I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761786You have never met someone who processed information in a fundamentally different way than you do and came to different conclusions?

Ever hear the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative'?  Or hear about Ghandi or Mother Theresa?  What about Jeffrey Dalmer or Ted Bundy, just "unaligned"?

Of course I've met people different than me.  That's my point.  They aren't anything like any of the alignments.  They are a hell of a lot more complex than that by at least an order of magnitude and you want to pigeonhole them in tiny little boxes of behavior.  You seem to think no one is capable of playing a complex character without game rules to that effect.  Decades of Traveller and it's minimalist character details should show that to be wrong.

As for the people you mention:

What alignment is Ghandi?  In addition to his more well known stuff he has also said:
"If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."
"Hitler is not a bad man."
"I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I would advise violence."
"We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
http://www.gandhism.net/index.php
(I don't agree with that site, but the quotes appear legit)
The Ghandi we all know and love was a mix of good and bad things, not GOOD as personified in D&D.


Mother Teresa?
"Often I wonder what does really God get from me in this state — no faith, no love — not even in feelings. The other day I can't tell you how bad I felt. — There was a moment when I nearly refused to accept. — Deliberately I took the Rosary and very slowly and without even meditating or thinking – I said it slowly and calmly. The moment passed — but the darkness is so dark, and the pain is so painful. – But I accept whatever He gives and I give whatever He takes. People say they are drawn closer to God — seeing my strong faith. – is this not deceiving people? Every time I have wanted to tell the truth – "that I have no faith" – the words just do not come – my mouth remains closed. – And yet I still keep on smiling at God and all."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
Considered a saint by many and actually beautified by the Catholic Church, she lost her faith but kept right on acting like she hadn't.  I'm still in awe of her service, but was she GOOD in D&D terms despite her deception?


Jeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy?
OK, what alignment here?  If they are incapable of actual control they could be considered animalistic and thus neutral.  In a fantasy world both may have been possessed by an evil spirit.  Does that make them or the spirit evil?  Some of them have been otherwise upstanding citizens who worked with charities and the youth (John Wayne Gacy) until their horrific activities were brought to light.   Either way serial killers are best described by a description of "serial killer" than anything in D&D.  And even if we agree they were evil (I do think they count as evil in our world, just perhaps not by DnD alignment logic), which evil?


What about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero.  Who just happened to be utterly brutal to the enemies of his people.  Was he evil because he was brutal to his enemies or was he neutral because he was willing to do evil things for a "good" cause (from his peoples standpoint) or was he good because he was willing to kill and die for his people.  I think it's a LOT more complicated than that.

There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.

Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.

Neutral (neither strongly for nor against) =/= neutral (unaligned) =/= NEUTRAL (balance) and that's part of the problem.  It's been expanded upon over time to mean multiple different things in D&D.

Quote from: Brander;761806Of course I've met people different than me.  That's my point.  They aren't anything like any of the alignments.  They are a hell of a lot more complex than that by at least an order of magnitude and you want to pigeonhole them in tiny little boxes of behavior.  You seem to think no one is capable of playing a complex character without game rules to that effect.  Decades of Traveller and it's minimalist character details should show that to be wrong.

As for the people you mention:

What alignment is Ghandi?  In addition to his more well known stuff he has also said:
"If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."
"Hitler is not a bad man."
"I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I would advise violence."
"We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
http://www.gandhism.net/index.php
(I don't agree with that site, but the quotes appear legit)
The Ghandi we all know and love was a mix of good and bad things, not GOOD as personified in D&D.


Mother Teresa?
"Often I wonder what does really God get from me in this state — no faith, no love — not even in feelings. The other day I can't tell you how bad I felt. — There was a moment when I nearly refused to accept. — Deliberately I took the Rosary and very slowly and without even meditating or thinking – I said it slowly and calmly. The moment passed — but the darkness is so dark, and the pain is so painful. – But I accept whatever He gives and I give whatever He takes. People say they are drawn closer to God — seeing my strong faith. – is this not deceiving people? Every time I have wanted to tell the truth – "that I have no faith" – the words just do not come – my mouth remains closed. – And yet I still keep on smiling at God and all."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
Considered a saint by many and actually beautified by the Catholic Church, she lost her faith but kept right on acting like she hadn't.  I'm still in awe of her service, but was she GOOD in D&D terms despite her deception?


Jeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy?
OK, what alignment here?  If they are incapable of actual control they could be considered animalistic and thus neutral.  In a fantasy world both may have been possessed by an evil spirit.  Does that make them or the spirit evil?  Some of them have been otherwise upstanding citizens who worked with charities and the youth (John Wayne Gacy) until their horrific activities were brought to light.   Either way serial killers are best described by a description of "serial killer" than anything in D&D.  And even if we agree they were evil (I do think they count as evil in our world, just perhaps not by DnD alignment logic), which evil?


What about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero.  Who just happened to be utterly brutal to the enemies of his people.  Was he evil because he was brutal to his enemies or was he neutral because he was willing to do evil things for a "good" cause (from his peoples standpoint) or was he good because he was willing to kill and die for his people.  I think it's a LOT more complicated than that.

There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.

This is why alignment works betetr as a result of ones actions instead on a label beforehand.

However, I agree 100 percent that most people are complicated when it comes to alignment.

The thing with alignment in D&D that makes it hard to compare with alignment of historical figures is that in D&D, the gods not only exist, people know they exist because they constantly affect the world.

Alignment isn't just an abstract thing, it's very important way of designating whose side you are on in a struggle of superpowers.

The D&D universe is sort of like the Cold War was. Only with more sides.

Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.

*insert that Siembieda rant against true neutrals*

Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.

What would you call that poor unfortunate person? a Casket case?

In my 4e games, I changed alignments to Law, Chaos, Good, Evil and Unaligned. The first four were sides in their battles, Law vs. Chaos, Good vs. Evil and Unaligned weren't in that fight, but may have their own battles. AKA, there were Unaligned Elemental / Nature gods who were all about their element, and their opposing sides were opposing elements or in the case of Nature, the enemy was the Unnatural.

As for 5e, I can't see going back to the 9 alignments of 1e. They never worked for me and in OD&D, I stick to Law, Neutral and Chaos, which for me, is very playable as I get to have both Lawful and Chaotic PCs in the same group without auto-PvP.

Quote from: Brander;761806Of course I've met people different than me.  That's my point.  They aren't anything like any of the alignments.  They are a hell of a lot more complex than that by at least an order of magnitude and you want to pigeonhole them in tiny little boxes of behavior.

You're projecting.  I already said you can make the box as big as you want, using whatever sources you want, and I'd be perfectly happy.  Someone else may have said the boxes need to be tiny, but it wasn't me.  Sorry dude.

Quote from: Brander;761806You seem to think no one is capable of playing a complex character without game rules to that effect.  Decades of Traveller and it's minimalist character details should show that to be wrong.

I 'seem to think' that any character is better with a fully fleshed out personality.

You can't do that without making some decisions about the psychological character.

It's not rocket science.

Quote from: Brander;761806What alignment is Ghandi?

Lawful Neutral, from your examples.

Quote from: Brander;761806Mother Teresa?

Still good, yep.  Plus in D&D there's atonement, so no harm no foul.

Quote from: Brander;761806Jeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy?

Chaotic Evil.  This isn't even a challenge and I'm staying inside the Gygaxian boxes.  Like I said, you can pick any box you want.  'Just like Ghandi' could be an 'alignment' if you so desired.

Quote from: Brander;761806What about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero.

Probably evil, in D&D, but again so long as the player picks one and tries to use it to depict a realistic person different from themselves, it doesn't really matter.

Also this IS D&D we're talking about.  Remember hit points?  It isn't supposed to be a precise model of the actual real world.  If the alignments are a bit wonkey, that's part of the charm, IMO.

Quote from: Brander;761806There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.

Not only are they certainly so easily describable, but the whole exercise is convincing me you haven't actually read them.  There's no 'MUWAHAHAH' requirement in the evil parts of the spectrum.  I'll not bog this down with debates of what is and is not evil per minutia.  It's not necessary, for reasons I've already laid out.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761836Also this IS D&D we're talking about.  Remember hit points?  It isn't supposed to be a precise model of the actual real world.  If the alignments are a bit wonkey, that's part of the charm, IMO.

I have never walked out of a game because of a disagreement about the nature of hit points. That typically falls into the "huh, that's weird," we have a laugh, and get back to it.

I have left a game because of alignment disagreements. The DM was being an asshole about it, and I said, "enough is enough, I'm done here."

That is why alignment is way touchier than hit points.

Quote from: Brander;761806There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.

In every possible action, no, but as an overall descriptor it is pretty easy.

Stalin and Hitler were Lawful Evil, they used a system of laws to commit atrocities.

Bin Ladin was Chaotic Evil, he used chaos and destruction to commit atrocities.

The main issue is not that alignments can't be useful, it's that the alignments haven't been defined in a way to be useful.  I wrote an article for The Escapist a while ago in which I showed how traditional moral theory could be translated into alignments. I'll use it to offer my answers below.

Article is here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/checkfortraps/8386-All-About-Alignment

Quote from: Brander;761806What alignment is Ghandi? The Ghandi we all know and love was a mix of good and bad things, not GOOD as personified in D&D.

Ghandi's morality was teleological (see http://philosophy.columbia.edu/files/philosophy/content/BilgramiGandhi.pdf) rooted on a belief that the goal of human life was the search for truth, with virtues rooted in integrity and non-judgment (as no one could be sure they had absolute truth). This places him, like Aristotelians, squarely in the Neutral component of Law v. Chaos (again, per my article above).

On the Good-Evil axis, he also seems to be Neutral, because his morality is fundamentally egoistic (the goal of human life is the human's search for truth, not helping others, say). His unwillingness to judge Hitler or the Apartheid South Africans as evil, and his tolerance for the Hindu caste system, suggests he did not universalize to an equal value of human life. But deeper study is probably warranted before casting final judgment.

QuoteMother Teresa? Considered a saint by many and actually beautified by the Catholic Church, she lost her faith but kept right on acting like she hadn't.  I'm still in awe of her service, but was she GOOD in D&D terms despite her deception?

Mother Teresa was Lawful Good. The Catholic faith is deontological (rules-following) and therefore Lawful. It teaches the universal value and equality of human life and the stewardship of living things and is therefore Good (again, per my article above). The fact that she has doubts is irrelevant; Jesus - the exemplar of Lawful Good Catholicism did too.

QuoteJeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy? OK, what alignment here?  

Unquestionably chaotic evil. In both cases they were diagnosed with antisocial or borderline personality disorder, which translates to a circle of morality of one (themselves - total lack of empathy) and to impulsive (unprincipled) behavior.
 

QuoteWhat about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero.  Who just happened to be utterly brutal to the enemies of his people.  Was he evil because he was brutal to his enemies or was he neutral because he was willing to do evil things for a "good" cause (from his peoples standpoint) or was he good because he was willing to kill and die for his people.  I think it's a LOT more complicated than that.

He was unquestionably Lawful - a faithful Orthodox Christian and scrupulous about upholding the law: "And he hated evil in his country so much that, if anyone committed some harm, theft or robbery or a lye or an injustice, none of those remained alive. Even if he was a great boyar or a priest or a monk or an ordinary man, or even if he had a great fortune, he couldn't pay himself from death." A better description of Lawful could scarcely be written.  

His alignment on the Good, Neutral, or Evil axis is hard to determine because of factual questions as to what he did. It depends which sources you believe. The Hungarian sources of his rival Matthias Corvinus suggest an Evil alignment, with Vlad engaging in wanton slaughter for the sadistic pleasure of it. The Russian sources paint him as harsh but just, brutal by necessity. During his own life time the Pope celebrated his victories. So that would suggest Good.

I agree that people are definitely more complicated than any alignment system presented in D&D and it's progeny. I take issue with some of the examples given.

A moment of doubt does not define the personality of a person of faith it just proves them to be a sentient being in Mother Theresa's case. I think arguing over whether Ted Bundy was evil requires an exercise in moral equivalency that even the most bed wetting liberal would be loathe to undertake.

But this is a game played probably mostly by casual gamers that like little boxes. 5th edition seems ready to indulge the casual gamer with backgrounds, traits, and flaws to go in little boxes on the character sheet. Maybe it is time to ditch the alignment system for better things to go in those boxes.

Honestly most of our group hasn't cared by alignment for a long while.

I understand "unaligned" to mean no discernable moral position or a natural animal.  But the players tend to treat every NPC or creature they meet as such until said creature tries to kill or eat the part. Then it doesn't really matter what it's motivation is, it just needs to die.

Mother Teresa was Lawful Neutral, at best, since her organization is most accurately described as a cult, who allowed people to die in agony, while she spent all the money on missionary work.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

To the others in this thread who have commented on my characterizations of the (in)famous figures:  I was specifically addressing McBobo's stacked deck of examples (and adding a new one to the options).  I think applying the D&D style alignment system to real people is even worse than trying to use it in play, but I was willing to play along in the hope he wasn't being disingenuous.  To those who have made additional analysis, thanks, it's been interesting reading.  

I'll also add that I don't have a problem with noting an allegience to law or chaos or even good or evil since such things do exist in many settings, but who they are fighting for is and can be quite different from who they are and how they do it.  It's the tie-in with behavior that bugs me.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761836You're projecting.  I already said you can make the box as big as you want, using whatever sources you want, and I'd be perfectly happy.  Someone else may have said the boxes need to be tiny, but it wasn't me.  Sorry dude.

Sorry, your the one who got all stupid by suggesting I had somehow never met anyone different than myself when I was quite specifically criticizing the D&D style alignment system*.  It's not projecting to accept what you wrote at face value.  Say stupid shit, someone might just call you on it.

And in case you really are not understanding it the last time I said it:  I'm criticizing the D&D style alignment system.  I'm also criticizing the idea that something needs to be written down on the character sheet.  Traveller has gotten along fine for decades without it, I'm pretty sure D&D could too (and has in most of my groups).  If you didn't or don't have a problem with this, then why the fuck did you go all "never met anyone with a differing opinion" stupid on it?

Quote from: mcbobbo;761836I 'seem to think' that any character is better with a fully fleshed out personality.

You can't do that without making some decisions about the psychological character.

It's not rocket science.

And at what point have I disagreed with this?  It's just that I and the literally hundreds of other people I have gamed with in other systems can almost all flesh out a character without having to resort to a shitty tool using measurements no one agrees on.

You also quite firmly suggest that without something written down people can't be trusted to stay in character.  I have decades of experience directly counter to this since I tossed out alignment almost from day one.  Now who's the one projecting?

Quote from: mcbobbo;761836...
Also this IS D&D we're talking about.  Remember hit points?  It isn't supposed to be a precise model of the actual real world.  If the alignments are a bit wonkey, that's part of the charm, IMO.

As we've seen here, it's a shitty model that gives shitty results because no two people agree on the interpretation.  And like at least one other poster has noted, it's way more likely to cause an at-the-table problem than hit points.  Any class with an alignment requirement can become a problem if player and GM disagree on the interpretations.  A good GM and player will work this out, but why waste the time.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761836Not only are they certainly so easily describable, but the whole exercise is convincing me you haven't actually read them.  There's no 'MUWAHAHAH' requirement in the evil parts of the spectrum.  I'll not bog this down with debates of what is and is not evil per minutia.  It's not necessary, for reasons I've already laid out.

And yet as you see everyone who has replied has had a DIFFERENT opinion on what alignment each of these people would be (and I was kind enough to actually address your stacked deck).  I also note that you conveniently ignore that I addressed the serial killers from a fantasy standpoint while noting that in reality I think they are evil.  That's being disingenous.  


* The Palladium alignment system has problems too (though it is nonetheless an improvement), but since this is about D&D, I'll perhaps address it later.