Post/Author/DateTime	Post
technochris81 04-14-06, 01:09 AM	i've got a player that started off with "Chaotic Good" on his character sheet. we've only played one session. but it was a long, twelve hour session. he seems CN to me, but he adamantly disagrees. can someone help me out here? the only good things i think he's done so far is kill some skeletons. he uses his bluff skill like a pair of pants. he has no objections to stealing random objects inorder to get into a thieves guild and lying to several people to get/keep these objects. that's about it so far. looking back, i prolly shoudn't have said anything this session anyway, but what should i look out for in the future? help me find the line between CG and CN. -chris
Whisper_Swiftblade 04-14-06, 01:29 AM	It is realy why he steals and lies that matters, if he dose it for the greater godd then he is good if not, maybe not. It is all in the motavation
claypigeons 04-14-06, 01:39 AM	he uses his bluff skill like a pair of pants. he has no objections to stealing random objects inorder to get into a thieves guild and lying to several people to get/keep these objects. This is NOT a good act. This should automatically make him at least neutral. "Good" people do not go around stealing stuff to get into a thieves guild. Who is he bluffing? If he is bluffing commoners just to get something from them, it is a non-good act. If he is bluffing enemies, it could be "good". Why does your player care so much about alignment? Does he need it for a class?! :confused: If not, tell him to suck it up and get over being neutral. If he needs to be "good", then tell him to shape up and act like it.
Vaelan 04-14-06, 02:11 AM	He steals that which rightfully belongs to others, thus denying them their right to benefit from their work, which is one of the inherent dignities afforded to all sentient beings. Since Good people have a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, I would say that this person isn't Good. I would say that since they actively undermine the dignity of sentient beings, they are Evil.
Mitchell 04-14-06, 04:22 AM	CG? Only if the "G" is for greedy. A character doesn't really know their alignment. It's a metagame concept. Track their transgressions and keep the list. At some point you can look at the list and balance this against their good deeds... Real good deeds. Accepting a job to defend a town against giants isn't a good deed, it's a job. Deciding to take the fight to the giants because the giants may have oodles of loot isn't a particularly good deed, but it's a start. Decidng to take the fight to the giants because the villagers need relief is a good deed, the loot is just a side effect. Yes, it's semantics, but you can't read minds, and eventually the real motivations shine through anyway. To cement this as a good deed, someone may offer to give some of said loot back to the town to help them rebuild, recover lost livestock, etc. Anyway, just track them, list transgressions, and then when they decide to do something requiring them to be CG and you no longer feel that they are, deny them. If they want to raise a fuss, ask them to step out for a moment and show them your list. If they really want to be good, they can earn it back by trying.
Witch 04-14-06, 05:42 AM	He steals that which rightfully belongs to others, thus denying them their right to benefit from their work, which is one of the inherent dignities afforded to all sentient beings. Since Good people have a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, I would say that this person isn't Good. I would say that since they actively undermine the dignity of sentient beings, they are Evil. You are assuming he validates property as a tolerable act. If the guy is an anarchist, and thinks that property is an unjustified act anyway, stealing could be good. Especially if he's giving it to the needy. If he just wants to get rich, no, then its evil. Property is not dignity. A lot of rich people have a lot more money than they actually worked for, by the way. Inheritances, extortion, exploiting, ... Lastly, property started with someone saying "This is mine, not yours", and could be argued to be stealing from the community as a whole.
claypigeons 04-14-06, 07:21 AM	You are assuming he validates property as a tolerable act. If the guy is an anarchist, and thinks that property is an unjustified act anyway, stealing could be good. Especially if he's giving it to the needy. If he just wants to get rich, no, then its evil. Property is not dignity. A lot of rich people have a lot more money than they actually worked for, by the way. Inheritances, extortion, exploiting, ... Lastly, property started with someone saying "This is mine, not yours", and could be argued to be stealing from the community as a whole. The act of stealing anything is non-good. It doesnt matter who you steal you steal it from, it's still a non-good act, no matter your view on the world. The act of giving what you stole to those less fortunate is a good act.
Seeker95 04-14-06, 07:30 AM	Witch, D&D is not a "relative morality" game. Stealing property is not good. If you're an anarchist, and you think property is bad and stealing it is okay, you are not a good anarchist. If this is something *all* anarchists beleive, then anarchists are not good.
Kothardarastrix 04-14-06, 07:38 AM	You are assuming he validates property as a tolerable act. If the guy is an anarchist, and thinks that property is an unjustified act anyway, stealing could be good. Especially if he's giving it to the needy. If he just wants to get rich, no, then its evil. Property is not dignity. A lot of rich people have a lot more money than they actually worked for, by the way. Inheritances, extortion, exploiting, ... Lastly, property started with someone saying "This is mine, not yours", and could be argued to be stealing from the community as a whole. And a lot of Lower Middle/Upper Lower Class people commit welfare fraud, what's your point? Also, exploiting the system may be morally wrong, but they are playing by the rules by knowing them. You also seem to assume that D&D isn't black and white in its definition of good and evil. Back to rich people and their inheritances and extortion and such, that stuff happens, and unless the entirety of the world switches to Marxism, it will continue to happen. Also, I'm of the opinion that Anarchy is in itself wrong simply because it's the beginning of the "I can kick your ass so you better listen to me" form of dictatorship
Witch 04-14-06, 08:10 AM	Witch, D&D is not a "relative morality" game. Stealing property is not good. If you're an anarchist, and you think property is bad and stealing it is okay, you are not a good anarchist. If this is something *all* anarchists beleive, then anarchists are not good. Nor am I a "relative morality" sort of guy. Stealing is chaotic, not evil. While it can be evil in certain cases, it can be good in others. The funny thing is that people on this board seem to think that stealing is never good, while murder "oh sure, murder can be good".
Norsesmithy 04-14-06, 08:50 AM	Witch I don't think anyone would disagree with you that murder is evil. They simply disagree that killing is nesssarily evil, and what constitutes the line drawn between murder and killing. Having said that, stealing something that is rightfully someone elses is evil, but the key word is rightfully not lawfully.
Chrono Nexus 04-14-06, 08:58 AM	Norsesmithy, you have hit the nail on the head. You also seem to assume that D&D isn't black and white in its definition of good and evil Alignment in DnD is what the DM and players make of it. There is no end all "correct" way of using it in a setting.
Witch 04-14-06, 09:47 AM	The question then, Norsesmithy, is: can a person rightfully possess anything?
claypigeons 04-14-06, 09:59 AM	Stealing is chaotic, not evil. While it can be evil in certain cases, it can be good in others. The funny thing is that people on this board seem to think that stealing is never good, while murder "oh sure, murder can be good". Stealing is a "non-good" action. I never said it was evil. But it isnt something a "good" person does, regardless of your morals. Stealing something is NEVER good. Giving what you stole to someone else to help them is the "good" part of it (depending on how it helps them...). And murder is evil. Killing is not always evil. You could end up killing someone in self defense. Which is why my good aligned characters never strike first. I wait for them (whoever "them" is at that particular time) to attack me first, and then i cut 'em for trying to kill me.
Witch 04-14-06, 10:07 AM	Stealing is a "non-good" action. I never said it was evil. But it isnt something a "good" person does, regardless of your morals. Stealing something is NEVER good. Giving what you stole to someone else to help them is the "good" part of it (depending on how it helps them...). And murder is evil. Killing is not always evil. You could end up killing someone in self defense. Which is why my good aligned characters never strike first. I wait for them (whoever "them" is at that particular time) to attack me first, and then i cut 'em for trying to kill me. Well - I misinterpreted you as trying to define theft on the good-evil axis then. Theft on its own is never on the good-evil axis, it is always neutral on that. There's just 3 examples required: a) You steal money from the rich to give it to the poor - good. b) You steal a bread to not die of starvation - neutral c) You steal because you think you need more luxury - evil While I admit that stealing itself is never good, perhaps, that is not reason enough to protest against it. There's a lot of injustice in the world, ours and D&D's. That injustice will never go away if good people do nothing.
Pandaemoni 04-14-06, 10:23 AM	The act of stealing anything is non-good. It doesnt matter who you steal you steal it from, it's still a non-good act, no matter your view on the world. The act of giving what you stole to those less fortunate is a good act. If you steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, I'd see that as good. If you steal from the wealthy in order to redistribute that wealth to the poor, that can also be good. It's stealing for personal gain that's non-good...and even then there are gray areas (robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, but keeping 10% for yourself, for example). It also does depend to some extent on what the "property rights" of the campaign are. In many cultures, the poor could enter onto a farmers land and eat as much as they wanted, so long as they didn't carry anything away with them uneaten. The ancient Hebrews did not consider that "theft", for example. In medieval Britain on the other hand, hunting in the "royal forests" was a form a theft punishable by death, even if you were otherwise starving to death. In this case, if the character was stealing items that wouldn't create a significant hardship for anyone...then the acts are likely neutral. That doesn't mean you should shift his alignment. Even the best men commit "neutral" acts all the time. It's really only if he starts committing evil acts or if he starts passing up opportunities to do good that are actively presented to him that I'd really start worrying about it.
Another Gnome 04-14-06, 10:46 AM	If you steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, I'd see that as good. Feeding a starving child is a good act, but it has zero alignment effect on the act of stealing, and vice versa, just like walking from the scene of crime to the starving child has no effect on either act, and neither act makes the walk good or evil. Your alignment at the end of the day is never the net total of what you have done that day. Just don't ask me what it is, then...
DrMorganes 04-14-06, 11:06 AM	This guy is Chaotic Neutral. The lying and stealing falls firmly on the "chaotic" side of the line, as these acts are not something a Lawful character will regularly do - and never with the laissez-faire attitude expressed by this PC. Neutral because you haven't described him as going out of his way for anyone or expressing the slightest concern for the greater good. He seems quite happy to look out for Number One first, and everyone else a far distant fifth... A chaotic good theif-type is one who opposes the corrupt system out of a sincere desire to better the world; the stereotypical "Robin Hood" type who robs from the corrupt and uncaring rich to feed and clothe the poor, harries the evil Sherif to put an end to his reign, and generally carries the torch for a just cause. This guy ain't him ;)
Pandaemoni 04-14-06, 11:25 AM	Feeding a starving child is a good act, but it has zero alignment effect on the act of stealing, and vice versa, just like walking from the scene of crime to the starving child has no effect on either act, and neither act makes the walk good or evil. I disagree. I would not have stolen the bread in the first place but for the need of the starving child. The theft in inextricably linked to the plight of the child...motive matters in determining the difference between good and evil. If I steal a ladder so that I can use it to save someone from a burning building, the theft serves a greater (and good) purpose. In fact, if I asked to take the ladder, and the owner said "no," that would be evil. Arguably, if I accepted that "no," refused to steal the ladder and thereby allowed someone to burn to death, I can see an argument that my inaction was evil. Lawful, perhaps, but evil.
Another Gnome 04-14-06, 11:34 AM	Motives can be false, and outcomes are never certain. Therefore, only the act itself matters. That said, motives and outcomes may have an alignment effect as well, but they are independent from the act in between. Ends and means do not justify one another.
Darkxarth 04-14-06, 11:36 AM	Definitely Chaotic Neutral. Stealing things to get into a Thieves' Guild isn't necessarily Evil, if the Guild is doing especially bad things. But just stealing things from people and lying about stealing them, that is definitely non-Good.
Witch 04-14-06, 11:39 AM	Let's see. Imagine person A and person B. Person A is insanely rich. Person B is starving. Person A refuses to give money/food to person B. Hence person A is evil. If person C enters the fray, and decides to take money from person A and give it to person B, I would deem that a good act.
Vanamir 04-14-06, 12:00 PM	I am always amazed how many people come think they are good just because they refrain from randomly killing innocent bystanders. If your player insists on being good ask him what he has done to better the life of others. What has he sacrificed for the well being of other persons without getting or expecting a personal reward for it? Which respect has he shown anyone out of his own free will without obligation or coercion? And keep in mind, these persons do not include his fellow warriors. After all it is in his own interest to keep good relations with them. I think people must understand that the "standard" alignment is not good but rather neutral. You do not simply have a good or evil alignment, you earn it. In my games characters don't have an alignment but they get it assigned from me according to their deeds. Concerning all those who think that stealing is not evil: If you steal bread from a baker and distribute it among the needy this might a first look be a good act. But you forget that he sells these things to make a living and feed his family. If anyone did this it would be the baker would be the one to starve and in the end no good would have been done. Even if he could easily afford it it would not make it a good act. At best it might be a necessary evil but only if there was absolutely no other way. A really good character would have bought the bread to give it to the needy or would have shared his own meals with them.
Vanamir 04-14-06, 12:03 PM	Let's see. Imagine person A and person B. Person A is insanely rich. Person B is starving. Person A refuses to give money/food to person B. Hence person A is evil. If person C enters the fray, and decides to take money from person A and give it to person B, I would deem that a good act. And how much money does person C have he might spend to feed the hungry? As long as person C himself could feed person B without taking from person A it is not a good act.
Witch 04-14-06, 01:07 PM	And how much money does person C have he might spend to feed the hungry? As long as person C himself could feed person B without taking from person A it is not a good act. Let us assume that person C has just enough to keep himself alive.
Someone 04-14-06, 01:17 PM	Just a few points: 1.) It doesn't matter what the player says, or what they have written on their character sheet. A character's alignment is set by the actions the player has them take. You can't wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to be CG today". 2.) This guy is CN. Robin Hood was CG, and this guy doesn't seem like the Robin Hood-sort. 3.) As others have said, why is the player so concerned what his character's alignment is? CN isn't by any means a bad alignment, its just the way some people play CN characters that can be the problem.
Gedrin 04-14-06, 02:54 PM	Here's my bits. People have a fundamental right to the use of the products of their labor. Yes, you can rightfully own property. Taking property causes harm. If you doubt that you would be harmed by having your property taken, please shred your paycheck and then go try to buy groceries, pay for your rent, or put gas in your car when you need to commute to work. Theft is the taking of property without right. While there may be some circumstances where one has the right to take property, these are not the circumstances we are concerned with in this example. Our current example is relatively random theivery, and does not include a justification. Theft is intentional. I'm sure you could dream up some senario where it isn't, but let's keep our eye on the ball. Indescriminately stealing, ie not caring who is stolen from, means that not only do you steal from those able to deal with it, but also that you steal from the poor and those who will be direly affected. Intentionally stealing (harming people), doing so indescriminately (being willing to steal from the poor), and doing so without a proper justification (greed/self advancement), is evil. Those who make a habit of doing evil, without balancing that with redeeming acts, will tend toward an evil alignment.
Vanamir 04-14-06, 03:07 PM	Let us assume that person C has just enough to keep himself alive. Even then he should share his bread before stealing from others. As long as there is any alternative to stealing it is not good. Besides i deny your claim of person A automatically being evil. With that kind of logic anyone who doesn't donate all his income to charity is evil. 3.) As others have said, why is the player so concerned what his character's alignment is? CN isn't by any means a bad alignment, its just the way some people play CN characters that can be the problem. I guess the problem is here that many people are used to regard themselves to be better than they actually are. And they don't like to be told otherwise.
Rapiersman 04-14-06, 03:35 PM	This is NOT a good act. This should automatically make him at least neutral. "Good" people do not go around stealing stuff to get into a thieves guild. Automatically? That's a bit too much. Maybe it's a non-good act, but one act very rarely automatically makes you some alignment. If your character otherwise is very "good", but has a bad habit of stealing can't he then be "good"? *Sigh* It would be a lot easier if the whole alignment system didn't exist...
claypigeons 04-14-06, 04:21 PM	he uses his bluff skill like a pair of pants. he has no objections to stealing random objects inorder to get into a thieves guild and lying to several people to get/keep these objects. Automatically? That's a bit too much. Maybe it's a non-good act, but one act very rarely automatically makes you some alignment. If your character otherwise is very "good", but has a bad habit of stealing can't he then be "good"? From the original post, it's not one act. It's many non-good acts. This character doesnt have a "bad habit", he doesnt do anything "good", only non-good.
Another Gnome 04-14-06, 04:47 PM	Imagine person A and person B. Person A is insanely rich. Person B is starving. So far, so good. Provided person A didn't become rich through illegal means. Person A refuses to give money/food to person B. Hence person A is evil. His money, his business. One doesn't become good by avoiding evil acts, and the reverse is no different. Person B hasn't done a thing to prove he deserves being given anything. In case A hired B for money or food, that wouldn't be evil, but less good than actual charity, right? Now, refusing to give someone a job obviously is not evil either. How then could refusing to give out money for free be more evil than avoiding something that's less good? :D If person C enters the fray, and decides to take money from person A and give it to person B, I would deem that a good act. Giving money good. Taking money bad.
Wargamer 04-14-06, 05:26 PM	The act of stealing anything is non-good. It doesnt matter who you steal you steal it from, it's still a non-good act, no matter your view on the world. The act of giving what you stole to those less fortunate is a good act. So robbing the rich and giving to the poor is good... but robbing the rich is automatically non-good? Doesn't make sense to me...
High Octane 04-14-06, 06:34 PM	So robbing the rich and giving to the poor is good... but robbing the rich is automatically non-good? Doesn't make sense to me... In the words of my favorite DM: Intent matters. Robbing the rich for no other reason than your own personal gain is certainly not a good act. Granted, its not THAT evil, and certainly would allow being neutral on the good/evil axis, and if an adventurer does a lot of good acts otherwise it could balance out to a good alignment. A rogue who decides to prey solely on the rich, doesnt kill, and does plenty of good deeds when not robbing can have a CG alignment. If he also decides to only prey on specific targets, say for example only corrupt nobles and merchants who have done a lot of evil to the people in the past, that could be considered a mildly good act.
Witch 04-14-06, 08:32 PM	His money, his business. One doesn't become good by avoiding evil acts, and the reverse is no different. That's where I disagree. Good and evil are not opposites. Evil is merely utter absence of good. One does not become evil by striving towards it - that does not happen. One becomes evil by apathy and avoiding responsability. Good requires actions, evil does not. One can certainly become evil by avoiding good acts.
Pandaemoni 04-14-06, 09:36 PM	His money, his business. One doesn't become good by avoiding evil acts, and the reverse is no different. Person B hasn't done a thing to prove he deserves being given anything. In case A hired B for money or food, that wouldn't be evil, but less good than actual charity, right? Now, refusing to give someone a job obviously is not evil either. How then could refusing to give out money for free be more evil than avoiding something that's less good? :D I disagree. If a paladin comes across a starving child and the paladin says "I choose not to spend a copper piece on getting you a meager meal. My money, my business," that paladin would be in serious danger in my games of losing his status. Allowing someone to die to preserve mere property or avoid mild incovenience is evil. .
claypigeons 04-15-06, 12:18 AM	So robbing the rich and giving to the poor is good... but robbing the rich is automatically non-good? Doesn't make sense to me... Robbing anyone, for any reason is non-good. Giving what you stole to someone less fortunate is is good. I dont see how people can justify stealing anything from anyone as a good act. It's not yours. It may not be theirs either, but taking it from them isnt "good". It's in the act of giving it back to the person who owned it originally, or to the poor, that is the good act, and may outweigh the non-good of the theft.
Kothardarastrix 04-15-06, 01:13 AM	I disagree. If a paladin comes across a starving child and the paladin says "I choose not to spend a copper piece on getting you a meager meal. My money, my business," that paladin would be in serious danger in my games of losing his status. Allowing someone to die to preserve mere property or avoid mild incovenience is evil. But that's because one, it's a Paladin, his job description and very beliefs require that he help wherever he can. As for Witch's apathy and responsibility comment, and what do you do when person B doesn't strive to better his life, what if person A offers person B a job working for him, even going so far as to pay for an apartment (Until he can buy his own home) and buy him some good clothes; then after a week or so Person B starts showing up late continuously, his only excuse, 'I was tired so I slept in." After a couple months, is person A still required to support person B who shows no sort of initiative and still continues to show up late and sometimes not at all?
Witch 04-15-06, 05:08 AM	As for Witch's apathy and responsibility comment, and what do you do when person B doesn't strive to better his life, what if person A offers person B a job working for him, even going so far as to pay for an apartment (Until he can buy his own home) and buy him some good clothes; If he does not oppress, he is indeed doing good. then after a week or so Person B starts showing up late continuously, his only excuse, 'I was tired so I slept in." After a couple months, is person A still required to support person B who shows no sort of initiative and still continues to show up late and sometimes not at all? According to morality, yes. Practically, that won't happen. The difference is, now the previously starving person is being evil, as he is abusing the aid of his patron for his own good.
Kothardarastrix 04-15-06, 07:35 AM	And is not giving free handouts oppression?
Morrowner 04-15-06, 07:54 AM	I can't believe a bunch of D&D players are having a multi-page argument about the morals and ethics of stealing. Every 5th adventure for me has been, in no uncertain terms "This guy has X. He's going to do Y with it to (insert atrocity here). What we need is a really good plan on how to steal it from him. Ben, I mean Gorik, do you have any ideas?"
Witch 04-15-06, 08:05 AM	And is not giving free handouts oppression? Not at all. Letting someone starve is evil. Not even oppression. With oppression I meant the situation in the 19th century - beginning of the 20th century, slavery, and the likes.
Kothardarastrix 04-15-06, 08:07 AM	#1 The person you were stealing it from was truely going to commit a heinous act with the item. -Good #2 You were required to do so to protect the item from people who were going to steal and use it for heinous crimes. -Neutral w/leaning to good #3 You required the item to avert a disaster. -Neutral w/leaning to good #4 You were tricked into it. -Neutral #5 You want to steal it for your own profit/interest. -Evil Of course their are extenuating circuimstances, but most of your scenarios can be summed up by one of the five above.
Pfisiar 04-15-06, 08:20 AM	Look, Stealing is inherently a Chaotic act, not an inherently evil one. Why is that? Putting it simply, Good vs. Evil is a metaphysical conflict. A conflict of ideals. Chaotic vs. Nuetral is a real world conflict. Basically if you break the law, lie, cheat or steal you are Chaotic. However, breaking the law and lying are not inherently evil traits. They are inherently chaotic traits. Now, why was he stealing? Did he do it to purposefully hurt another human being? If so, then he was evil. If he did it to help someone else, then he's being Good. If he just doesn't care who it hurts, then it is a nuetral act. And you act as if you must be Chaotic Good 100% of the time to remain Chaotic Good. Not true. Even if this guy's actions are Chaotic Nuetral in nature, this is still only one gaming session. Changing someone's alignment based on 1 gaming session is arbitrary and completely unfair as it doesn't give the player room to develope into that alignment.
Witch 04-15-06, 08:33 AM	That reminds me of the session I played yesterday. I was a new character in the party (with a group I've played with for ages, just not in that campaign - so I wasnt the new guy in the group ;) ) When they found me unconscious, the rogue tied me up and put my items away. I was a warlock. I shattered the rope with a baleful utterance, demanding my items back. The rogue gave my items but not my gold, and that only because the party was looking ******. When he refused to give the gold (which amounted to about half a million - it was an epic campaign), I simply blasted him. He died, and had it coming. He had a ring of nine lives, but I think he'll think twice before stealing from that character again.
Vanamir 04-16-06, 08:19 AM	Good and evil are not opposites. Evil is merely utter absence of good. One does not become evil by striving towards it - that does not happen. One becomes evil by apathy and avoiding responsability. Good requires actions, evil does not. One can certainly become evil by avoiding good acts. According to that logic the old hermit living on top of mountain contemplating the mysteries of the universe must be a really bad guy. Maybe I'll use him as the BBEG in my next campaign. :rolleyes: Sorry, but apathy and avoiding responsibility are not evil they are the core of being neutral. Neutrals are those who don't get involved, who don't take sides and prefer to keep to their own business. They harm no one, they help no one. If the avoidance of doing good would automatically make you evil you ought to remove the neutral alignment from the game entirely.
Witch 04-16-06, 08:23 AM	According to that logic the old hermit living on top of mountain contemplating the mysteries of the universe must be a really bad guy. Maybe I'll use him as the BBEG in my next campaign. :rolleyes: Yep, infact, he is. He'll be less bad than the guy who actually steals, but he's still evil. Sorry, but apathy and avoiding responsibility are not evil they are the core of being neutral. Neutrals are those who don't get involved, who don't take sides and prefer to keep to their own business. If the avoidance of doing good would automatically make you evil you ought to remove the neutral alignment from the game entirely. That's why there's shades of grey. And yes, I have thought about the removal of neutral. I have decided not to do so, as that would remove all shades of grey. Neutral people are on their way to evil, but haven't slipped that far. They are selfish, but not to the degree evil people are. They abandon responsabilities, but not to the degree evil people do. They are apathic, but not to the degree evil people are. People who are entirely apathic are evil. Did Hannibal Lecter strive towards evil? No. Not at all. He was selfish, and apathic to the suffering of others. He didn't care if he killed people. He didn't do it to kill, he did it for his own strange culinary tastes. That is what this apathy means. You care nothing for anything but yourself. That is not neutral. That is evil.
Grunj 04-16-06, 08:53 AM	Hannibal Lecter most definitely is evil. A careful reading of the three Thomas Harris novels that feature him reveal such acts as: Mutilating a nurse for no apparent reason. Murdering a museum curator to gain his position. Torturing those he actively dislikes. Killing people who offend him (free range rude). He even states that a just society would kill him. He is completely aware of what he is and revels in it. Hannibal Lecter is such a mesmerizing character not because of the fact that he is a homicidal sociopath, but because he is such a brilliant homicidal sociopath.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 08:53 AM	Again, I'll say this: D&D morality is not real world morality. Perhaps sitting still in real life can be considered evil. Not in D&D. In D&D it's considered nuetral. Evil requires an active participation in activities which intentially bring suffering for personal gain. That is evil in D&D.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:11 AM	It can be seen that not helping another person when you can intentionally is for personal gain. There's a reason sloth is one of the seven sins.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 09:16 AM	It can be seen that not helping another person when you can intentionally is for personal gain. There's a reason sloth is one of the seven sins. Seven deadly sins do not exist in this game. Christian Morality doesn't apply. Do not apply your view of morality on a game where morality is clearly defined. Read the description for nuetral. Nuetral means not taking sides. So a character who doesn't take action against good or evil is nuetral, despite what you may idealogically believe.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:25 AM	This game is heavily inspired by Christian morality. Strangely enough, the concept of the Paladin is derived from it. From a distorted version of it, yes, but still from Christian morality.
Pfisiar 04-16-06, 09:28 AM	This game is heavily inspired by Christian morality. Strangely enough, the concept of the Paladin is derived from it. From a distorted version of it, yes, but still from Christian morality. Well, perhaps. But not the morality you're espousing. In your morality, anything that harms another person, whether that person is evil or not, is wrong. That's not the case in D&D.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:29 AM	Well, it is if you go to exalted standards. The difference is that I view actual good as merely a better version of neutral, and exalted as true good.
Rivelstraz 04-16-06, 09:34 AM	Let's see. Imagine person A and person B. Person A is insanely rich. Person B is starving. Person A refuses to give money/food to person B. Hence person A is evil. If person C enters the fray, and decides to take money from person A and give it to person B, I would deem that a good act. I fail to see why is Person A 'evil'. He'd be neutral. People that mind their business and cause no problems are neutral, not evil. If he exploited person B in some way, then yes.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:36 AM	I fail to see why is Person A 'evil'. He'd be neutral. People that mind their business and cause no problems are neutral, not evil. If he exploited person B in some way, then yes. I just plainly disagree. You are bathing in luxury, probably undeserved, because it is impossible to deserve luxury when others are starving, and refuse to help a starving person, letting him to die. Evil.
Rivelstraz 04-16-06, 09:44 AM	It's not my fault that when I was an adventurer, I found that gem worth 50000gp, and that stupid prince paid me 250000gp for it to give it as a wedding present to his fiancee. /example Well, now I'm super rich and I don't want to give money to anyone who has less than me, because who are you to say who deserves more money, person B or person D. As far I know, person B could be an ex-thief, wizard who went under intelligence 10 and now is a crazy wandering guy, etc.
Witch 04-16-06, 09:46 AM	It's not my fault that when I was an adventurer, I found that gem worth 50000gp, and that stupid prince paid me 250000gp for it to give it as a wedding present to his fiancee. /example Well, now I'm super rich and I don't want to give money to anyone who has less than me, because who are you to say who deserves more money, person B or person D. As far I know, person B could be an ex-thief, wizard who went under intelligence 10 and now is a crazy wandering guy, etc. Indeed. Who are you to say that you deserve more money. It should be shared. Regardless if a person is an ex thief, or a crazy wandering guy, they all should be able to live.
Rivelstraz 04-16-06, 09:52 AM	I've risked my life being an adventurer, I found treasures. Person B was a damned thief who just robbed old ladies. Why should I give him any kind of help? Neutral. Now, the other side. For some reason, person A is super rich by an undeserved method, but his alignment is now, neutral. Person B is an ex-adventurer, who lost his arm, leg and all his gear some years ago. Now he's starving and person A refuses to give him money or food. He's still, neutral. He's not guilty of what happened to person A. Which civilization shares everything? If an orc finds a gem, he'll hide it, he won't go running to his comrades shouting "I found a gem, who wants it?"
Witch 04-16-06, 09:54 AM	The person may still be neutral, the fact that he is not helping is evil.
Rivelstraz 04-16-06, 09:58 AM	That would be that saying, something like "Is bad already that a good man is doing nothing" He's not helping, but he's not guilty nor he does anything 'bad' to the starving. Neutral. In a happy world, everybody would be helping whose who need it. But you don't see adventurers visiting every single street at some random city to give money to the poor ones. And they are not evil. Not even paladins do that. Scenario: Neutral wizard has a tower inside a city. He leaves the tower to go reagent shopping. When he's back, he's evil. Why? Because he didn't pay attention to those who were starving. Do you think that's logic?
Witch 04-16-06, 10:02 AM	That would be that saying, something like "Is bad already that a good man is doing nothing" He's not helping, but he's not guilty nor he does anything 'bad' to the starving. Neutral. He's guilty of letting them starve. In a happy world, everybody would be helping whose who need it. But you don't see adventurers visiting every single street at some random city to give money to the poor ones. And they are not evil. Not even paladins do that. Vow of Poverty characters do just that. Scenario: Neutral wizard has a tower inside a city. He leaves the tower to go reagent shopping. When he's back, he's evil. Why? Because he didn't pay attention to those who were starving. Do you think that's logic? If he wasn't aware of the starving before, and he hasn't helped them, he has acted evilly, yes. As said several times, one evil act does not make you evil.
Rivelstraz 04-16-06, 10:11 AM	VoP means an exalted character. Most 'good' people are non-exalted. Letting someone starve is a delict now? Which one? To be guilty, there must be delict. Minding your own business while doing nothing to other people is neutral. Letting someone starve is not evil. What personal benefit do you get from it?
claypigeons 04-16-06, 10:11 AM	The person may still be neutral, the fact that he is not helping is evil. Then everyone is evil. There is always someone to help, and by that logic, if you dont help EVERYONE whenever they want it or need it, you're evil, so everyone in the world (or, at least 90% of them) are evil. :rolleyes: Maybe the rich guy doesnt want to just hand him money. That would let him eat for a day (or a few), or get him mugged/killed by another poor person. Helping the man get a job of some kind would be the only actual good way (not in the good/evil sense, the other one) to help him, as it actually has a lasting benefit. Or he could just open a soup kitchen and let the poor mooch and still do nothing but turn people evil for not helping them.
Witch 04-16-06, 10:14 AM	VoP means an exalted character. Most 'good' people are non-exalted. Letting someone starve is a delict now? Which one? To be guilty, there must be delict. Minding your own business while doing nothing to other people is neutral. Letting someone starve is not evil. What personal benefit do you get from it? The personal benefit that you do not have to give/spend money/time on others. VoP means exalted, and I only consider exalted characters really good. Good as in "hey, it's evil, let's kill it" is not good in my opinion.
Witch 04-16-06, 10:16 AM	Then everyone is evil. There is always someone to help, and by that logic, if you dont help EVERYONE whenever they want it or need it, you're evil, so everyone in the world (or, at least 90% of them) are evil. :rolleyes: Fascinating remark. Indeed there is evil in everyone. Noone is utterly good.
Rivelstraz 04-16-06, 10:22 AM	The personal benefit that you do not have to give/spend money/time on others. VoP means exalted, and I only consider exalted characters really good. Good as in "hey, it's evil, let's kill it" is not good in my opinion. That's a very twisted benefit.
Witch 04-16-06, 10:25 AM	There's not a lot of difference between "I kill to gain 500 gold" or "I let die to keep 500 gold".
claypigeons 04-16-06, 10:25 AM	Fascinating remark. Indeed there is evil in everyone. Noone is utterly good. Absolutely, everyone is capable of evil. Being capable and actually BEING evil are different, which is something you apparently dont see. And besides that, do you honestly believe noone is "utterly good"? That would mean people like... say... Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul II were a little bit evil. People such as those 2 are, at least to me, the embodiment of good.
Rivelstraz 04-16-06, 10:29 AM	Considering John Paul II was the 'boss' of the church, who have in their hands millions of euros (or dollars) in furniture and similars who could save tons of starving people, he was the embodiment of evil. And I'm not mocking Witch with that statement, I really believe he could have done way more. But religions are like this... Back to the topic. The neutral person is NOT killing the starving one, and keeping money is hardly what I call a benefit. I mean, he's the chance to have less or be in the same situation. Balance never goes positive = no benefit.
Witch 04-16-06, 10:31 AM	Absolutely, everyone is capable of evil. Being capable and actually BEING evil are different, which is something you apparently dont see. And besides that, do you honestly believe noone is "utterly good"? That would mean people like... say... Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul II were a little bit evil. People such as those 2 are, at least to me, the embodiment of good. Some might be the embodiment of good as far as humans are capable of being the embodiment of good Ánd they are extremely rare. There is a blend in us all - (almost) noone is capable of being utterly good. Being capable of evil does not mean being evil no, it means you are partially evil. That may mean you are 99% good and 1% evil, but you still are partially evil.
claypigeons 04-16-06, 10:40 AM	There is a blend in us all - (almost) noone is capable of being utterly good. Being capable of evil does not mean being evil no, it means you are partially evil. That may mean you are 99% good and 1% evil, but you still are partially evil. This still doesnt make "the rich guy" in the scenario evil. He's, at worst, neutral. Wanting to keep your money is not evil. Not giving all your money away is not evil as far as DnD mechanics go. By the logic you have presenting in your last few posts, even the people whom the wizard would be helping, are evil beyond words. I mean, they COULD be helping all the people even less fortunate than they are, those people are the crippled and/or sick, but they arent, so they are evil, and in that case, why help an evil person?
Witch 04-16-06, 10:46 AM	If those people are not doing any good at all, yes, then they would be evil. Secondly, "why help an evil person"? Here's a quote that may fit: It's taken out of context, but in the spirit of the text. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, the startsy Zósima: They tell us that it is a sin to pray for them and outwardly the Church, as it were, renounces them, but in my secret heart I believe that we may pray even for them. Love can never be an offence to Christ. For such as those I have prayed inwardly all my life, I confess it, fathers and teachers, and even now I pray for them every day.