literaryfirearms:

corruptionpoints:

For those that have played within the nine alignments, do you find yourself attempting to objectively define Good and Evil in such a manner, or do you stray from the concept all-together?

For those that have created a homebrewed fantasy setting, is there a method you use to objectively define that which is “Good” and “Evil” on a celestial level as well as mortal level?

For my players, have you found a surefire method to fit a character into the concepts of “Lawful Good” and “Chaotic Evil” or simply “Good” and “Evil” perfectly? Do you think it is even possible?

Alignment to me is more of a question about action than it is about motivation. Knowing strong values is different from upholding strong values. Having good intentions is not the same as doing good. Though good can come from evil actions, the person who has the balls to do them is not a good person. Both good actions and good intentions need to line up for me to really consider a character “good” in the classic sense.

A lot of villains can think they’re doing good in their own minds, but if the actions they take end up hurting others, spawning chaos, and fertilizing destruction, they are still evil. It doesn’t matter if their intent was to better the world, because if they’re wounding it in the process, they are not good.

I’ve played a range of alignments, mostly by accident. I play characters first and figure out their alignments later. I would argue Law and Chaos on the scale help to flavor how a character’s tendency towards good or evil interacts with the world. Lawful characters tend to learn and do things by the book; chaotic characters couldn’t be bothered to follow tradition. That’s a really oversimplified statement, but since this is about good and evil, not law and chaos, it’ll do for now.

Good doesn’t have to be nice. Good can be tough love and rough around the edges, but you can count on Good in a crisis. Good can be the jerk who tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear, because it’s for your benefit in the long run. Good is self-sacrificing, because if even one person is better off, Good thinks it was worth it. Good will go out of its way to help someone, even if it’s inconvenient for Good or Good is busy. I wouldn’t say Good is concerned for the group so much as Good will prioritize the world outside of the self. Good takes others into consideration; Good takes responsibility; Good expects better of itself; Good pushes others to be the best they can be.

Evil can be nice. Evil can be sweet and loyal, but will backstab you when Evil benefits from it. Evil will then crawl back and legitimately not understand why you’re upset, because you have to understand, it wasn’t Evil’s fault. Evil doesn’t say sorry because Evil doesn’t see a need to. Evil doesn’t get it. Evil doesn’t care what it has to do to get what it wants. Evil is inherently selfish, but it’s more than just that. Evil thinks it knows better; Evil makes excuses; Evil will cross the line; Evil doesn’t take questions.

A view on “Good” and “Evil” that reflects action over motivation. While this is only a piece, I recommend you all read the full text located here, as it is excellent.

Actions are the best definition for intent, representation of character, and concrete moments to color a player character. Through the malleability of tabletop, dependent only upon how long the game is run, a character would be tested many times through their actions.

Within this, the question still begs to be asked, is there such a thing as “Objective Good” or “Objective Evil” in a tabletop setting? Is there a singular action that is always a good one, and one that is always evil? More importantly, is there a motivation that is always good or evil?

Expanding upon that, it may not particularly be a bad thing if we cannot define a specific “Good” or “Evil”. As every game is different, and every player is a different storyteller within the games, the concept that there may not be one answer to this question would only strengthen the game.

But I’ll propose the same question here as I did to Ms. S-P-B, do you think it is possible to define objective good and evil in a fantasy setting? Or are the “Good” and the “Evil” simply how we act out the other side of the nine alignments?

slaaneshi-party-bus:

corruptionpoints:

As usual, I issued a challenge to you all on Tuesday, offering triple points for a topic regarding “Good vs. Evil”. Like clockwork, Rashiko took the charge with the following question.

We will stick with the standard Greyhawk 3.5 campaign setting for clarity. Please explain the difference…

 

Unless I’ve misread and you mean this to be campaign specific, I really don’t feel that good = selfless/communitarian and evil = selfish/individualistic. Lawful and chaotic describe that contrast better. Take a relatively common situation: your party captures a npc who knows something vital. Of course they’re not talking. You can torture or otherwise compell them, and by doing so you’ll be saving the lives of thousands.

But torture is a fairly evil act.

A communitarian approach might suggest, as Jeremy Benthem and the Tau agree, that you ought to do what is for the greater good of the greatest number. And this can be a good action. An individualistic approach might follow Immanual Kant or Luke Skywalker and refuse to condone an action on the basis that particular wrongs can be universal wrongs. This can also be a good action. Ultimately I don’t have an answer to what is a good or bad action, but I’d start by suggesting that actions can be considered good and evil in terms of whether they force a character to go against their alignment.

All of this was a device to open a forum on whether or not the concepts of “Objective Good” and “Objective Evil” can be defined within a Fantasy setting, and so far it is working well!

I don’t think my position is the end-all be-all on the subject. As I stated, there are millions of grey areas on what could be defined as good and evil, restricted to tabletop, as I don’t have the ground or the interest in bringing the conversation to real life.

I think it would be easier to do so in a setting that is established to have certain values over general concepts. If I read Lord of the Rings and am therefore told that Gandalf is good and Sauron/The Ring is evil, I am subject to the ideas and concepts put forth by the book.

However, in a tabletop setting, the players are the defining factors of what is considered a “Good” action or an “Evil” action, where there is less of a specific example on what those actually mean, other than “Kill bad guys, don’t kill good guys.”

With that being said, and if I could ask you directly, do you think it is possible to define objective good and evil in a fantasy setting? Or are the “Good” and the “Evil” simply how we act out the other side of the nine alignments? 

As usual, I issued a challenge to you all on Tuesday, offering triple points for a topic regarding “Good vs. Evil”. Like clockwork, Rashiko took the charge with the following question.

We will stick with the standard Greyhawk 3.5 campaign setting for clarity. Please explain the difference between Good and Evil in a fantasy setting and how this impacts or justifies the battles between celestial and abyssal/infernal beings, not to mention mere mortals. Feel free to draw a distinction between fantasy moral systems and real world moral systems if you find there to be a difference. 

Apparently, he decided to bring the heat on Tuesday.

When I am designing a fantasy setting, or explaining within a fantasy setting, the idea of “Good” and “Evil” are not a cut and dry system of specific values that can be checked off.

I often state that the nine-alignment system is necessary, but restrictive by nature, to fully explore the concepts of morality within a system.

It could easily be argued that there are many systems that don’t rely on alignments, but that would be a digression, as we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons.

If I had to very generally explain the concepts, I would say the following: “Good” would be the morality that values the needs of the collective, the whole, or the group over the needs of the singular, the self, or the one, and “Evil” would be the inverse.

To that end, the Celestial Beings aligned “Good” would inspire their champions to produce the greatest benefit for their world and its inhabitants over themselves individually.

Celestial Beings aligned “Evil” would inspire their champions to find the greatest power they can individually acquire and utilize it to the best of their judgment and ability, while simultaneously securing that power.

Within that idea, a Celestial Good would fight a Celestial Evil for the sake that being rid of the Evil would benefit the world and its inhabitants in a positive manner, where Celestial Evil would fight Celestial Good to better position itself in a court of power. The cycle continues.

Within that idea, concepts themselves are not particularly evil, but only the motivations behind them. I say this to declare fully that a celestial being that controls “Death” is no more evil than one that controls “Life”.

Especially in a fantasy setting, there must be balance of all things within the world, or disaster will strike. Within that, I base my concepts of “Good” and “Evil” very much about maintaining that overall balance.

Although that could be considered more a matter of Chaotic and Lawful, which is an entirely different situation entirely.

There are millions of grey areas within this concept, as it is very hard to objectively define what is “Good” and what is “Evil”. In the sliding scale of morality, and examining all the grey areas inbetween, I write narrative to reflect the above.

Being a “Good” Hero is being a Hero that finds the best solution for the entirety, and being an “Evil” Hero is being a Hero that finds the best solution for their benefit alone.

With that, I’d like to open the concepts to discussion with you all.

For those that have played within the nine alignments, do you find yourself attempting to objectively define Good and Evil in such a manner, or do you stray from the concept all-together?

For those that have created a homebrewed fantasy setting, is there a method you use to objectively define that which is “Good” and “Evil” on a celestial level as well as mortal level?

For my players, have you found a surefire method to fit a character into the concepts of “Lawful Good” and “Chaotic Evil” or simply “Good” and “Evil” perfectly? Do you think it is even possible?

-What’s Your Favorite System, and Why is it 3.5?

-To Subvert and Destroy: The Mindset of a Player.

-TPKs: Great DM Tool, Or Greatest DM Tool?

-I Can’t Believe It’s Not Cantrips: Reviewing Bad Spells in D&D Sourcebooks.

Decisions, decisions…

Encourage him to run a game.

I cannot and will not assume anything of this person or their experiences, but I understand the complications of trying to keep a friend in a group activity while patience runs thin. 

It sounds like the creativity/control aspect of the game is what he’s looking for, rather than being a part of the party. While I’m not sure how experienced he is at being behind the screen, it might be the best for both of you.

Best case scenario, you get to be a player for a while and he gets to use the aspects he seems to want to create within a setting for the group rather than in opposition of the group.

Worst case scenario, he doesn’t really enjoy it. Then you’ll be able to levy that into an explanation for how hard it is to run a game, and how his behavior is troublesome within it.

I hope this helps! Good luck!

EDIT: I may have read this wrong!

Reading this, I thought the friend was already running the game since “he has so many NPCs”, unless there’s a way for players to have NPCs in their command…

This makes a lot of sense, and I’m honestly not sure why I didn’t catch it the first time. (I blame the heat.) Thanks Soycrates!

If this is the case, then the unfortunate solution is to simply bow out of the game. 

Depending on how politely you do so, it is easy to not lose a friend while “quitting” a game. Unless your group is on the small side, the absence of one player shouldn’t particularly kill the game.

Tactfully, respectfully, tell your friend “I’m sorry, this game isn’t for me.” and leave the table. If you aren’t enjoying yourself, there’s simply no reason to continue.

Friends and enemies, it has been a long time since the last lightning round of questions. To the patient, I return!

Rising victorious from the Dungeon of Endless Procrastination, I come full-bodied and ready to handle your questions!

Bring me your best and worst questions! The only bad question is the question not asked. I am hyped up and ready to go!

Double points for tabletop related questions.

Triple points for referencing the eternal battle of good vs. evil.

Quadrapoints for anyone who can guess the number I’m thinking of right now.

Let’s have some fun today folks!

dicetroop:

Table Talks Episode 5 - Encounters

This week on Table Talks, we discuss encounters that are not fights, how to make a Dungeon without a “Dungeon”, and highlighting players that want a non-combat approach to combat!

dicetroop:

Monday is Table Talks day! Join Fox and Corruptionpoints this week as we discuss making encounters more interesting than a straight up brawl. Like always we start at 1pm and livestream link will go up a bit earlier.

Come on in and join the fun folks!

Capricornian submits:

I drew The Princess as per this list of your epic suggestions. I also gave her a little bit of a story, in case anyone else would like to use her like I will be using her in my own campaign. 

She is a mutated version of your usual rust monster as per her tail, which doesn’t have the normal fans your average rust monster has.

She still eats metals but her antennae are more in tune to the natural ores and minerals in metal, therefore making her the best creature to use while mining for things like metal ores, but more importantly, for diamonds and rare stones.

She doesn’t eat the stones, but gets really drooly if she finds any metal ore. She’s not supposed to, but sometimes she eats the ore before it can be mined.

She is from a village of desert-dwelling dwarves who breed and train rust monsters, basically they have domesticated this particular branch of rust monsters. 

                                 ________________________

The dwarves tell you that their Princess has been lost in the desert for a long time. The dwarves, strangely, aren’t worried about her starving, but The Princess scares easily, and the longer she is out there, the longer she will be running around and the further from home she will get.

And they are willing to be very generous to any adventurers who can go into the desert and get her back. 

Hah! Awesome! This proves two things:

1. Capricornian is amazing.

2. A great adventure can come from the smallest seed and a little bit of creativity!

Capricornian submits:

The second time I ever DMed, I had this trap room inside an abandoned wizard’s tower where as soon as they stepped into the middle of the room the floor ‘fell away’ from them, and the only help I gave them was a carved word on the ceiling that read ‘jump’, but of course after examining the bottomless pit, and tossing a couple items into the pit, they didn’t want to.

Eventually they decided to tie a rope around the waist of the half-gnome in our group — and they had a long enough rope since my home rule is that they are all allowed to choose one thing to help them in the moment and pull it out of their packs, but they have to roll to see if they remembered to pack it —  and the half-gnome was nervous, so the BARD in our group sang a song of courage to the dwarf.

And she rolled so high that instead of letting himself be lowered carefully down, he ran off the edge of the platform and belly-flopped.

But it turns out that the floor hadn’t ‘actually’ fallen away, it was an illusion, and a spell that only allowed non-living things to fall through it. 

I was so proud of myself  because I’d kept them trapped in that room for like fifteen minutes. It was awesome.

Posted without edit. This story is wonderful.