I have no problem with alignment as a descriptor for general character motivations and predispositions. My only problem is alignment mechanics in which shifts in alignment have negative consequences for the character.
My problem with this is manifold:
Campaign-Specific: It is a very specific campaign setting feature that is inappropriate for many campaigns. It is, in fact, a very D&D specific mechanic. Even the literary inspirations for alignment -- the Elric series and Three Hearts and Three Lions -- did not have a character who lost class abilities or opportunities due to alignment change, and very very few literary works have alignment based abilities or spells outside the genre of fantasy works based on D&D worlds.
Okay, this is easily addressed in what I mentioned before. Houserules. If alignment mechanics and their consequences are a problem for your campaign, then don't use them. I have never once advocated forcing people to use alignment, or told anyone that NOT using alignment is "wrong". However, to wit, it is also VERY appropriate for many OTHER campaigns. One of those is the "default" or "core" setting. Does that in any way reflect a negative value judgement on campaigns that deviate from that? No, of course not. But neither does it reflect a negative value judgement on the core rules, either.
Plot-Wrecking: Alignment-based spells and abilities can very much hamper certain plotlines. It is difficult to have infiltration without going through hoops to avoid alignment-detection.
I addressed this in my above post. This is, indeed, a valid indictment of alignment mechanics, and something that (from what was posted in an earlier Ro3) is being addressed in D&DN.
Concept-Limiting: Traditionally, alignment has been a way to limit cross-classing. You are discouraged from making bard-monk multiclass characters by virtue of the fact that bards could not be lawful and monks must be lawful. DMs are often hesitatnt to ignore these limitations (even if they otherwise ignore alignment) for fear that the combo has not been vetted and thus may be unbalanced. And yet, thereis really no reason one couldn't devise a perfectly valid and entertaining bard-monk character.
I think this is a matter of opinion that concept-limiting was the PURPOSE of alignment restrictions. In my second post I addressed some of the alignment-based restrictions on some classes. They are there to make the classes adhere to specific classic fantasy archetypes.
It is my personal opinion, however, that the bard one doesn't make sense. I can absolutely concieve of a Lawful Bard, and posted a concept of such on an earlier alignment thread (I can go dig it up if anyone's even remotely interested). The bard is the one example of class-alignment restrictions that didn't resonate with me at all. That is, however, only my opinion.
Unbaking Difficulties: Traditionally, it has been difficult to "unbake" alignment mechanics from a system. Some games assume that paladins and many clerics will get an ocassional bonus when attacking creatures of an opposed alignment. Eliminating these abilities will underpower these classes. Making these abilities universal (i.e., working on all foes regardless of alignment) can overpower them. Trying to create workarounds for all of these mechanics is beyond the time, patience, and experience of many DMs.
Again, I have no problem with using alignment as a character-building tool. I do have a problem with alignment mechanics.
Wrecan, I am unfamiliar with what mechanics give clerics and paladins bonuses when attacking creatures of opposed alignment, with the exception of smite evil, which, if that's the only one, should be an easy fix for anyone "unbaking" alignment mechanics.
Wait...were you talking about spells like Holy Smite and Holy Word and all that? I rarely see players take the Good domain. And those alignment related spells were taken off the generic cleric spell list and restricted to the domain list of those alignments (Good, Law, etc.). If one is removing alignment mechanics, I'd say the alignment domains would be among the first things to go, ne? Shouldn't that eliminate the problem?
Good points all around. Let me touch on this one. Take the typical scenario of a paladin acting in an unpaladin-like manner. I see a paladin as a knight of his chosen god. He could be a good-aligned paladin worshipping a good god (good in DnD-defined terms). But he could also be an evil paladin worshipping an evil god. Since (as I see it) his powers are granted to him through that worship, as long as he acts in a manner conducive to his gods' wishes, he is fine. It is only when he acts in a manner contrary to that that he might incur penalties, like the loss of lay on hands.
My point is that the player can be whatever he wants to be, and doesn't need to be limited to a narrow concept.
Did you read post#2? I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, but I addressed the paladin-as-LG-only thing earlier. Traditional paladins, in the original meaning of the word paladin, had nothing to do with being a knight of a chosen deity, even in D&D. In recent years, D&D has re-appropriated the word to mean that, but please understand that this is a RECENT thing. A lot of people still have it ingrained that the word paladin implies honorable and just behavior, and high ideals. And the "narrow concept" of the pre-4e classes with alignment restrictions didn't stop at the paladin. Several classes had alignment restrictions to keep them in the confines of specific archetypes.
And RAW D&D doesn't do nearly so good a job of creating a clear understanding of how alignment works as you posit it does. What you have done is project onto the structure of alignment your own understanding of morality. Everybody who uses alignment does this and it is why very few of the people who do use alignment can actually agree on how it is implemented or how it acts. There simply are no right answers when it comes to alignment.
Believe it or not, one thing I am VERY good at is removing my own personal bias and being coldly objective. My wife criticizes my lack of empathy and apparent indecisiveness, because I am constantly trying to evaluate both sides of any given issue without allowing the prejudices I was raised with influence my decisions. I have supported my claims with quotes from RAW. I am not imposing my own judgement on morality on the structure of alignment. I am attempting to show, objectively, that most problems people have with alignment stem from deviations from RAW by the people they played with. In 100% of the examples I have seen from alignment detractors, there is a deviation from RAW. If only deviations from RAW create problems, no matter how common those deviations ahppen to be, then the RAW are not the problem.
Niether lack of Empathy nor indecisiveness showcase objectivity. You have imposed your own morality to your judgments, I know this because it impossible for humans not to do this. If you say you are then you are either lying to us or lying to yourself, I have no idea which. I challenge you to read the forums and the posts by other pro alignment people and see how far their definitions of the 9 differ from your own. Each person thinks that what they see is the RAW and each of them is in a sense wrong because the RAW is specificaly written open enough for people to inject their own moral system (within the broader western civ norms). Of course if you went and did this now I am sure you would end up shifting and jiving in order to arrive at matching views that you wouldn't otherwise endorse in order to "prove" your point. You talk a good game about RAW but the thing is that RAW really doesn't provide a solid moral map because it is a super simplified Model.
D&D also shouldn't assume an objective morality any more than it should assume that all druids should be elves or all women should have less strength then men. Objective Morality is a huge issue simply because it isn't the way that humans comprehend or interact. That is where the issue with alignment is coming from, people subconciously form their own moral guidelines and when they are shown an "objective" morality system they simply impose their own subjective moral guidelines as the basis for the objective morality. When peoples moral guidelines differ and they are faced with those differences at the table it causes argument. Moral guidelines are one of the most difficult parts of a human personality to change or adapt.
Also you have this huge appeal to tradition fallacy in your post. Even if the RAW system worked as you said it did (a thesis I simply cannot accept with the data that I have seen) it would still be something open to challenge, just because that is the way it is doesn't mean that is the way it should be.
You make the argument that the cross section of people on these forums is a tiny fraction of the player base (this is true) and then you turn right around and use the people that you play with as a sampling to support your own case. Can you not see how ridiculous this is? Your sampling of people you have played with is probably smaller then the active members of this board and each person here has had their opinions and experiences shaped by the people they have played with. In fact many of the people here have been playing far longer than you have and have probably played with many times the number of people you have (I will admit that I am not one of those people, I have been playing for around as long as you have). In order to discount the board sampling as evidence you have to have more evidence from a source with larger authority, and no single person on this board could bring that sort of evidence to bare unless they were working for WotC.
As it stands the boards are one of the big places that people go to when they are having problems in their games. By far and away the biggest, most difficult and devisive questions are the ones about alignment. If a system causes a lot of problems then that system needs to be looked at critically.
I like to use the Pinto analogy whenever people bring up the idea that only "Bad DM's" ever cause alignment issues (another thing I disagree with). Even if what you say is true, alignment still shouldn't be used. It is like a Pinto, only people who get in crashes (specifically rear end colisions) would ever have an issue with the Pinto's tendancy to explode. So the Pinto explodes when bad drivers get into crashes (because if you get into a crash you are obviously a bad driver, or at least that is what your arguing is the case for DM's and alignment). It is still taking a minor incident (rear end colision / morality disagreement) and turning it into a major incident (fiery death / game implosion).
Niether lack of Empathy nor indecisiveness showcase objectivity. You have imposed your own morality to your judgments, I know this because it impossible for humans not to do this. If you say you are then you are either lying to us or lying to yourself, I have no idea which. I challenge you to read the forums and the posts by other pro alignment people and see how far their definitions of the 9 differ from your own. Each person thinks that what they see is the RAW and each of them is in a sense wrong because the RAW is specificaly written open enough for people to inject their own moral system (within the broader western civ norms). Of course if you went and did this now I am sure you would end up shifting and jiving in order to arrive at matching views that you wouldn't otherwise endorse in order to "prove" your point. You talk a good game about RAW but the thing is that RAW really doesn't provide a solid moral map because it is a super simplified Model.
Perhaps I was unclear with my anecdotalt reference. And please, I invite you to re-read and note that I said that I am "good at" being objective, not that I was "perfectly objective" in any way.
I'm not trying to "prove" my opinions in any way. Nor am I in any way promoting "my" view of the alignments. What this thread is for is to discuss the actual fact regarding the rules of alignment, and the misconceptions regarding those rules. For example, the statement "alignment is a straightjacket" is objectively false regarding alignment RAW, because the RAW expressly state that it is not. My intent is to point out that many of the problems that stem from alignment stem from people deviating from what the RAW actually say. Not my interpretation.
D&D also shouldn't assume an objective morality any more than it should assume that all druids should be elves or all women should have less strength then men.
I'm cutting into this paragraph to highlight something you said here. You start with "shouldn't" (your opinion), and proceed from there with a value judgement on the issue of objective morality. Whether you like objective Good and Evil or not, and whether or not you choose to implement such in your game is irrelevant. That is the default assumption of the core rules, and it is supported by the RAW. This thread is an attempt to address the facts of alignment RAW, and not houserules or value judgements.
Objective Morality is a huge issue simply because it isn't the way that humans comprehend or interact. That is where the issue with alignment is coming from, people subconciously form their own moral guidelines and when they are shown an "objective" morality system they simply impose their own subjective moral guidelines as the basis for the objective morality. When peoples moral guidelines differ and they are faced with those differences at the table it causes argument. Moral guidelines are one of the most difficult parts of a human personality to change or adapt.
Which is why a number os people prefer a more morally ambiguous stance on morality in their games. They are welcome to it. But it's a deviation from the core assumption. Having an objective scale by which Good and Evil can be judged allows for the classic fantasy archetypes of things like Holy weapons being mre effective against demons/undead, etc.
Also you have this huge appeal to tradition fallacy in your post. Even if the RAW system worked as you said it did (a thesis I simply cannot accept with the data that I have seen) it would still be something open to challenge, just because that is the way it is doesn't mean that is the way it should be.
I have made no such assertation, and I will thank you not to impose one upon me. The only thing I have stated thus far regarding the future of alignment in D&D was my proposed fix for alignment detection mechanics, which was, as stated, my opinion. I have not posited anything about "the way it should be".
You make the argument that the cross section of people on these forums is a tiny fraction of the player base (this is true) and then you turn right around and use the people that you play with as a sampling to support your own case. Can you not see how ridiculous this is? Your sampling of people you have played with is probably smaller then the active members of this board and each person here has had their opinions and experiences shaped by the people they have played with. In fact many of the people here have been playing far longer than you have and have probably played with many times the number of people you have (I will admit that I am not one of those people, I have been playing for around as long as you have). In order to discount the board sampling as evidence you have to have more evidence from a source with larger authority, and no single person on this board could bring that sort of evidence to bare unless they were working for WotC.
I am sorry if I gave the perception that my anecdote was intended in any way to be a showcase of proof. It was an example meant to highlight my point. I thought I had said something to the effect of "I know my anecdote does not constitute proof" or something like that, but I guess I omitted to type that. Mea culpa. I only used it to show that, as someone with a wide variety of gaming experience, in several parts of the country (from the midwest to the west coast, and in military communities), the number of people represented by the forum community is a small percentage. Again, I do not wish to give the impression that my experiences are in any way proof of universal fact or truth. It was meant only as an example to illustrate a point.
As it stands the boards are one of the big places that people go to when they are having problems in their games. By far and away the biggest, most difficult and devisive questions are the ones about alignment. If a system causes a lot of problems then that system needs to be looked at critically.
Okay, but how many problems is "a lot". Without an accurate cross-section of the D&D community, or, better yet, and complete poll, we have no way of knowing how widespread the "problems" are. And IF the problems with the alignment system are, say, only 15% of the D&D community, how big of a problem is it? And furthermore, if the problems caused by that 15% are only because of deviations from the RAW, then how can one say the RAW are actually the source of the problem. To be clear, I am not claiming that only 15% of gamers have these issues, I made that number up to illustrate that WE DON'T KNOW how many people of the D&D playing community has an issue with alignment, and to point out that it might not be as widespread as it seems on the forums because the people who DO have those issues are going to be the vocal ones, making the issue seem larger than it is for the community as a whole.
I like to use the Pinto analogy whenever people bring up the idea that only "Bad DM's" ever cause alignment issues (another thing I disagree with). Even if what you say is true, alignment still shouldn't be used. It is like a Pinto, only people who get in crashes (specifically rear end colisions) would ever have an issue with the Pinto's tendancy to explode. So the Pinto explodes when bad drivers get into crashes (because if you get into a crash you are obviously a bad driver, or at least that is what your arguing is the case for DM's and alignment). It is still taking a minor incident (rear end colision / morality disagreement) and turning it into a major incident (fiery death / game implosion).
YOU! lol. I remember your pinto analogy, because I remember having this discussion with you. So, in your analogy, the Pinto (a car with an inherent design flaw) is Alignment. Rear-end collisions are the morality disgreements in games. Fiery explosions that result from rear-end collisions with Pintos are the "game imploding" problems. And bad drivers are the Bad DMs that cause these incidents. To sum up your analogy, even a Pinto in the hands of a good and responsible driver will not result in a fiery explosion, but that does not mean that there is not a design flaw with the Pinto. I just wanted to sum it up, so you know that I fully understand your analogy.
Here's where my point comes in, using your own analogy. I challenge your base assumption that Alignment is, in fact, a Pinto, and not some other compact car. I say that it is a car by another manufacturer, and that those rear-end collisions which result in fiery explosions are solely the cause of the people involved. For example, not only bad drivers, but owners who make alterations to the factory design, by, let's say putting a nitrous oxide tank in the car, or carrying 200lbs of fireworks in the trunk. When combined with a bad driver who gets into a rear-end collision (which would not ordinarily cause a fiery explosion), a fiery explosion results due to the modifications from factory standard that the owner/driver made.
To wit: I disagree that alignment has these inherent design flaws that lead Bad DMs to cause the "game imploding" problems. It is solely the responsibility of the Bad DMs.
And here's why: The design flaw of a Pinto is something that can be objectively proven. You can prove that a Pinto is more liekly than another car with emperical evidence. You have not, however, furnished similar proof of Alignment's "inherent flaws" that you claim. If these flaws were in the rules, then the experiences of "fiery explosions" would be a universal result of anyone who ever got into the "rear-end collision" of alignment disagreements.
To bring us back on topic, I invite you to find, in the rules, these design flaws and post about them here. Bring in quotes from RAW, please, as RAW is the only objective truth we can hold to when discussing rules. I am more than willing to bend an ear and listen with an open mind to your points. Also, I will contest them if the RAW do not support what you say, or perhaps we can work together to find out why the RAW could promote that kind of disagreement.
You are a resaonable poster, mestewart, I have addressed your points on your terms, I ask only that you return the favor and address mine as I have asked.
In your objectively good and evil world, when your objectively good god tells the paladin he must save the world by killing this innocent child, the act must be objectively good. There is no moral grey and the paladin is doing good, by doing the bidding of his good god. He would not lose powers and it should not be an issue.
On the other hand if his good god tells him not to kill the child and to do something else, well if he then kills the child he must be doing an evil act, because he is going against the wishes of his good god. That direct contrast to the wishes of his god I would then say could lead to the stripping of his powers.
God's are not objectively good, first of all. Their alignment is ALSO subject to the rules of alignment. So it'd be an evil act they'd be decree-ing.
Also, Paladin's are not beholden to gods (at least in 2nd and 3rd).
So, basically, a god can't dicate an evil action to be good...so your point is invalidated right there. Paladin's don't HAVE to listen to a god anyway since their powers are tied into the cosmos and their purity, not god-given...so that sorta invalidates it there too.
However, even if those two things WERE correct, if you did that in a game of objective good & evil you're a bad DM that has betrayed your own set-up...uh unless you want your paladin to call out the false-god on their evil decree and take the fight to them. That'd be kinda cool I guess.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Also...I keep noticing a trend of people claiming Alignment "ruins stories". Hmm...aren't we against railroading players? Doesn't the presumption of a story being "ruinable" necessitate pre-existing expectations thrust on the players? Hmm..
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Did you read post#2? I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, but I addressed the paladin-as-LG-only thing earlier. Traditional paladins, in the original meaning of the word paladin, had nothing to do with being a knight of a chosen deity, even in D&D. In recent years, D&D has re-appropriated the word to mean that, but please understand that this is a RECENT thing. A lot of people still have it ingrained that the word paladin implies honorable and just behavior, and high ideals. And the "narrow concept" of the pre-4e classes with alignment restrictions didn't stop at the paladin. Several classes had alignment restrictions to keep them in the confines of specific archetypes.
As far as alignment goes, I'm agreeing with you? My point about paladins was that they are not-alignment restricted, in the sense that if a player wants to create a good, unaligned or evil paladin, he is free to do so. I see paladins as knights devoted to their cause, whatever that might be. As long as the player plays the paladin in a consistant manner, I see no alignment issues.
I just looked up paladin in the dictionary and one defintion was: "any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause."
If a paladin of any alignment starts acting contrary to what that cause is, then a change might be in order. That player may then choose to support a different cause, but he might be branded a traitor by some.
As far as alignment goes, I'm agreeing with you? My point about paladins was that they are not-alignment restricted, in the sense that if a player wants to create a good, unaligned or evil paladin, he is free to do so. I see paladins as knights devoted to their cause, whatever that might be. As long as the player plays the paladin in a consistant manner, I see no alignment issues.
I just looked up paladin in the dictionary and one defintion was: "any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause."
If a paladin of any alignment starts acting contrary to what that cause is, then a change might be in order. That player may then choose to support a different cause, but he might be branded a traitor by some.
Sorry if I misunderstood you. 4e is a bit iffy when it comes to debating alignment mechanics, since 4e had so few. And alignment itself was essentially optional in 4e. The "narrow concept" of paladins was, I assumed, in reference to pre-4e paladins, which were meant to adhere to that traditional definition of "paladin".
YOU! lol. I remember your pinto analogy, because I remember having this discussion with you. So, in your analogy, the Pinto (a car with an inherent design flaw) is Alignment. Rear-end collisions are the morality disgreements in games. Fiery explosions that result from rear-end collisions with Pintos are the "game imploding" problems. And bad drivers are the Bad DMs that cause these incidents. To sum up your analogy, even a Pinto in the hands of a good and responsible driver will not result in a fiery explosion, but that does not mean that there is not a design flaw with the Pinto. I just wanted to sum it up, so you know that I fully understand your analogy.
Here's where my point comes in, using your own analogy. I challenge your base assumption that Alignment is, in fact, a Pinto, and not some other compact car. I say that it is a car by another manufacturer, and that those rear-end collisions which result in fiery explosions are solely the cause of the people involved. For example, not only bad drivers, but owners who make alterations to the factory design, by, let's say putting a nitrous oxide tank in the car, or carrying 200lbs of fireworks in the trunk. When combined with a bad driver who gets into a rear-end collision (which would not ordinarily cause a fiery explosion), a fiery explosion results due to the modifications from factory standard that the owner/driver made.
To wit: I disagree that alignment has these inherent design flaws that lead Bad DMs to cause the "game imploding" problems. It is solely the responsibility of the Bad DMs.
And here's why: The design flaw of a Pinto is something that can be objectively proven. You can prove that a Pinto is more liekly than another car with emperical evidence. You have not, however, furnished similar proof of Alignment's "inherent flaws" that you claim. If these flaws were in the rules, then the experiences of "fiery explosions" would be a universal result of anyone who ever got into the "rear-end collision" of alignment disagreements.
To bring us back on topic, I invite you to find, in the rules, these design flaws and post about them here. Bring in quotes from RAW, please, as RAW is the only objective truth we can hold to when discussing rules. I am more than willing to bend an ear and listen with an open mind to your points. Also, I will contest them if the RAW do not support what you say, or perhaps we can work together to find out why the RAW could promote that kind of disagreement.
You are a resaonable poster, mestewart, I have addressed your points on your terms, I ask only that you return the favor and address mine as I have asked.
Thank you.
Ok well I will start with the analogy, might go back later and get to the rest of your post but I am kinda strapped for time and this seemed like the fun part.
The design flaw in alignment rules is at a base level the concept of morality rules itself. By creating alignment rules what the game is doing is creating an assumption of a single "correct" moral code by which to judge the actions of the characters and their alignments. This becomes a problem because every person ever creates their own moral code based on their experiences. This code is intrensic to human nature and each persons is a little bit different. We can share some views because they are very basic or because our culture finds them important, but there are always differences.
When you impose a set moral guideline (especialy one as ambigious as D&D) people tend to simply take their own moral guidelines and use those as the set moral guideline. However when you have multiple people doing this you inevitably run into the problem of conflicting ideas.
That is the issue with alignment rules. It pits each players moral guidelines agaisnt the others in the field of ideas. The sort of conflict that creates is awesome in a philosophical debate but not neccesarily in a D&D game. Especially when in game stakes are involved.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Ok well I will start with the analogy, might go back later and get to the rest of your post but I am kinda strapped for time and this seemed like the fun part.
The design flaw in alignment rules is at a base level the concept of morality rules itself. By creating alignment rules what the game is doing is creating an assumption of a single "correct" moral code by which to judge the actions of the characters and their alignments. This becomes a problem because every person ever creates their own moral code based on their experiences. This code is intrensic to human nature and each persons is a little bit different. We can share some views because they are very basic or because our culture finds them important, but there are always differences.
When you impose a set moral guideline (especialy one as ambigious as D&D) people tend to simply take their own moral guidelines and use those as the set moral guideline. However when you have multiple people doing this you inevitably run into the problem of conflicting ideas.
That is the issue with alignment rules. It pits each players moral guidelines agaisnt the others in the field of ideas. The sort of conflict that creates is awesome in a philosophical debate but not neccesarily in a D&D game. Especially when in game stakes are involved.
The error in your logic is in assuming that the creators of a game cannot say there is a "correct" moral code for the game they are presenting. They can. It is within their right and power to do so.
As with all other matters, when in doubt, a player should be able to consult their DM since the DM is the final rules arbiter.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
The error in your logic is in assuming that the creators of a game cannot say there is a "correct" moral code for the game they are presenting. They can. It is within their right and power to do so.
Game creators can give a "correct" moral code, however they shouldn't. It is within their power, in that they are the ones producing the game. However I wouldn't go so far as to call it a right. In one sense they have the "right" to publish anything they want, just like Hall had the "right" to publish FATAL. Should he have? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! should a game company try and arbitrate the morality used in their game? *much less emphasized* no
People get morality and don't need their hands held on it. Once again it comes down to the fact that if you don't bring morality up, most often people agree on most things and can reconcile their differences if they don't agree. the problems come from trying to force the issue by creating the expectation of a single correct answer and tying mechanical benifits to that answer.
Just as many people would take issue with any designer given moral code as take issue with other players moral codes.
As with all other matters, when in doubt, a player should be able to consult their DM since the DM is the final rules arbiter.
I disagree with this, the DM should be the arbitrator of the rules but the rules shouldn't cover things like morality. If the DM thinks that the people in his world would feel a certain way about the actions the PC's are going to take he should have full right to act on that impetus or warn the palyers about it. However it has been shown many times over the years (especially in the whats a player to do forums) that people don't like getting their moral code thrown out in favor of another person even if that person is a psuedo authority figure vested power to run a game.
