whim aspect doesn't work either. Saying "I don't allow torture"...what does that mean? What happens if a PC decides they need to torture the bad guy to gain info? Do you then say "No, your character can't do that."? Because that's overstepping the DM boundaries and stepping into the player's decisions on how to run his character. How is that any different from you saying "No, you can't divide treasure that way"?

And what happens at your table if the fighter says: "Well I don't care... that evil wizard has my daughter held hostage and I'm gonna start cutting off pieces of his body starting at his toes and working my way up, until he tells us where she is!" and then the paladin says "I have to go relieve myself, be right back."? Do you simply issue a god-like ruling: "This does not happen!"? Because I can't see that being realistic if you want to maintain players and a campaign. And if the fighter does go ahead with the torture and the paladin "steps away to relieve himself" or to "check on the horses", do you strip him of paladinhood? And if so, does the whiner player accuse you of "criticizing his politics" because his character reaped the results of his behavior in keeping with the game rules?

It gets kinda silly, no?

When the group works without the alignment system but does not with it, the alignment system is the obvious thing to go. I sit down to game with my friends and if I'm lucky, I make new ones. I'm hardly going to kick them to the curb so I can enjoy quality time with a rule I don't even like.

You cannot run AD&D without alignment. It's integral to the system. If there is no good or evil, then how do you detect alignment? How does protection from evil work? How are undead turned? Can anyone do anything they like? You said torture in your game is banned. So the DM rules what the players can do? What if they want to poison the well of a community that banned them for stealing while in town? Does the paladin who assists in this lose his paladinhood? Or does he remain a paladin? Or what if he just turns his back but does not actually assist in the poisoning? Can characters commit rape? If you have a player who decides his fighter is going to have his way with the barmaid against her will, is that ok? Does his god condone this?

Without being Lawful Good, the paladin is just another fighter.
Without being True Neutral, a druid is simply not a druid.

And so on and so forth. So my question would be - if you remove alignment, what replaces it? And I ask this because so many other aspects of the game are tied to alignment. It's one of the deepest, more central core concepts of the game. Playing AD&D without alignment is like playing Monopoly without charging rent on properties owned. I cannot understand how it could work.

Instead of alignment I use a variant of something from my MUSH days: ICA=ICC. In-Character Actions have In-Character Consequences. This is the "social response" I mentioned before that was probably poorly worded. Basically the world reacts to the things the PCs do. If the players find it more comfortable to interpret an alignment from that, they're welcome to it. I don't need to (and no, I don't think that makes me a shitty GM or a shitty player for whatever that's worth).

So again, what determines this social response? If a paladin poisons the well of a community, then certainly I can see the In-Character-Consequences of the survivors in the town paying people to hunt the paladin down in revenge. Certainly that makes sense, and I would assume every well run campaign features such consequences. I'm a huge fan of that. But without alignment, how can the paladin lose his paladinhood for committing an evil act if there is no evil alignment in your game? How does a detect evil spell work if there's no evil to detect?