Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dormcook 09-11-06, 11:24 AM	What makes the Aurum a lawful evil organization? They seem like a bunch of spoiled rich kids trying to hold power, but they would seem to be more neutral than evil.
WeZil 09-11-06, 11:28 AM	Greed is evil. You can be evil without wanting to kill puppies, rape women and torture children. That's just an extreme example of evil deeds. Most evil people in Eberron (or any campaign setting for that manner) are just your everyday selfish, self serving jerks. That being said, the Aurum are Evil, they're just a more tame evil.
Sereno 09-11-06, 11:36 AM	The Aurum are willing to do *anything* to further their own goals of increasing their own wealth and power. If that means fomenting a war that lasts 100 years and involves all of the nations on Khorvaire, so be it* ... so long as they come out of it with more wealth and power than when it started.... The Aurum isn't a "take over the world with our giant 'laser'", they're more like Virtucorp ... taking over the world one Starbucks at a time. :) *There's no proof that the Aurum was really behind the Last War ... and that's just how they like it.
eehamburg 09-11-06, 12:06 PM	evil is not necessarily a bad thing. It is only a statement about the movites behind someone's actions. Whether they are for selfish reasons or not.
DragonWatcher 09-11-06, 12:24 PM	evil is not necessarily a bad thing. And now I have my new signature. :D
eehamburg 09-11-06, 12:30 PM	:dancin: :cheer: :clap: :cloud9: :w00t: :king: :bounce: And now I have my new signature. :D I feel honored. :D
WeZil 09-11-06, 12:30 PM	evil is not necessarily a bad thing. This is probobly one of the greatest quotes ever, because it's so true. You can be Evil and still be a savior, it just means that your methods are direct, ruthless and uncompensating. Lets say that there are children infected with now-dormant zombifying bees, and they're spread across the land, and in time the bees will awaken, turn the children into zombies who will in turn zombify everybody around them. An evil savior would likely take the most direct route in stopping the zombies by killing the innocent children even though he knows that there is a chance to spare them using surgical or magical methods. Yes, this is a reference to a certain game. I wont' say which one.
eehamburg 09-11-06, 12:34 PM	This is probobly one of the greatest quotes ever, because it's so true. You can be Evil and still be a savior, it just means that your methods are direct, ruthless and uncompensating. I wouldn't go to those extremely ... but think about it this way ... evil doesn't mean that you murder, rape, pillage, etc. It means that your motives are not for everyone's benefits, but maybe just for your own.
WeZil 09-11-06, 01:17 PM	What I posted was an example. Honestly, it could swing either way. I'm reminded of a thread about a character from a book which's name escapes me. They had labeled this character as a good example of a Lawful Evil character, as well as an example of the 'Evil Savior.' The character served an Order who's goals were to bring about a new world order of peace and prosperity. The character in question acted mostly on his own, but he would basically run around and kill anybody who offered any sort of opposition to the development of this order to ensure that, when all is said and done, the rest of the world is closer to some sort of Good Paradise. He also knew that, when all is said and done, there would be absolutely no place in that new world for somebody like him. I thought that was a good example of an interesting LAwful Evil character.
JulesCARV 09-11-06, 05:37 PM	Evil is not distinguished by only caring about yourself. People who only care about themselves are evil, but not all people who are evil only care about themselves. For instance, someone could be self-sacrificing, as well as treating others badly, because he's devoted to neither himself nor the benefit of others, but to some abstract ideal. What distinguishes evil is a lack of concern for others. An evil person might be both selfless and treat others horribly, by being devoted to an abstract ideal, or he might be selfish and treat others horribly. If self-sacrifice is always good, just as selfishness is evil, then suicide bombers who target civilians are good. Anyway, with regards to the Aurum, they only care about themselves, and the degree to which they care about themselves leaves no room for caring about others. Not caring about others -- and using them however you want, regardless of their welfare -- is evil.
eehamburg 09-11-06, 05:52 PM	What distinguishes evil is a lack of concern for others. Well ... you are correct in that evil truly is about a lack of concern for others.... in this we agree.
dormcook 09-11-06, 11:04 PM	If lack of concern is evil, what is neutrality?
cog_and_taz 09-11-06, 11:12 PM	This is probobly one of the greatest quotes ever, because it's so true. You can be Evil and still be a savior, it just means that your methods are direct, ruthless and uncompensating. Lets say that there are children infected with now-dormant zombifying bees, and they're spread across the land, and in time the bees will awaken, turn the children into zombies who will in turn zombify everybody around them. An evil savior would likely take the most direct route in stopping the zombies by killing the innocent children even though he knows that there is a chance to spare them using surgical or magical methods. Yes, this is a reference to a certain game. I wont' say which one. WC3? can I have a :cookie: ? Mebbe even from arthas?:D
eehamburg 09-12-06, 09:18 AM	If lack of concern is evil, what is neutrality? Neutrality is a little bit of each ... like having some concern but not much or concern when it matters or concern but only for a select few or stuff like that.
DragonWatcher 09-12-06, 09:37 AM	Personally, I don't believe in neutrality in regards to Good or Evil with sentient creatures. If a person's alignment is determined by their tendencies in regards to regularly committing Good or Evil actions... and all meaningful actions can be categorized into Good or Evil (can anyone give me an example of a neutral action that involves someone other than oneself), then how is it possible to be (or at least to remain) Neutral?
eehamburg 09-12-06, 10:26 AM	Personally, I don't believe in neutrality in regards to Good or Evil with sentient creatures. If a person's alignment is determined by their tendencies in regards to regularly committing Good or Evil actions... and all meaningful actions can be categorized into Good or Evil (can anyone give me an example of a neutral action that involves someone other than oneself), then how is it possible to be (or at least to remain) Neutral? In reality, I tend to believe with you ... in game mechanics ... don't know
(Psi)SeveredHead 09-12-06, 10:51 AM	Personally, I don't believe in neutrality in regards to Good or Evil with sentient creatures. If a person's alignment is determined by their tendencies in regards to regularly committing Good or Evil actions... and all meaningful actions can be categorized into Good or Evil (can anyone give me an example of a neutral action that involves someone other than oneself), then how is it possible to be (or at least to remain) Neutral? By performing few actions, or by doing both good and evil. Someone who donates to charity but scams his workplace could be neutral. I wonder if Vlad Dracul's smallpox cure would be considered evil: probably yes. He invited a large number of smallpox victims to a banquet, then sealed the place up and set it afire.
DragonWatcher 09-12-06, 11:56 AM	By performing few actions, or by doing both good and evil. Someone who donates to charity but scams his workplace could be neutral. While I think that you're right that this is the general idea... I just don't buy it lasting for long. I think that because sentient creatures make decisions based upon personal values, once they start acting in accordance with their nature, they would quickly be pulled into being Good or Evil (at least slightly)... one more than the other... and regularly. I think that neutrality should be reserved for creatures that act purely out of instinct. A tiger doesn't kill for pleasure... it does so for survival. Likewise it doesn't protect it's cubs out of some lofty personal philosophy or ideal, it does so so out of instinct. These things become neutral acts only because they're not being done out of a concept of personal value, but because the animals drive for survival dictates that they must be done. I wonder if Vlad Dracul's smallpox cure would be considered evil: probably yes. He invited a large number of smallpox victims to a banquet, then sealed the place up and set it afire. Um... yeah, Evil. Possibly done for the greater good... but still Evil. That's why I don't really buy that Good and Evil cancel each other out to become neutral. Evil done for a good reason is still evil... just like a Good act done for an Evil purpose is still a Good act.
eehamburg 09-12-06, 12:01 PM	Um... yeah, Evil. Possibly done for the greater good... but still Evil. That's why I don't really buy that Good and Evil cancel each other out to become neutral. Evil done for a good reason is still evil... just like a Good act done for an Evil purpose is still a Good act. But there is a difference between acts and people. Let's take your example of a good act done for an evil purpose is still a good act ... yes ... however, the evil purpose would still make the person evil.
DragonWatcher 09-12-06, 12:36 PM	But there is a difference between acts and people. Let's take your example of a good act done for an evil purpose is still a good act ... yes ... however, the evil purpose would still make the person evil. Yes, but in my mind it's a bit more roundabout... examples are usually helpful. :D Let's say that you have two characters that both want to rescue the proverbial damsel in distress. Character A (We'll call him Adam) is a LG Paladin of the Silver Flame. He recently arrived in a villiage to find out that the damsel was kidnapped by a rakshasa for a sacrifice to free a Rajah. Adam sets out on a quest to free the damsel. His motivations for freeing her are: 1. Save the life of an innocent. 2. Prevent the release of the Rajah. Character B (Uh... Bob) is a LE Vampire Fighter of the Emerald Claw. After hearing the same story, he decides that he's going to rescue the girl. His motivations are: 1. Prevent the Rajah from being released (since this would be bad for him and the EC). 2. Earn the trust of the town (which he has plans for later). Now, Adam and Bob both have similar goals, and both of those goals are things that I would consider to be Good. Saving the life of an innocent, and preventing the release of great Evil are noble acts. I would argue that even for Bob, these would be considered Good acts. The difference comes in with HOW they accomplish these goals, and what they're going to do once the goals are accomplished. Adam might go to the Rakshasa's lair... confronting his guards in honorable combat, and save the girl by the skin of his teeth... returning her to her rightful home and destroying the components of the ritual that the Rakshasa was conducting. Bob, on the other hand doesn't want to put himself at risk in this endeavor. He finds some capable warriors on his way to the Rakshasa's lair, and turns them into vampire spawn. Now he has some expendible meat-shields that he can use to get to the Rakshasa. After defeating the fiend, he collects the foul components for his Emerald Claw compatriots, and returns the girl home. He compels her to help him earn the trust of the village, which he exploits for an Emerald Claw scheme. Now, the point? Well, in both cases saving the girl, and preventing the Rajah from being freed were (in and of themselves) Good acts. However, the activities surrounding the acts... and those that come around as a result of those acts are also Good or Evil... and when Bob commits several attrocities in preparation for, and after doing good... he is still acting in his tendency for evil.
eehamburg 09-12-06, 12:40 PM	I agree totally with what you are saying
dormcook 09-13-06, 10:23 PM	So if Fred is just looking to make a buck, and doesn't care weither the Chick bites it or not. Isn't he nuetral. People in the Aurum don't care if she bites it or not. They just want to sell tickets.
eehamburg 09-14-06, 09:36 AM	It depends ... if he is looking to make a buck at no matter what the cost ... then he is evil ... if he is overcharging because he is extremely greedy, then he is evil ...
DragonWatcher 09-14-06, 10:23 AM	So if Fred is just looking to make a buck, and doesn't care weither the Chick bites it or not. Isn't he nuetral. People in the Aurum don't care if she bites it or not. They just want to sell tickets. The ruthless greed of the Aurum is what makes them an Evil organization. See, the problem that I have with Fred just wanting to make a buck (and therefore being neutral) is twofold: 1. Putting your desire for money above the life of someone else (IMO) is Evil. Sure you're not the one killing her... and for you to make money, she has to be brought back alive, so you (hopefully) will be saving her. While saving the girl is a Good act, your motivations for doing it (personal greed) are Evil. The two things (again, IMO) don't cancel each other out... but I can see how in many people's eyes they would. 2. Again, to me, being aligned with Good or Evil represents a tendency, not a single action. It's a pattern of how you view the world around you, and what actions you are generally willing to take to achieve your goals. It is not necessarily that Evil people must have Evil goals... but the fact that Evil people are willing to regularly commit Evil acts in the persuit of their goals (no matter how noble the goals are). So, if Fred wants to make a buck, and hears about the girl who needs to be rescued and sees it as a business opportunity fine. He wants the girl to live, but wouldn't have been motivated without the cash... I would say he's likely Good, just not a Paladin. He doesn't care if she dies, so long as he gets paid... I would say he's Evil... just not a Blackguard. What methods will he employ to rescue her, and what lines will he absolutely NOT cross? Those are the questions that will truly determine Fred's alignment in my game.
dormcook 09-14-06, 10:22 PM	Thank you all for your dialoge, but I think we will need to agree to disagree on this one. I hear what all of you are saying, but you are talking as if good and evil are the two alignments in this game and they are not. It is good, neutral and evil. Think of it as pro, con and I don't care. Good is pro humanity (by that I mean all races). Evil is anti humanity. Nuetral doesn't care. They only look at life through personal goals. A wolf doesn't care about the rabbit. Its just a meal. He isn't evil he is just a wolf. I agree to the rabbit a wolf is evil. To a wolf another wolf is nuetral. I can agree that people who are victims of the Aurum will see them as an evil organization. The problem is with the vague morality of most people who live in eberon, most of the organizations are wolves not rabbits.
DragonWatcher 09-15-06, 12:44 AM	Thank you all for your dialoge, but I think we will need to agree to disagree on this one. Fair enough, though I hope you don't mind if I take the time to respond to your points. BTW... I have to say that this is one of the most civil Alignment discussions that I have ever taken part in, so I also want to say thank you to everyone who has participated as well. :) I hear what all of you are saying, but you are talking as if good and evil are the two alignments in this game and they are not. I understand that Neutral exists in the game, but I have just yet to see anything that stands out to me as a reasonable explaination of how Neutral really works. I can justify the other two... but Neutrality (within the scope of the Alignment System) really just seems to be little more than the "who are you to judge what my character is doing" alignment. Now, please don't get me wrong... it's obvious to me that others don't share my point of view here, and I'm not accusing people of writing down neutral in munchkin ways. If your interpretation of Alignments works for your game, then that's really all that matters. However, since this is a discussion, I am just trying to put another view out there... and perhaps one that might resonate with others who might not have such a clear view on Alignments... but who are reading this thread. It is good, neutral and evil. Clearly... and I am not meaning this in an arrogant way, but I really would like for someone to provide me with an example of Neutral, proactive behavior that I can agree is Neutral. The problem that I have is that most of the time, when people try to give an example of Neutral behavior, it honestly resonates as rationalized Evil behavior to me. The problem with that is that we can ultimately rationalize anything that we do, at which point the Alignment System itself breaks down into bickering about how "My character has a good reason for X", or "Just because he did Y doesn't count as an Evil act". It becomes very difficult to draw a line at all... I mean, if you can say, "Killing a helpless person is Evil... unless it's a goblin, or an orc, or he was fighting me before surrendering, or it's Tuesday" then suddenly nothing is an Evil act anymore. As I've said, I would be happy to concede the point if someone could point out a truly Neutral proactive action... Think of it as pro, con and I don't care. And here is where we part ways... as I think that this oversimplifies the problem, and makes a huge assumption. Don't get me wrong... I honestly think that you're describing it pretty close to the way the writers were thinking when they wrote the book... but again, I'm saying that to MY way of thinking things don't work out here. Good is pro humanity (by that I mean all races). I kind of agree with this for the most part. However, by this logic you can (and I'm not saying that YOU (dormcook) are... but people can) rationalize murder into a Good act. How? Let's create a situation where you have to kill one innocent being to save one million lives (or hell, even two other lives). Now, being pro-humanity, doesn't the good of the many outweigh the need of the few? So then, wouldn't it be that one life for many is a Good thing? There are those out there that would say "yes". I have friends among them. That said, I say "no". The taking of even a single innocent life is an Evil act. Now it might be the "right" thing to do given the circumstances, but a character isn't Lawful Right... they're Lawful (or Chaotic, or Neutral) Good. Evil is anti humanity. Again, not necessarily. Let's look at the best example that I can think of from the Eberron Campaign Setting for this one... King Kaius III. Kaius is Evil... he's a vampire that exists by draining the very life force from others. He's a ruthless tyrant who rules his kingdom with an iron fist (as seen in the martial law that is the Code of Kaius), and is willing to do whatever necessary to insure stability in Karrnath. Yet... he is one of the biggest advocates for peace in all of Khorvaire. Kaius was largely responsible for ending the Last War. Isn't that pro-humanity? His actions saved untold lives. While he is a danger to anyone around him, he tends to act violently only in the defense of his kingdom and his people. In fact, it is his fanatical pro-humanity stance that drives him to do Evil. Nuetral doesn't care. They only look at life through personal goals. And to me, the selfish persuit of one's personal agenda with mark apathy for how it affects those around them is one of the most clearly difining attributes of Evil. A serial killer has personal goals, and doesn't care about those that he slaughters, wouldn't you agree that this is Evil, and not Neutrality? A burglar's personal desire for material possessions causes him to want to steal, and a lack of caring for what affect is has on his victims allows him to act... isn't this Evil? A wolf doesn't care about the rabbit. Its just a meal. He isn't evil he is just a wolf. Ahh... and that's just it... a wolf acts only out of instinct, not out of pleasure of a kill, or selfish wants and desires. A wolf CAN be Neutral because everything that drives the wolf comes strictly from a NEED for survival, and not a desire for pleasure or leisure or wealth. However, instinct doesn't have a strong factor on people... and even when it does, people have the CHOICE to ignore it and choose to do what achieves them their goals. People act out of WANT far more than they act out of NEED. If you were arguing that the members of the Aurum only possess what they NEED to survive, and only kill in self-defense, then perhaps I could concede Neutrality, but neither the members of the Aurum, nor adventurers in general, nor 99.99% of people in general live that way. People gather... they collect... they WANT... and they do what they do to satisfy those wants. This makes them very different from the wolf. I agree to the rabbit a wolf is evil. To a wolf another wolf is nuetral. But does a rabbit even have a concept of Good and Evil. I don't mean to nitpick on every detail, but these are commonly used arguments. I don't believe that they hold water. Just as the wolf hunts out of necessity and an instinct for survival... so the rabbit runs out of instinct for survival. The rabbit is no more Good than the wolf is Evil. However, the same cannot be said for the backstabbing assassin and the charitable knight. Or, if you prefer, the crooked inkeeper only out to make some coin, and the honest traveler who is just looking for a place to take rest. I can agree that people who are victims of the Aurum will see them as an evil organization. The problem is with the vague morality of most people who live in eberon, most of the organizations are wolves not rabbits. And again, I am saying that Alignment is not Morality. Morals are values, but Alignment is a connection to the cosmic forces of Good and Evil. The Aurum is a selfish, elitist group of people whose sole purpose in life is to garner as much power and influence (and wealth) as possible through whatever means necessary. The vast majority of Aurum members don't care who they have to hurt, kill, or rob to get what they feel is theirs by right. They are ruthless and without ethics in the persuit of their goals, and regularly hurt those that are unlucky enough to get in their way (physically or financially). For these reasons they are Evil. If you can justify their behavior in a way that allows you to still claim them to be Neutral, then I will have to agree that it appears that we will simply disagree. Nothing wrong with that within the context of a game... so long as everyone is having fun. :) I just hope that my words might have given people something to consider (whether or not they agree), and perhaps a new take on the Alignment system (the one part of D&D which has remained contentious since its beginnings). To me, on the axis of Good and Evil, I say this: To an Evil man, the ends always justify the means... to a Good man they never do.
JulesCARV 09-16-06, 12:59 AM	I think that often minor bad means justify major good ends, and major bad means don't justify minor good ends: sometimes it's worthwhile to use bad means to achieve good ends, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes it's a very tough judgement call that you have to make. I don't think there's anything in D&D which suggests that good people are slavish devotées of Kantian deontology. At least, I hope there isn't, because there shouldn't be (in part because I think Kantian deontology suxx0rs, but even if I agreed with it I wouldn't want it to be the exclusive straightjacket of good in D&D). Basically, I think going with your basic senses, augmented with a touch of reasoning and logic to expand on and refine them, will usually allow you to understand good. On the other hand, for PCs who are of an intellectual or moralistic frame of mind (paladins, clerics, wizards, and psions are all good candidates, but any character could be), you mind want to give them a more explicit moral framework, just to make them more interesting.