This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Detect Evil  (Read 6150 times)

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2021, 10:13:03 AM »
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF “objective” morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim “objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because ‘fantasy’—CHECKMATE!” all you want, but that still doesn’t give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF “evil” is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don’t have the tools to properly assess it.

Visitor Q

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2021, 12:19:45 PM »
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF “objective” morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim “objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because ‘fantasy’—CHECKMATE!” all you want, but that still doesn’t give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF “evil” is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don’t have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Opaopajr

  • Señor Wences
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7768
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2021, 12:55:02 PM »
Thank you jhkim for asking to stop the Fresnel Lens Discussion we were developing there.  ;D It was fun until it was unreadable to aging eyes.

Oh wow. There's an idea. Casting Detect Evil, or Know Alignment having a chance to backfire if the target is very powerful, or is drawing attention of whatever Evil Powers.
Hmmm...

I always thought that was part of the fun of the spell.  ;) Prepare and cast it during a mystery, maybe even humoring provincial peasants and their gossip, cool and anticipated. Having the spell work and spot the demonic in the mayor's goat or passing grandma... and have IT notice you back staring with horrified recognition, delicious setup! Gives the really wicked (or good, if Detect Good inverse) NPC a target to suss out in cat & mouse social and exploration games.
Just make your fuckin' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what's interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2021, 01:01:57 PM »
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF “objective” morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim “objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because ‘fantasy’—CHECKMATE!” all you want, but that still doesn’t give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF “evil” is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don’t have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don’t have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2021, 01:38:50 PM »
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.
Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2021, 02:00:15 PM »
Greetings!

Yeah, in my campaigns, I have Detect Evil as working to determine a source of Supernatural Evil. So, evil creatures and beings from beyond the mortal world. That keeps the spell useful, while not destroying other kinds of scenarios and adventures and just being a pain in the ass, besides opening the door to endless, stupid arguments.

Beyond all that, there are many societies in my campaigns that routinely execute people they believe are evil all the time. Lots of criminals, rebels, scum, cultists, are ruthlessly tortured, and burned at the stake.

In many areas, though, such evil people can rest assured that as they die--they are not suffering in vain, for oftentimes their whole families are also arrested and charged, and their wealth, property, and other assets are seized by the government, and redistributed to those that are righteous and faithful.

So, it's a WIN-WIN for everyone involved! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2021, 02:00:57 PM »
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.
Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

But how do we manage this during play? Other than reducing alignment to factional alliances (which sorta transcends morality in terms of intent and behavior, and is more about which camp you side with), as some have suggested, there isn’t an effective way to consistently present this in the game.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2021, 02:20:24 PM »
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.
Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

But how do we manage this during play? Other than reducing alignment to factional alliances (which sorta transcends morality in terms of intent and behavior, and is more about which camp you side with), as some have suggested, there isn’t an effective way to consistently present this in the game.
Sure there is. Pick a morality system, and run with it. It doesn't matter if the DM or players agree with it, just that it's treated consistently within the setting.

The reason a lot of internet debates about alignment become impassable morasses is because the people involved start arguing about their own personal definitions of good and evil. Which is at the core of everyone's identity, so naturally discussions become heated and nobody is willing to budge.

I find picking a morality system that's clearly at odds with modern belief systems works best. The cognitive dissonance between what players believe in own personal lives and the belief system in the game prevents them from conflating their own personal morality with the definitions of good and evil in the game.

This Guy
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 642
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #53 on: April 09, 2021, 02:37:50 PM »
Sure there is. Pick a morality system, and run with it. It doesn't matter if the DM or players agree with it, just that it's treated consistently within the setting.

The reason a lot of internet debates about alignment become impassable morasses is because the people involved start arguing about their own personal definitions of good and evil. Which is at the core of everyone's identity, so naturally discussions become heated and nobody is willing to budge.

I find picking a morality system that's clearly at odds with modern belief systems works best. The cognitive dissonance between what players believe in own personal lives and the belief system in the game prevents them from conflating their own personal morality with the definitions of good and evil in the game.

These are some good things to say, like fuck, half the time it's down to people getting twisted because they can't cope with the unreality of the moral code. The unreality's the fucking fun part! Do an activism or a march or whatever if you just wanna embody your own morality somewhere.
I don't want to play with you.

Visitor Q

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2021, 02:38:52 PM »
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF “objective” morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim “objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because ‘fantasy’—CHECKMATE!” all you want, but that still doesn’t give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF “evil” is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don’t have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don’t have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

There are people who think the world is flat. Not every opinion is valid. The fact there is debate academic or otherwise is irrelevant. Academics haven't worked out what a man or a woman is yet while the rest of the world moves on.

To the gaming point if a GM says in the game world then something is objectively evil then it is. A player can choose to play a character who doesn't believe that or can leave the game but it doesn't detract from the "reality" of the game world. At a certain point if all the consequences for being good or evil manifest up to and including literal divine judgement then discussions about "but was that really evil?" just become intellectual masturbation.

The second point about the intention of the creator of the spell (as in the original sorcerer who developed it) was a separate point about how to use the spell practically. It wasn't related to the A-level philosophy debate.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #55 on: April 09, 2021, 02:50:59 PM »
If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.
Pick one. Any one. The key point of an objective standard is that's objective, not that it represents some platonic ideal. Cue endless debates about whether the objective definition of evil is really the best definition evil, but that's a feature not a stopping point.

But how do we manage this during play? Other than reducing alignment to factional alliances (which sorta transcends morality in terms of intent and behavior, and is more about which camp you side with), as some have suggested, there isn’t an effective way to consistently present this in the game.
Sure there is. Pick a morality system, and run with it. It doesn't matter if the DM or players agree with it, just that it's treated consistently within the setting.

The reason a lot of internet debates about alignment become impassable morasses is because the people involved start arguing about their own personal definitions of good and evil. Which is at the core of everyone's identity, so naturally discussions become heated and nobody is willing to budge.

I find picking a morality system that's clearly at odds with modern belief systems works best. The cognitive dissonance between what players believe in own personal lives and the belief system in the game prevents them from conflating their own personal morality with the definitions of good and evil in the game.

Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness. Which is the reason D&D's alignment system remains an ongoing topic of discussion decades after the game's inception. It isn't just an issue of people's own personal definitions of good and evil getting in the way, but that in actual play people's (including the GM's) personal definitions of good and evil are the ONLY thing they have to fall back on to assess what is or isn't good or evil, unless we're treating alignment as a faction. In which case people's actual intent or behavior doesn't matter, only which side they take.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #56 on: April 09, 2021, 03:12:34 PM »
All these philosophical points about objective morality are ultimately pointless because even if we grant that such a thing exists (either literally in the real world or hypothetically in a fantasy) the reality still remains that we as humans are incapable of understanding or agreeing upon WTF “objective” morality really is, so there can be no practical way to implement it in terms of the game. You can claim “objective morality DOES exist in this fantasy world, because ‘fantasy’—CHECKMATE!” all you want, but that still doesn’t give us an adequate guideline we can consistently use to effectively define WTF “evil” is without risking disagreements at the game table or running into inconsistencies caused by our own human limitations. So the notion that objective morality can hypothetically exist in a fantasy world is pointless. We still don’t have the tools to properly assess it.

Considering there are numerous real world philosophies that do make decent of arguable claims as to be able to define and assess objective morality it is rather strange to assert that a fantasy world where the author (or GM) has perfect cosmological control can not simulate this.

You can give a flat disagreement about something but it doesn't make the opinion valid. This is as true for scientific fact as it is for logic, as it is for philosophy, as it is for morality.

Also to consider that as for the spell Detect Evil the morality of Good or Evil isn't really necessary. Only how the creator of the spell defined Evil. Equally Evil alignment doesn't equal dangerous or even illegal. The mercenary captain that guards the town maybe Lawful Evil etc.

Considering that there are numerous real world philosophies that make decent claims to the contrary and there is still no consensus on such matters despite millennia of debate on the topic, that the objective of an RPG is to play a game, not to break down into protracted philosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil, and that an author with complete and total control over their story is in no way analogous to a GM who needs to share their world with their players as part of a shared group activity with random elements like dice or cards affecting the outcome of things, where they can't ever have 100% the same amount of control an actual author has (no matter how superficially similar those two might seem to be), that leads me back to my original point. We don’t have the tools to properly assess WTF "objective" good and evil is. We don't even have an agreement about WTF "objective" morality even entails, even at an academic level, where the subject has been rehashed to death since time immemorial and is still debated to this day. Yet SOMEHOW we're supposed to portray it in a satisfactory way in a game as part of a shared group activity with plenty of people who might disagree about any of these subjects even mean?

Consider the conclusion to you post. Here you're claiming that the outcome of a Detect Evil spell is ultimately defined by the creator(caster?), which is an inherently subjective notion, and goes against the idea of objective morality. If objective morality is a thing and we can properly assess it in gameplay, then WTF does how a caster define evil matter? If objective morality is real, then the caster's personal definition of "evil" is irrelevant, you just have to fall back on that one true "objective" definition of morality. But we can't, because we don't have one. We haven't found one that isn't still academically debated to this day.

There are people who think the world is flat. Not every opinion is valid. The fact there is debate academic or otherwise is irrelevant. Academics haven't worked out what a man or a woman is yet while the rest of the world moves on.

To the gaming point if a GM says in the game world then something is objectively evil then it is. A player can choose to play a character who doesn't believe that or can leave the game but it doesn't detract from the "reality" of the game world. At a certain point if all the consequences for being good or evil manifest up to and including literal divine judgement then discussions about "but was that really evil?" just become intellectual masturbation.

The second point about the intention of the creator of the spell (as in the original sorcerer who developed it) was a separate point about how to use the spell practically. It wasn't related to the A-level philosophy debate.

There are people who think that they know the objective definition of morality. That doesn't mean that their definition is correct or sidestep the fact that there's no consensus on the subject, even to the point where I've yet to see a single person here arguing in favor of objective morality (fictional or otherwise) provide a clear example of it that can consistently be implemented during play other than "alignment is really about factions within the game world".

A GM may rule that whatever they say IS in fact "objective evil" (at least within the context of their world), but that doesn't change the fact that we're ultimately still going by the GM's whims on whatever they think qualifies as "evil" that day, which isn't a workable standard that players can effectively fall back on, since they can't know what the GM's whims are until after the fact, after they've already stepped on one of these morality landmines. And saying that the players can just up and leave if they don't like it doesn't tell me how to properly implement these "objective standards" during play. It just tells me that we can just push them and let the campaign fall apart if players don't like it. Which I can easily sidestep by simply not treating morality as some objective measure I have to waste time pushing onto players or trying to judge during play, and seems to me a more effective way to handle the game than pretending that we as humans can effectively declare what is or isn't objectively moral.

The point about the spell only highlights my point. If we have to come up with work arounds to implement these spells in practical terms during play, then clearly declaring objective morality to be real, even if only within the context of the game world, doesn't really solve anything. Since it provides no practical solutions to how to handle things during play other than "the GM's way or the highway". We still need some sort of guideline of how to use these spells in a practical sense during play, and declaring morality to be objective doesn't seem to be it. It's always some other proxy, such as "the spells work only vs supernatural good/evil", or "based on the caster's intent", or "alignment is just an in-game faction".

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #57 on: April 09, 2021, 03:27:16 PM »
Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness.
People's opinions about a lot of things differ, that's why we have DMs. It's like many, many other aspects of the game where the players and DM, over time, develop a common understanding about what things work and what don't. And all kinds of moral systems have been referenced in this thread, from the medieval morality of The Mermaid's Children, to the almost equally unpleasant Law and Chaos in Moorcock's books, to the various ways it's been handled in D&D, to real world systems. There is a plenitude of options.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #58 on: April 09, 2021, 03:43:47 PM »
Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness.
People's opinions about a lot of things differ, that's why we have DMs. It's like many, many other aspects of the game where the players and DM, over time, develop a common understanding about what things work and what don't. And all kinds of moral systems have been referenced in this thread, from the medieval morality of The Mermaid's Children, to the almost equally unpleasant Law and Chaos in Moorcock's books, to the various ways it's been handled in D&D, to real world systems. There is a plenitude of options.

I already went into some of the pitfalls of relying on GM fiat in my last post. I'm not really familiar with The Mermaid's Children or Moorcock's books (other than stuff I've read in passing when Law/Chaos comes up in some of these discussions), but the various of ways it's been handled in D&D are precisely the reason why this subject keeps coming up so much over the years. They don't really work in a practical sense at all. Everyone has their own interpretation of WTF D&D alignments mean, and it has undergone lots of changes throughout different editions of the game precisely due to criticisms D&D's alignment system has endured.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Detect Evil
« Reply #59 on: April 09, 2021, 03:55:59 PM »
Even if we pick a made up morality system (something I've yet to see anyone here or during similar discussions provide a clear example of) people's opinions about what fits or doesn't fit that particular system may differ, as I've seen happen in actual play when using AD&D's alignment system with any degree of seriousness.
People's opinions about a lot of things differ, that's why we have DMs. It's like many, many other aspects of the game where the players and DM, over time, develop a common understanding about what things work and what don't. And all kinds of moral systems have been referenced in this thread, from the medieval morality of The Mermaid's Children, to the almost equally unpleasant Law and Chaos in Moorcock's books, to the various ways it's been handled in D&D, to real world systems. There is a plenitude of options.

I already went into some of the pitfalls of relying on GM fiat in my last post. I'm not really familiar with The Mermaid's Children or Moorcock's books (other than stuff I've read in passing when Law/Chaos comes up in some of these discussions), but the various of ways it's been handled in D&D are precisely the reason why this subject keeps coming up so much over the years. They don't really work in a practical sense at all. Everyone has their own interpretation of WTF D&D alignments mean, and it has undergone lots of changes throughout different editions of the game precisely due to criticisms D&D's alignment system has endured.
I agree the various editions of D&D haven't been great at that.

But the problem isn't DM fiat, it's that people keep trying to impose their own personal moral views. That's why I recommend creating a sharp break between modern real life and the fictional objective moral systems. And like many sticky social contract issues, it's not a bad idea to talk to your players about it. Communication problems should be solved with communication. Or just go with the Outer Planes quintessence and/or faction versions.