Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aaron3579 02-22-05, 02:56 AM	Is it unreasonable to consider about 50% of the peasantry at large evil in the typical D&D world (talking about human populations)? I consider myself evil because I hurt people's feelings in RL (thinking about girls I meet in bars). I put my own well-being ahead of everyone that I don't know personally, and some people that I do know. I only give money to charity when I feel like I can "comfortably afford to do so." I sleep w/ a 12-gauge next to my bed with the intention of blowing away whomever tries to steal my television set (00 Buck, 2 3/4 inch shells). I am vain. I speed on the interstate (75 in a 70) even when it is dark and raining with limited regard for public safety. I don't tell a store-clerk about his mistake when he hands me too much change. If I find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, I buy a pizza. I am more likely to make a decision based on financial gain than anything else... the list goes on. And I don't feel like I am an atypical American citizen (honestly, think about it). I don't think it is unreasonable to consider 50% of a population evil, but then I'm a cynical, pessimistic bastard. What is the consensus view?
WunderGoat 02-22-05, 03:12 AM	I actually think in saw something published int eh 3.0 DMG saying something like 20% are good, 30% neutral, and 50% was the norm. My definitions of good, neutral, and evil are kind of skewed, so I can't help you there. I consider the assasin who kills dozens and dozens of 'bad' people for his guild to be borderline evil more likely than not (more of I will tolerate a player being neutral in this situation)
VerinBlod 02-22-05, 03:37 AM	In my game it is probably more neutral than evil. Something like 60% neutral, 20% good and 20% evil. But than again it's more fun when the BBEG is actually good :D And I don't think you are that evil. Most of the things you descripe are more neutral, except for the hurting of others part. I would say that you are more chaotic neutral with a tendency for evil. But than again in the real world things aren't that clear cut :)
spasemunki 02-22-05, 05:10 AM	I don't really think that having evil characters at 50% or more reflects the real world that well. I would guess that most people (NPC and meat) are closest to a lazy True Neutral. They follow the law when it works for them, and skirt it when it doesn't, and when the risk or penalty is sufficiently low. They prefer good in the world to evil because good treats them better, but they are probably not motivated to do much to further that goal. They can be cruel when roused, or benevolent when motivated, but by and large they are indifferent to the world around them. Evil characters do bad, anti-social things because they can get away with them, because they enjoy them, and because to them the ends always justify the means. While Neutrals might do evil once in a while, their 'threshold' is higher, just as their threshold to good is higher. They require motivation- usually very strong personal motivation- to do a really evil deed. I think this describes most people in the world. Self-centered, but requiring a very serious push to kill someone or rob a bank, just as they would require a very serious push to give their salary to charity or to run into a burning building to save an infant. I would say that having 50% or more evil NPCs would lead to some very serious social problems. Not like 'racism' or 'too much teen pregnancy', more like 'who killed all the teen-agers?" ("lousy kids tearing up my lawn. . . I'll show 'em") or 'boy, this race war isn't nearly as fun as the first 7'. Of course, it's a fantasy world, so you can have societies that are dominated by whatever alignment you want. I would say that a society with an evil plurality is likely to be fairly distinct from the world we live in here. Most people I meet are opportunistic enough to take some extra change if it comes their way, but not opportunistic enough to slit a throat if they think there's the same chance they can get away with it.
Thoronmir 02-22-05, 09:22 AM	Is it unreasonable to consider about 50% of the peasantry at large evil in the typical D&D world (talking about human populations)?You beg the question as to what constitutes a “typical” D&D world. First off, parallels with the real world are irrelevant. On that point, I agree with VerinBlod. I don’t know that I’d call you Evil … extraordinarily self-centered, yes. But Evil? I’m not sure. Some of the examples you offer may prove you callous, but are not inherently Evil. Being prepared to use deadly force to defend your home is not Evil. Vanity is not Evil. Acting out of self-interest is not necessarily Evil. Few (if any) of your litany of self-confessed flaws evince an intent to do harm. You may be a poor example of a human being, but I don’t think you deserve to be condemned as Evil. Thankfully, I do consider you atypical, at least as compared to the people I know. Back to the subject … a “typical” D&D world. Is there such a thing? I’ve played in campaigns in which the entire world’s population was 99% Evil … the only exceptions being the PCs (in fact, there was no Common Tongue, everyone spoke their Evil Alignment languages). I’ve played in campaigns in which the only Evil to be found was the BBEG and his horde (small in comparison to the entire population). Most campaigns fall somewhere in the middle. I suppose within most campaigns, you can find discrete pockets of Evil … realms in which Evil so pervades the culture that most of the common populace share their liege’s Evil bents. I don’t think this analysis is very productive when examined in the abstract. It’s possible that the dark forces in a particular campaign outnumber the forces of light, in which case, sure at least 50% of the world is Evil. However, if I’m strolling through a mundane kingdom ruled by a mundane king who presides over a mundane people, I would not expect 50% of the peasants I meet to be Evil. I think spasemunki put it well. A majority of the population may be more concerned with their own fate than with others’, but they aren’t Evil.
Nomad4life 02-22-05, 09:35 AM	These kinds of percentages are up to the DM. Personally, I would agree that the vast majority of RL inhabitants are in the neutral range. (Rather, their behavior can be mimicked by the conventions of the neutral alignment.) I also agree that it’s a moot point to try to apply D&D game definitions to the real world, because the real world doesn’t work that way: in RL there IS no “good/neutral/evil.” There are just “people” and their actions will get labeled depending on what culture they live in. Game-wise, if you make 50% of your characters evil, your game world will resemble something out of Candide. If that’s what you’re after, go for it. If not, don’t.
VirgilCaine 02-22-05, 09:40 AM	Is it unreasonable to consider about 50% of the peasantry at large evil in the typical D&D world (talking about human populations)? I consider myself evil because I hurt people's feelings in RL (thinking about girls I meet in bars). I put my own well-being ahead of everyone that I don't know personally, and some people that I do know. I only give money to charity when I feel like I can "comfortably afford to do so." I sleep w/ a 12-gauge next to my bed with the intention of blowing away whomever tries to steal my television set (00 Buck, 2 3/4 inch shells). I am vain. I speed on the interstate (75 in a 70) even when it is dark and raining with limited regard for public safety. I don't tell a store-clerk about his mistake when he hands me too much change. If I find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, I buy a pizza. I am more likely to make a decision based on financial gain than anything else... the list goes on. And I don't feel like I am an atypical American citizen (honestly, think about it). I don't think it is unreasonable to consider 50% of a population evil, but then I'm a cynical, pessimistic bastard. What is the consensus view? You aren't evil because you don't "hurt, kill and oppress others." You don't steal, you don't even lie for your own gain which aren't technically evil by the Core Rules. You may not win many friends with the emotional damage you do, and the speeding is likely to put you in an early grave, but you aren't evil in any sense of the word. A cynical, pessimistic bastard, but not an evil cynical pessimistic bastard.
Draco Strang 02-22-05, 09:42 AM	Yea...I'd place you at N or CN at worst. You seem to do a lot of things for personal gain, but not really go out of your way to screw people over. So no, I don't think 50 percent of your NPCs should be evil.
MrMorden 02-22-05, 09:48 AM	I'd say 1/3 good, 1/3 neutral, 1/3 evil. But communities tend to form based on like philosophies. Most of the evil types might gravitate toward evil governments/communities, good to good communities, and neutral would be scattered amonst both. I'd say that in a good-aligned community, maybe 5-10% might be evil, and vice versa.
Pfisiar 02-22-05, 10:14 AM	I would tend to believe that 99% of people in this world are one of three alignments; Lawful Nuetral, True Nuetral or Chaotic Nuetral. Good and evil are concepts that people in modern times cannot afford to spend much time on. The metaphysical battle of good and evil means very little to most people living in 2005 real life.
CzarGarrett 02-22-05, 10:19 AM	What the OP described himself as doing, outside of the seemingly purposeful insulting of women in bars, for the most part, is neutral. Giving charity when you can afford to do so doesn't make you a Saint, but it doesn't make you evil either. Taking advantage of mistakes made by other people, especially businesses, isn't evil- its smart. Evil would be taking care of yourself while purposefully being malevolent to others. If you take care of yourself without making it hard for other people, its pure neutral.
The Wasp 02-22-05, 11:06 AM	I would tend to believe that 99% of people in this world are one of three alignments; Lawful Nuetral, True Nuetral or Chaotic Nuetral. Good and evil are concepts that people in modern times cannot afford to spend much time on. The metaphysical battle of good and evil means very little to most people living in 2005 real life. I would have to completely disagree here. Just look in the newspapers occasionally, and you'll see the result of evil and evil people throughout the world. Go to many poorer countries (some parts of Europe will do) and you'll see children who are forced to beg and steal by their parents, young girls sold into sex slavery, rampant political corruption, genocide, forced starvation, etc. etc. Maybe in the west, where things are generally peaceful and secure, a homogenous civil society generally decreases the amount of evil. But the world of D&D is far more like the 3rd world than the western world - there are demons applenty. (of course, there are many good people in RL too, people who give to charity regularly, give of their time to help other people. I even know some people who tithe - if that's not generosity, then I can't name it) I'd say about 20% good, 50% neutral, 30% evil. aaron3579 - if those are your worst sins, you've got nothing to worry about. TN, it seems to me.
Super Guy 02-22-05, 11:17 AM	In the real world... eh...? First off, aaron, you struck me as heavily neutral but with evil tendencies. I consider myself a neutral person with good tendencies (I will do good before evil... but admittedly, like said by another user, I can admit that it will take some degree of motivation to do good that I gain no benefit from [even if that motivation is to gain face with a person] and it would take some amount of rousing to do evil to a person). Next, I would say real world seems about: 15% Good, 65% Neutral, 20% Evil (at least here in the West. Personally, I believe that Nietchze was right about Nihilism. Look at life here. Nihilism, though not a big name anymore, has seeped its lesser roots into life, more than it was in the past centuries, though I can't guarantee that since I wasn't in the past centuries) In DnD it says that a human doesn't tend in alignment towards anything. Theoretically, that means 33% for all. However, society has a hand. And, because most societies in DnD will probably tend towards neutrality and then good, I imagine about 30% Good, 50% Neutral, 20% Evil However, it's ultimately up to the DM. If your planet has an evil streak, then it has an evil streak. Nothing anyone can do about it.
Pfisiar 02-22-05, 12:16 PM	I would have to completely disagree here. Just look in the newspapers occasionally, and you'll see the result of evil and evil people throughout the world. Go to many poorer countries (some parts of Europe will do) and you'll see children who are forced to beg and steal by their parents, young girls sold into sex slavery, rampant political corruption, genocide, forced starvation, etc. etc. Maybe in the west, where things are generally peaceful and secure, a homogenous civil society generally decreases the amount of evil. But the world of D&D is far more like the 3rd world than the western world - there are demons applenty. (of course, there are many good people in RL too, people who give to charity regularly, give of their time to help other people. I even know some people who tithe - if that's not generosity, then I can't name it) I'd say about 20% good, 50% neutral, 30% evil. aaron3579 - if those are your worst sins, you've got nothing to worry about. TN, it seems to me. Begging and stealing are often necessary for survival in the third world, or so I've been told. Calling such acts evil is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. Survival is beyond ethics and morality in most circumstances. The vast majority of people are self-absorbed, but won't go out of the way to hurt someone. They may hurt them out of callousness, but that's nuetrality, not evil. Evil is the intentional act of doing harm, and I really doubt there is many in the world who intentionally cause harm with malicious intent.
aaron3579 02-22-05, 01:37 PM	I think I have a pretty good grasp on why exactly I find myself in the minority in alignment debates: I use more than the core rules to define what is good and evil in my games (and I see neutrality as a load of ka ka). Here's what I mean (as previously posted here): http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=5436929#post5436929 This is a sample of what I think can be termed 'evil.' Vanity Hatred Slavery [really, just a symptom of vanity] Prejudice [another symptom of vanity] Murder [notice, I use the word murder, as opposed to killing-- this is yet another symptom of vanity] Robbery Larceny-theft Torture Rape [B]Gluttony [B]Sloth [allowing evil to exist, not taking sides, being passive in general (yes, I'm calling BS on the notion of neutrality-- for mortals, at least)] Greed [lusting for power, wealth, sex-- excess ambition; adultery is a symptom of greed] Adultery Wrath [letting one's emotions dictate one's actions-- a total lack of rationality i.e. mass hysteria (Salem Witch Trials)] Arson Mob-justice (lynching) Most crimes of passion (Some of my sub-evils can fit under more than one category.) Don't these categories sound familiar to anyone?
Nomad4life 02-22-05, 01:46 PM	Don't these categories sound familiar to anyone? Yeah... But how do *YOU* know my ex-roommate!?
Thoronmir 02-22-05, 02:11 PM	Yeah... But how do *YOU* know my ex-roommate!?LOL Nomad ... I thought he was referring to my ex-girlfriend (she was the living Madonna of the Seven Deadly Sins). Aaron, I just want to make sure that we’re talking about these issues in the context of a game, right? If you want to debate morality, religion, and ethics in the real world, I’m sure there are places to do so, but I don’t think it’s on this Board. “Vanity” refers to an obsession over one’s appearance, not a feeling of general superiority. So, the LG Cleric who spends all her time aiding others, but lingers too long in front of the mirror, is Evil? Any PC who likes to overindulge (be it food, drink, pipeweed, whatever) is Evil? Sorry, but that’s not the game I’ve been playing for the past 25 years. “Sloth” refers to indolence, not necessarily moral apathy. Greed and Wrath are most likely Evil, but context matters. The Paladin who witnesses a Troll strike down a defenseless child may act out of Wrath, yet I would not say he’s jeopardized his Paladinhood. In sum, the Seven Deadly Sins are not a workable paradigm for Evil in D&D. Finally, this game expressly contemplates that some people are Neutral. If you reject that aspect of D&D Alignments, you’re writing your own system. And there’s no reason you shouldn’t. But lets not mistake a homebrewed collection of Alignment parameters for D&D. :D
artman 02-22-05, 02:14 PM	Replace vanity with pride and your view is Catholic. Pride is the root of all sin in the Catholic world view, unless that sin is venial.
aaron3579 02-22-05, 02:24 PM	“Vanity” refers to an obsession over one’s appearance, not a feeling of general superiority. Finally, this game expressly contemplates that some people are Neutral. If you reject that aspect of D&D Alignments, you’re writing your own system. And there’s no reason you shouldn’t. But lets not mistake a homebrewed collection of Alignment parameters for D&D. I'm not in any way trying to suggest that my way is the only proper manner in which a DM can conduct himself, I'm merely illustrating how and why I see things differently, and why I choose to play the game like I do. (you know, in the spirit of encouraging a free exchange of ideas ;) ) About vanity: There are many definitions and uses for the word vanity. In typical context, it normally denotes something like what you are talking about, but in a philosophical context, it can mean something else entirely. Maybe pride is a better word... http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven/ van·i·ty n. pl. van·i·ties 1. The quality or condition of being vain. 2. Excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishments; conceit. See Synonyms at conceit. 3. Lack of usefulness, worth, or effect; worthlessness. pride n. 1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect. 2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride. 3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness. 4. 1. A cause or source of pleasure or satisfaction; the best of a group or class: These soldiers were their country's pride. 2. The most successful or thriving condition; prime: the pride of youth. 5. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit. ***EDIT*** Just caught the post right above this one: lol
Guy Humual 02-22-05, 04:05 PM	Is it unreasonable to consider about 50% of the peasantry at large evil in the typical D&D world (talking about human populations)? It's not at all unreasonable. Thomas Hobbes (b.1588 - d.1679) certainly wouldn’t disagree with this assessment of the human race. :D I can see it in many campaign settings. Most medieval campaign settings should contain a large population of evil NPCs IMO. Peasantry, for the main part, would be kind and courteous to each other . . . but the moment anyone of them is singled out (for crimes like witchcraft or something along those lines) those peasants turn on their once good neighbours and demand blood. I can also perceive campaign worlds were 50% of the population is good. I really don’t think that there's a right or wrong here. Whatever floats your boat is fine.
Anthus_Longblade 02-22-05, 04:28 PM	By the RAW, the human population as a whole is neutral. This can mean one of two things: 1. There is an equal number of good and evil, the percentage of neutrality being whatever's left over. You could have 33%G 33%N and 33%E, 10%G 80%N and 10%E, or 50%G and 50%E. 2.However, the entry on Neutrality says that it favors good, which, from the right point of view, would shift the percentage to being slightly more good than evil. So, to answer your question: No, it's not unreasonable.
Iyestorm 02-22-05, 06:16 PM	I think I have a pretty good grasp on why exactly I find myself in the minority in alignment debates: I use more than the core rules to define what is good and evil in my games (and I see neutrality as a load of ka ka). Here's what I mean (as previously posted here): http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=5436929#post5436929 This is a sample of what I think can be termed 'evil.' Vanity Hatred Slavery [really, just a symptom of vanity] Prejudice [another symptom of vanity] Murder [notice, I use the word murder, as opposed to killing-- this is yet another symptom of vanity] Robbery Larceny-theft Torture Rape [B]Gluttony [B]Sloth [allowing evil to exist, not taking sides, being passive in general (yes, I'm calling BS on the notion of neutrality-- for mortals, at least)] Greed [lusting for power, wealth, sex-- excess ambition; adultery is a symptom of greed] Adultery Wrath [letting one's emotions dictate one's actions-- a total lack of rationality i.e. mass hysteria (Salem Witch Trials)] Arson Mob-justice (lynching) Most crimes of passion (Some of my sub-evils can fit under more than one category.) Don't these categories sound familiar to anyone? Hey, I remember these! That Pride one was funny. "Does it matter what creature it is Bhaalspawn?! Just go kill it for crying out loud!!!" ...oh. Different subject entirely. Oh well. :P
yonman 02-22-05, 07:29 PM	You're an A-hole, not Evil.
Aramil_silverwind 02-22-05, 07:36 PM	I don't consider it unreasonable in the least. I consider myself fairly evil, because with the exception of a select few (fewer than most would think) I don't care much for the welfare of others. If it means that I'll get a nice payoff, sure I'll set you up for certain doom. Its been proven in the past that I have little to no consience. I'm still young, but given the opportunity and equipment, I can easily see myself slipping into crime rings. But here's the kicker - I don't seem evil to most people. Many of my urges are suppressed by the fear of getting caught, or the lack of opportunity. Its understandable that 50% of the general population is evil. They just don't show it. The really smart ones look around at all the parading adventurers and say "I think I'd be better off herding sheep".Only the truly ambitious, resourceful, and lucky evil NPCs ever get anywhere without being killed, jailed, or scared back onto the carrot farms. Not every evil character leads a cult, or a street gang, or aspires to rule the kingdom. Some just plot and are too cowardly to act, others just stick to the really small things as to not get caught. Sometimes the only way to tell if a person is evil is either a 'detect evil' spell, or a 'detect thoughts' spell.
artman 02-22-05, 07:52 PM	Whereas I don't think it is unreasonable for 50% of the population to be evil I do not think that it is the norm. Nor do I think you are evil, aaron. I would buy you a beer. I consider myself to be good. Most of the people I associate with are the same. Therefore I dont' really have referents for any societal system where a plurality of the people are evil. I can't imagine that it would work out very well. How to make it work? If the half evil society is stable then it would have to have a strong tyranical government. Something that can keep order. Evil is a destructive force, all that killing and stealing you understand. Without some oversight it would quickly fall apart. That being said, I have in my game a nation whose citizenry is more than half evil. It is run by an evil theocracy of Bane and it is very tightly controlled. Citizens are rewarded for samll acts of evil, anythin that is selfish and leads to your own promotion in the society. Think of it like Apokalips [sic] in the DC comics world.
Aramil_silverwind 02-22-05, 08:29 PM	Citizens are rewarded for samll acts of evil, anythin that is selfish and leads to your own promotion in the society.. I think you should learn more about Drow society. I think you would like thier take on things.
aaron3579 02-22-05, 08:33 PM	You're an A-hole, not Evil. Whereas I don't think it is unreasonable for 50% of the population to be evil I do not think that it is the norm. Nor do I think you are evil, aaron. I would buy you a beer. I didn't say I had a low CHA score; and I'm not proud of the fact that I would label myself evil. I'm a nice guy, I obey most of the laws (I certainly don't commit any felonies), I keep my promises, I am well liked by my friends, but at the end of the day, if I want to be honest with myself, the first thing on my mind is #1. I look out for me and mine before anyone else*. To me, being truly good means that your actions are motivated by an honest desire to serve the greater good. I can't say this about myself. I'm not wallowing in self-loathing (after all, I am vain), I'm just telling you the truth. :) Any PC who likes to overindulge (be it food, drink, pipeweed, whatever) is Evil? In a word-- yes (when taken to the extreme). To legitimize this opinion, I will quote a feat from the BoVD: DEFORMITY (OBESE) [VILE] Through intentional gorging and general gluttony, the character is obese. Grossly overweight, she is now at least triple the normal weight for creatures of her kind. Prerequisite: Willing Deformity Benefit: The character gains a +2 deformity bonus to Constitution and a -2 deformity penalty to Dexterity. Furthermore, she gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Intimidate checks and saving throws against poison. Special: A character with this feat may not take the Deformity (gaunt) feat. Now, besides this, I would like to point out that I originally defined my opinion of what gluttony is by saying that it is "being wastful in general." That means cutting down an entire forest "because you can." Or sitting in an ivory tower consuming vast amounts of resources when the peasants below you are starving. *The difference between you and me is that I consider this to be evil, and you don't. For the purposes of a D&D campaign world, this works out perfectly fine either way.
Super Guy 02-22-05, 08:40 PM	Peasantry, for the main part, would be kind and courteous to each other . . . but the moment anyone of them is singled out (for crimes like witchcraft or something along those lines) those peasants turn on their once good neighbours and demand blood. Well... mob mentality sort of throws a different spin on things. I consider mob mentality to be the same as 'temporarily insane'. People do things that they wouldn't do. The ordinary, good peasants of a small town driven by propaganda form a herd and lynch someone that opposes them! :shocked: Would they have done it on a normal day? No, and they probably regret doing it. :eek: I just prefer to consider it effectively temporary insanity.
aaron3579 02-22-05, 08:45 PM	Well... mob mentality sort of throws a different spin on things. I consider mob mentality to be the same as 'temporarily insane'. People do things that they wouldn't do. The ordinary, good peasants of a small town driven by propaganda form a herd and lynch someone that opposes them! :shocked: Would they have done it on a normal day? No, and they probably regret doing it. :eek: I just prefer to consider it effectively temporary insanity. At my table, paladins are not excused for "going temporarily insane." Mob mentality is a symptom of wrath, thereby rendering it evil.
Nomad4life 02-22-05, 08:45 PM	To myself, I am “Lawful Good” because I obey a lot of laws –just because- they happen to be laws and I actually do “good” things for people for no other reason than I genuinely care about them. To my friends, I am “Neutral Good” because I make them laugh and give away a lot of nice booze while letting them hang around my house watching bad movies. To my religious-nut neighbor, I am spawn-of-Satan Chaotic Evil, because of the debauchery that goes on around here, and the lack of any church-going. To my students, I am Lawful Evil, because they don’t read their damn books and I give them bad grades for it with a wicked grin. Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s going to be problematic applying objective game terms to a subjective world.
aaron3579 02-22-05, 08:52 PM	To myself, I am “Lawful Good” because I obey a lot of laws –just because- they happen to be laws and I actually do “good” things for people for no other reason than I genuinely care about them. To my friends, I am “Neutral Good” because I make them laugh and give away a lot of nice booze while letting them hang around my house watching bad movies. To my religious-nut neighbor, I am spawn-of-Satan Chaotic Evil, because of the debauchery that goes on around here, and the lack of any church-going. To my students, I am Lawful Evil, because they don’t read their damn books and I give them bad grades for it with a wicked grin. Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s going to be problematic applying objective game terms to a subjective world. Now you are getting into murky territory. Your argument is dependent upon your subscription to a subjective view of good v. evil. I look at it objectively.
Nomad4life 02-22-05, 11:02 PM	Now you are getting into murky territory. Your argument is dependent upon your subscription to a subjective view of good v. evil. I look at it objectively. Wait… You’re saying that you believe there is an objective “GOOD” and an objective “EVIL” in the REAL WORLD!?!?
aaron3579 02-22-05, 11:07 PM	Wait… You’re saying that you believe there is an objective “GOOD” and an objective “EVIL” in the REAL WORLD!?!? [tries to decide if this is sarcasm] Before I respond, I would have you define 'objective view of good and evil.'
Nomad4life 02-22-05, 11:13 PM	[tries to decide if this is sarcasm] Before I respond, I would have you define 'objective view of good and evil.' *VERY* wise way to begin any serious discussion. Thank you! ;) “Objective” is defined in the following ways: 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. 4. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. In other words, “objective good” would be something “obviously” good that nobody in the world would be *able* to disagree with, because there would be material, observable, empirical evidence in support of the idea.
Aramil_silverwind 02-23-05, 12:06 AM	I see it the same way the PHB sees it (with a few small variations) in regard to alignments. Everyone can and does fit into one of the 9 alignments, but they are not steel walls from which they cannot escape. Everyone fits into one category, but may blend into others. A good person may do something evil, but so long as its not a regular occurance and they feel a bit bad about it, they are still good. The problem with the alignment system as everyone seems to be seing it is that good and evil in D&D terms are not based on prespective. You might view someone as evil, or hear of thier so-called evil acts. As they could in the game. And in both worlds, you may or may not find out later that those stories where lies, excaggerations, or half-truths. Nomad, you use the examples based off of prespective. The problem with your evil prespective is that your students most likely do not know you personally. I personally know that I don't know my teachers outside of school. I can't tell how they feel about things. They're teachers, and they're not expected to talk about socially unacceptable items in the school. I may or not be correct, but I can name a few teachers that I'm sure are different out of the school building than when they are in the classroom. An alignment is a label of who you REALLY are. Its how you would react in a real situation, not how people think you would react. Only someone who truly knows you can tell if you're good, or evil. Once again, most people, including my family for the most part, seeme as a generally good person. Probably CG. My friends tend to see me as either CG or CN, depending on how much they see me in action. Those select few (only a single person to date)who understand how my mind works label me as LE. I might seem chaotic, but in honesty I give every action thought and I subconsiously plan everything at least partially ahead of time. Thus, only I and Slayer_5 truly have understanding of what I'm actually like. Good and evil might seem to be based off of perspective, but people's labels seem to differ from D&D's labels. All of my comments in this thread are using the PHB as a reference. But IRL, people like to justify themselves by calling thier foes 'evil' so they and thier allies feel like they're doing the world a favor. Just like its said in the DMG, two good alighned nations may often clash in war. They might not know the underlying workings of each society, and simply deem it as 'evil' or 'barbaric'.
Guy Humual 02-23-05, 12:10 AM	To myself, I am “Lawful Good” because I obey a lot of laws –just because- they happen to be laws and I actually do “good” things for people for no other reason than I genuinely care about them. To my friends, I am “Neutral Good” because I make them laugh and give away a lot of nice booze while letting them hang around my house watching bad movies. To my religious-nut neighbor, I am spawn-of-Satan Chaotic Evil, because of the debauchery that goes on around here, and the lack of any church-going. To my students, I am Lawful Evil, because they don’t read their damn books and I give them bad grades for it with a wicked grin. Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s going to be problematic applying objective game terms to a subjective world. Oh, I don't know about this . . . I don't think that RPing terms can apply to RL, or vice versa. To me, your alignment isn’t determined by people’s perceptions of you, but alignment is determined by what you are immediately capable of doing. Most people wouldn’t commit murder, however, I’ve heard it said that anyone can be pushed to it. Alignment, to me, is best described as how quickly it takes for someone to reach that point. Let me think how I can explain it better . . . earlier I used the scenario of peasants turning on a fellow villager. Some villagers would readily join the mob, using the anonymity of the crowd to let their true colours show (evil). Others would lock their doors and close their windows, attempting to "stay out of it" (neutral). And others, the brave and righteous, would try to stand up to the mob and try to tell them what they are doing isn’t right (good). Hmmm, now some of you might point out that this example is better suited to determining you place on the lawful/chaotic bar, and I wouldn’t argue that. But just remember that in my example I didn’t say if that poor villager, the one that's about to receive brutal mob justice, was guilty or innocent. Quickly giving into the mob is an evil act. The good people among us wouldn’t stand by to allow a potentially innocent person be murdered. That’s my feelings on the subject. That’s why there are so few good people in the world . . . they tend to be ripped to shreds by the mobs. :D Alright, let the disputes begin :P
Nomad4life 02-23-05, 12:29 AM	An alignment is a label of who you REALLY are. Oh, yeah. I agree with that. My examples before were simply to show the problems with trying to assess game-term “alignments” in RL situations. Even (or maybe particularly) if the person you are trying to assess is yourself. I wasn’t trying to imply that anyone actually changes “as a person” depending on who’s looking at them at the time. Rather, people are just “people” at all times and others will label them depending on their perspective. It’s perfectly fine in a game to say “the goblin is evil” because, indeed, it says so right on the stat block. It bothers me a great deal when people try to treat RL like there are any such stat blocks. In short, the only RL “alignment” there is would be “human.” And this covers quite a wide spectrum.
aaron3579 02-23-05, 01:30 AM	[Wishes he hadn't sold his criminology text-book back to campus corner in order to pay his light-bill] Nomad4life: Have you ever felt like the raw logic in your head can't articulate itself well enough to do your argument justice? I'm just not smart enough to put into words that which I know at the very core of me. I'm going to try anyway, but just know that my DM isn't allowing me to 'take a 10' on my skill check. :( Of course I feel like good and evil are objective terms in real-life. The fact that I had to learn that: Crime can be classified into two categories: mala in se Main Entry: mal•um in se Pronunciation: 'ma-l&m-in-'sE, 'mä-lum-in-'sA Function: noun Inflected Form: plural mala in se /'ma-l&-, 'mä-/ Etymology: New Latin, offense in itself : an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature irrespective of statute —often used with a preceding noun (as crime or act) <held that burglary was a crime malum in se —State v. Stiffler, 788 Pacific Reporter, Second Series 2205 (1990)> —compare MALUM PROHIBITUM Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. (such as murder and robbery) and mala prohibita Main Entry: malum pro•hib•i•tum Pronunciation: -prO-'hi-b&-t&m Function: noun Inflected Form: plural mala pro•hib•i•ta /-'hi-b&-t&/ Etymology: New Latin, prohibited offense : an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong <is malum prohibitum and, therefore, does not demand mens rea —Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 616 Atlantic Reporter, Second Series 1019 (1992)> —often used with a preceding noun (as crime or act) <acts malum prohibitum> —compare MALUM IN SE Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. ...tells me so. If there can be crimes that are 'inherently evil,' then absolute concepts of good and evil must exist. This is not to say that everything that is evil is against the law, just as everything that is against the law is not evil; while I may subscribe to an objective view of good and evil, I also believe that law and chaos are subjective terms. Now that that's out of the way, I want to say that the only person that truly knows your heart is you. Don't try to tell me that I'm calling you evil because I believe in an objective definition of good and evil. The only person that can know that is you. I am not fit to judge anyone besides myself (or would the most correct word be 'me,' here? I need a 5th level English Guru to help me out, I'm only 3rd). Anyway, I'm not so sure if this is an appropriate discussion for these boards (which is why any mention of God was omitted from the preceding paragraphs). From this point forward, our conversation is going to get hairy; may I persuade you to PM me if you wish to continue? I felt like I was justified in answering your question as posed to me, but publicly delving any further into this issue might not be cool with the WizOs... How does this sound (just so you don't think I'm trying to save face): If you force me to concede my point privately, I will come back to this thread and publicly admit defeat. If you force the stalemate (agree to disagree), I will post as much only if you wish it. Furthermore, I will not expect you to hold yourself to the same standard if you don't feel like it, or if you feel like this entire notion is obtuse (I told you I was vain). You may have to be patient, though, as I am presently steeped in 'Police Operations, Criminal Justice 3350,' AND 'German 2010' homework. :yuck:
Nomad4life 02-23-05, 02:25 AM	Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Just a couple of points, then I’m done. How does this sound (just so you don't think I'm trying to save face): If you force me to concede my point privately, I will come back to this thread and publicly admit defeat. I’m NOT looking for anyone to “admit defeat” here (defeat of WHAT?) I’m just honestly looking for help to understand something that I don’t “get” (The concept of objective good and evil.) If you feel uncomfortable trying to help me understand this, just say so. Anyway, I'm not so sure if this is an appropriate discussion for these boards (which is why any mention of God has been omitted). If your understanding of morality stems from a kind of religious doctrine, that’s fine with me (a lotta good soldiers in my family have died to give you that right.) What I still don’t follow is how this is an “objective” truth, exactly? (NOTE: Don't feel obligated to respond to this.) If there can be crimes that are 'inherently evil,' then absolute concepts of good and evil must exist. This is not to say that everything that is evil is against the law, just as everything that is against the law is not evil; while I may subscribe to an objective view of good and evil, I also believe that law and chaos are subjective terms. Lastly, I just want to add that relying upon definitions of law to determine the existence (or non-existence) of inherent evil seems to fall under the same philosophical fallacy that Saint Anselm ran into with his ontological argument. (NOTE: Again, don't feel obligated to respond to this.) So, no need for long private debates here. I wasn’t looking for “debate”- only discussion, as I mentioned. Do NOT feel compelled to respond to my inquiries here if you’d rather not. I’m certainly not expecting you to. You can’t “lose face” after all in a situation where nobody’s “taking” it from you. ;)
aaron3579 02-23-05, 02:34 AM	I’m NOT looking for anyone to “admit defeat” here (defeat of WHAT?) I’m just honestly looking for help to understand something that I don’t “get” (The concept of objective good and evil.) If you feel uncomfortable trying to help me understand this, just say so. I don't, which is why I offered to continue this discussion privately. [sends PM]
aaron3579 02-23-05, 02:44 AM	double post
Lina_Inverse 02-23-05, 05:30 AM	realisicly?yes. 50% being LE fits.its the way humans are,we gather and groups and only care about ourselves and those who define us.and those who define us we would throw out in a heartbeat.
Naeron 02-23-05, 05:59 AM	Is it unreasonable to consider about 50% of the peasantry at large evil in the typical D&D world (talking about human populations)? I consider myself evil because I hurt people's feelings in RL (thinking about girls I meet in bars). I put my own well-being ahead of everyone that I don't know personally, and some people that I do know. I only give money to charity when I feel like I can "comfortably afford to do so." I sleep w/ a 12-gauge next to my bed with the intention of blowing away whomever tries to steal my television set (00 Buck, 2 3/4 inch shells). I am vain. I speed on the interstate (75 in a 70) even when it is dark and raining with limited regard for public safety. I don't tell a store-clerk about his mistake when he hands me too much change. If I find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, I buy a pizza. I am more likely to make a decision based on financial gain than anything else... the list goes on. And I don't feel like I am an atypical American citizen (honestly, think about it). I don't think it is unreasonable to consider 50% of a population evil, but then I'm a cynical, pessimistic bastard. What is the consensus view? You have just summed up neutrality - you don't go out of your way to help strangers, you put yourself first but you do not go out of your way to harm innocent people for fun or profit. To be evil in D&D you have to debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. In D&D the vast majority of peasants are going to be neutral.
Derren S. 02-23-05, 06:21 AM	I have to agree. Even as many DMs play it different, you have to do something really bad to get an evil alignment. Ripping of customers (the traditional evil merchant) for exampe doesn't count. Also there is imo a difference between the capitalistic real world we have now and the (probably) feudal world of D&D. I am not an expert so correct me if I am wrong, but our (at least the capitalistic/western) society is build upon the premise of a constant competition against everyone else. We are practically teached to first to look after ourselfs to get an advantage over others. And duing "bad" things very often gives us this advantage and while morally discouraged it is also socally encouraged as long as it stays within certain limits. Although this is partly because of human nature I think in a feudal society this behaviour would be less present as nearly all pesants have no chance of advancing and so in most cases there is no competition between them. (If of course there is a chance of advancing, the backstabbing starts even fiercer as such chances are so rare) Also in a feudal/D&D world comunities tend to be smaller where bad actions aren't mostly annonymus like in a big city and as a small comunity traditionally áre rahter tight knit, becoming an outsider is a very serve punishment. That means that beeing nice to others is much more rewarded than gaining a small advantage through bad acts.
FriendoftheDork 02-23-05, 07:26 AM	Aaron, I don't think your description matches evil at all, at worst neutral. Neutral people does what is socially accepted, and don't care too much about everyone else. Evil people have no moral qualms about murdering people for profit. Shooting people for stealing is not evil, but a bit draconical. Shooting people and then robbing them is evil. In my game, no more than 10%-20% of any human populaiton are actually evil. But it depends a bit form country to country. In (my) Cormyr, most people (50%) are Neutral, 40% are good, and 10% evil.
Damneon 02-23-05, 08:02 AM	I think the main problem you are having is assuming evil in the real world is the same as evil in D&D. Evil in D&D is very well defined. Hurting people is bad, helping them is good. It does not care about intention: murdering Hitler to stop the holocaust is an evil act because its murder and a business man that donates to charity for publicity and a tax break is a good act. It does not matter how many lives would be saved by the murder, or the fact that the business man only did it to make more money. When you bring real life morality into the picture things get much more complicated. It's even worse if you believe that "hell" is only for evil people. Almost every religion says that you go to hell if you don't follow their tenets, even if you are otherwise a good person. Mother Theresa is going to hell according to most religions because she didn't belong to their religion or believe in their god or do their special ritual. I agree with the others that your original description of yourself is some variety of Neutral in D&D, but in the real world you are going to hell. So am I, and so is everyone else on this planet because nobody can follow all the rules of every religion that you are required to do to avoid hell. Most religions also have no concept of Neutral. You are either a good Christian/Muslim/Catholic/Hindu/whatever and you are going to "heaven" or you aren't and are going to "hell". D&D does not use this moral view. I think you are right that most people (60% or more) in the real world behave the same way you do according to your first post. D&D morality is much easier to define than RL morality. The Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness have detailed descriptions of what is good and evil. Murder is always evil, Charity is always good, and most of the seven deadly sins are simply neutral. You have described yourself as neither of the things that define a character as either good or evil, therefore you (and most of the rest of us) are neutral. To sum up: In core D&D, not doing particularly good or evil things makes you neutral. In RL, not doing those things makes you evil, because you have to be actively good to avoid being evil. If you want a gaming world where you have to be actively good to get that precious "G" on your character sheet and anything less than that marks you as evil, then yes, most people are evil.
Iyestorm 02-23-05, 08:02 AM	Many people who are evil wouldn't admit to it. In fact they might not even know it. I think the alignment system should have something to do with intelligence... darn, I lost my thought. Can someone else continue my thought for me, I'm not sure how it ends. Sorry. ...In unrelated news, detect evil registered on a bunny once in the BG series.
aaron3579 02-23-05, 04:10 PM	To be evil in D&D you have to debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. In D&D the vast majority of peasants are going to be neutral. Then why do the 3e rules consider gluttony to be evil? :confused: DEFORMITY (OBESE) [VILE] Through intentional gorging and general gluttony, the character is obese. Grossly overweight, she is now at least triple the normal weight for creatures of her kind. Prerequisite: Willing Deformity Benefit: The character gains a +2 deformity bonus to Constitution and a -2 deformity penalty to Dexterity. Furthermore, she gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Intimidate checks and saving throws against poison. Special: A character with this feat may not take the Deformity (gaunt) feat.
Guy Humual 02-23-05, 05:32 PM	Getting back to the 50% thing, I have to disagree with those that have suggested that neutral should be the default alignment, I think it’s far harder Not to get involved then it is to choose a side. Neutral, as it relates to good/evil alignment, means not getting involved . . . unless it effects you (or someone you truly care about) personally. Mobs don't form because someone they all care about has been hurt . . . mobs form because people want to see someone suffer (who's not them). People that watch executions, want to watch, or just advocate there benefit, are, by the book's definition, evil. If you don’t agree with my reading of this rule . . . look it up on pg 104 and give me your interpretation. (That’s 104 in the 3.5 book, I haven’t checked my 3.0 book yet :)) Most medieval NPCs will be either neutral or evil. The vast majority will be evil. But not overly so. Remember people, just because someone's evil doesn't mean that they are constantly dry washing their hands and drown puppies, it often just means that they'd rather see someone killed than imprisoned.
aaron3579 02-23-05, 06:01 PM	Ahhh, joining the mob are we? While I have no love of child molesters I do tend to think that executing them is a bit excessive. While it’s true that they’re disgusting monsters that (some say) are incapable of being reformed, it’s also true that many of them are the way they are because they themselves were subject to abuse. I do not support capital punishment because I believe it to be our place to punish criminals, or because I like to see people get killed. I support capital punishment because it is in the best interests of society to rid itself of that which cannot be cured. I often use the analogy of cutting out a tumor... Getting back to the 50% thing, I have to disagree with those that have suggested that neutral should be the default alignment, I think it’s far harder Not to get involved then it is to choose a side. Neutral, as it relates to good/evil alignment, means not getting involved . . . unless it affects you (or someone you truly care about) personally. Mobs don't form because someone they all care about has been hurt . . . mobs form because people want to see someone suffer (who's not them). You are absolutely correct. People that watch executions, want to watch, or just advocate there benefit, are, by the book's definition, evil. If you don’t agree with my reading of this rule . . . look it up on pg 104 and give me your interpretation. (That’s 104 in the 3.5 book, I haven’t checked my 3.0 book yet :)) The vast majority of them are, this is true. However, it is also plausible for a good character to advocate execution, provided they do so for the aforementioned reasons (to support the greater good). Yes, I am evil; no I am not evil because of the manner in which I support execution. I will look up the rule at my next convenience, thanks for the reference.
Pfisiar 02-23-05, 06:08 PM	The vast majority of people in the western world are Chaotic Nuetral or Lawful Nuetral. Freedom is the greatest ideal in western civilization, an idea represented by Chaotic alignments. Most people break the laws in small ways to pursue self interest, but do not seek to tear down the government, a trait which is significantly nuetral. Most drug deals are, for example, Chaotic Nuetral, as defined by the PHB. Most people who commit crimes in western civilization are actually Chaotic Nuetral to the extreme. Serial Killers are Chaotic Evil. Despots are Lawful Evil. Ruthless business men are Nuetral Evil. The vast majority of Western society is NOT evil. The major issue is that people are confusing Evil with Chaotic.
Guy Humual 02-23-05, 06:18 PM	The vast majority of people in the western world are Chaotic Nuetral or Lawful Nuetral. Freedom is the greatest ideal in western civilization, an idea represented by Chaotic alignments. Most people break the laws in small ways to pursue self interest, but do not seek to tear down the government, a trait which is significantly nuetral. Most drug deals are, for example, Chaotic Nuetral, as defined by the PHB. Most people who commit crimes in western civilization are actually Chaotic Nuetral to the extreme. Serial Killers are Chaotic Evil. Despots are Lawful Evil. Ruthless business men are Nuetral Evil. The vast majority of Western society is NOT evil. The major issue is that people are confusing Evil with Chaotic. Alright, two quick points. First of all, I'm talking about a medieval setting here when I say the vast majority of NPCs are evil. Second I'd have to agree with you that yes, in today's society, you could classify the vast majority of people as being neutral . . . with evil tendencies. I would like to stress however that I am not confusing evil with chaotic (as the PHB describes them).
Guy Humual 02-23-05, 06:41 PM	I do not support capital punishment because I believe it to be our place to punish criminals, or because I like to see people get killed. I support capital punishment because it is in the best interests of society to rid itself of that which cannot be cured. I often use the analogy of cutting out a tumor... And I think it was my fault for not being a bit more clear on what I was suggesting . . . capital punishment is (probably) not evil. If we are 100% certain that the person we are executing is guilty of intentional murder then a death sentence is (probably) called for. The problem, as I see it, is that many of the people who support the death penalty, call for it without knowing the facts. This is that old mob mentality I was talking about. Believe it or not, there are some people on death row who are actually not guilty. I don't think you are evil (by the PHB) for demanding the death penalty. Neutral and even good characters can demand justice, even if they aren't directly involved, but only if they know for sure that the person charged is guilty. A paladin that kills a vile and evil BBEG is not committing an evil act. Nor is it an evil act to kill in self defence. Sometimes destroying evil is the only way of stopping it. But, ideally, death should be the last option. In medieval society death, unfortunately, was the first option. People were put to death not only for murder, assault, sexual deviance, and theft, but also for having different beliefs or for simply refusing to obey authority. Hopefuly that will be a little more clear for everyone :)
Xenocide 02-23-05, 07:07 PM	I think evil would be more dominant in D&D than in the 'real world' simply due to the increased dangers and the relatively quick paths to power. Magic is an easy path to repression. A mid-level fighter has nothing to fear in your average village. A wizard can decimate a town in a day if there are no defenses. Dark deities grant powers in reward to heinous acts. The incentive for evil is much higher. There is less law. There are a lot more cults who actually CAN give you magical gifts. In the western world here your odds of pulling off a crime without getting caught is much less. You can't find a lost spellbook and take over a village. You can't find an artifact and use it to control dragons. It just doesn't work. I think the ratio of good people would be the same (doing good HAS to be it's own reward to be really good) with more neutrals falling into evil. Though in RL I would classify neutrals as evil.
Andrew_980 02-23-05, 08:35 PM	the majority of peasants are neutral, they don't go out of their way to help or hurt others without reason. few are willing to sacrifice enough to be good (no the rich guy that donates because he has too much money isn't likely good, just shooting for that image) and few are willing to step over societies bounds to be truely evil.Many may be at the brink of evil (ruthless merchants) but don't have some halo of evil to prove that they aren't just jerks I will never believe in objective morality, it's all subjective. to sneak up and put an ice pick in a random guys head is evil, to ice pick hitler to stop the holocost is good, to me at least. the seven deadly sins that arron was talking about makes sense and they tend to lead to each other. gluttony is evil because it is wastefull and takes from others. pride leads to all sorts of evils.envy goes in the same boat as pride.lust ends up hurting others bad. wrath is not "rightious wrath" it is beating the guy that sneezes too close to you to the ground. all the deadly sins are normal behaviours taken to extremes, they are evil because they end up hurting others. How would you tag my alignment -i help others because i think it's right -i donate to the charities i think will actually help -i follow the laws because without order we are just animals -Only the law stops me from meting out justice in bars,ect -i support executions, harsh punishment (execution to remove threat) (jails cost to much and have no effect, pain is easier) -i beleive that guilt must be truely proven for punishment, not just "he could have done it" -i have a strong sense of honor, wich puts me at odds with others -i only lie when really needed or to people who i know are not honest -i have no problem with cruelty to people who have earned it (harrasing the guy that makes an ass out of himself trying to show off, but i never mess with a person for things they can't control, like a birth defect)
Guy Humual 02-23-05, 09:17 PM	How would you tag my alignment -I help others because I think it's right Probably good -i donate to the charities i think will actually help Probably good -i follow the laws because without order we are just animals Doesn't matter this Law/chaos -Only the law stops me from meting out justice in bars,ect Maybe Evil -i support executions, harsh punishment (execution to remove threat) (jails cost to much and have no effect, pain is easier) Probably Evil -i beleive that guilt must be truely proven for punishment, not just "he could have done it" Probably neutral or good -i have a strong sense of honor, wich puts me at odds with others again Law/Chaos -i only lie when really needed or to people who i know are not honest could be any -i have no problem with cruelty to people who have earned it (harrasing the guy that makes an ass out of himself trying to show off, but i never mess with a person for things they can't control, like a birth defect) this could be evil There. You decide for yourself what alignment that makes you. Keep in mind that the PHB 3.5 ed. describes evil as someone who hurts, oppresses, and kills others . . . or it is someone with no compassion. Most people in today’s society do not doll out the death penalty . . . but some, if given the chance, would. The key to being good is someone that’s willing to make personal sacrifices to help others. Someone who’s neutral generally means that they have no commitment one way of the other. As I stated earlier, most people in today’s society are neutral, with evil tendencies. As a society we have grown more tolerant . . . but we still like to see people hurt (think of that damn idol show), we do oppresses people (think minorities, although we are getting better), and yes, some of us still believe that the death penalty is a good deterrent to crime.
aaron3579 02-23-05, 09:35 PM	I will never believe in objective morality, it's all subjective. to sneak up and put an ice pick in a random guys head is evil, to ice pick hitler to stop the holocost is good, to me at least. I suppose that objectively, you could say that morality must me subjective by the very fact that we are having this discussion, but then that is a matter of subjective opinion... :doh: ow, my head hurts. Evil must be a combination of two things: actus reus and mens rea. In other words, an evil is comprised of more than just physical action. If this weren't the case, I would be the freaking captain of the subjective band wagon. Your Hitler example fails to consider the motivation behind the killing. If I was to stab Hitler in order to take his wallet; this is evil. If I were to kill Hitler because it was the only way to stop him from taking the lives of 6.5 million Jews, then no, now we are talking about CG (depending on the circumstances). I am not saying that the act of killing is universally evil, I am saying that the act of forming mens rea and carrying through with actus reus is universally evil. Ergo, I arrive at my objective view of good and evil. :smirk: Hurting others with the sole motivation of helping only yourself is evil no matter what. There is nothing subjective about it.
Andrew_980 02-23-05, 09:52 PM	good and evil are in intent not action.and knowing the consequences helps killing for fun=evil killing to stop a greater evil=good stealing from the poor=evil (they can't survive without what little they have) steaing from Meijer=not evil(they actually have found ways to profit from it) to say that action X is always evil is wrong, unless you define the action thoroughly. everyone seems to agree genocide is evil. genocide against plague-bearing rats is good for others. without definition it lacks alignment
aaron3579 02-23-05, 09:54 PM	good and evil are in intent not action.and knowing the consequences helps killing for fun=evil killing to stop a greater evil=good Welcome to the darkside.
Andrew_980 02-23-05, 09:57 PM	meaning what? by the common definition of good, neutral does more to protect the innocent because they are willing to do what it takes I think this is what keeps me more neutral than good, i'm not squemish about doing what it takes for the greater good. i beleive in torture for those who earn it but would never cause pain for fun
aaron3579 02-23-05, 10:01 PM	By saying that one thing = another, you are making an objective statement: objective adj 1: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective] 2: serving as or indicating the object of a verb or of certain prepositions and used for certain other purposes; "objective case"; "accusative endings" [syn: accusative] 3: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation; "objective art" 4: belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events; "concrete benefits"; "a concrete example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind" n 1: the goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable); "the sole object of her trip was to see her children" [syn: aim, object, target] 2: the lens or system of lenses nearest the object being viewed [syn: object glass] Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Guy Humual 02-23-05, 10:34 PM	meaning what? by the common definition of good, neutral does more to protect the innocent because they are willing to do what it takes I think this is what keeps me more neutral than good, i'm not squemish about doing what it takes for the greater good. i beleive in torture for those who earn it but would never cause pain for fun Huh? Am I reading this wrong? Are you suggesting that neutral (i.e. character that are neutral on the good/evil alignment axis) do more to protect the innocent then good (i.e. characters that are on good on the good/evil alignment axis). If this is the case please explain your reasoning behind this statement.
Iyestorm 02-23-05, 10:36 PM	good and evil are in intent not action.and knowing the consequences helps killing for fun=evil killing to stop a greater evil=good Doing both at the same time=gamer XD Admit it. :mage: That's the basis of many D&D games. ...sorry. I'll shut up now. Edit: BTW, I'm able now to finish my thought. We as human beings lack the intelligence required to comprehend aspects such as good and evil. wait, maybe that was a different thought. yup. Oh well. Edit#2: actually, I think the answer to this question lies in sitting down and having a discussion with the voices in your heads. The shoulder angels I mean. Half because I think they'd know a lot better than any of us would, and half because I just plain think shoulder angels are cool.
Guy Humual 02-23-05, 10:57 PM	Edit#2: actually, I think the answer to this question lies in sitting down and having a discussion with the voices in your heads. The shoulder angels I mean. Half because I think they'd know a lot better than any of us would, and half because I just plain think shoulder angels are cool. I find a good can of raid can take care of those things :D
Aramil_silverwind 02-24-05, 12:03 AM	I find a good can of raid can take care of those things :D But thats no fun. I prefer to listen to each... and decide based on which sounds like it offers the most fun. For all you shoulder-angels out there, just for reference, "Its the right thing to do" or "Because its wrong" never sound like fun. Give those arguments up and start offering something else.
aaron3579 02-24-05, 01:14 AM	For all you shoulder-angels out there, just for reference, "Its the right thing to do" or "Because its wrong" never sound like fun. Give those arguments up and start offering something else. Do you not enjoy playing paladins at all, or do you evoke rule zero to amend the alignment rules? :confused: I'm not trying to claim the high ground here, or trying to condescend. Honestly, I am only trying to understand. :help: I mean, for my part, I enjoy a realistic feel to my alignment wheel, and I don't mind moral issues being the main focus of a campaign (so obviously, I'm not afraid of rule zero either). After all, the basic types of literary conflict are man v. man, man v. nature and man v. himself. If it never sounds like fun to you, well that is one thing. If you are submitting that it can never sound like fun to anyone ever, then that is something else entirely.
Andrew_980 02-24-05, 07:56 PM	Huh? Am I reading this wrong? Are you suggesting that neutral (i.e. character that are neutral on the good/evil alignment axis) do more to protect the innocent then good (i.e. characters that are on good on the good/evil alignment axis). If this is the case please explain your reasoning behind this statement because by the standards so many expect from good: -they cannot kill (the extreme good) -they cannot do what is nessisary in a difficult situation -they worry too much "is this good..." -they cannot execute prisoners -said prisoners spread more havok when they inevitably escape -if the villan can't escape they are a drain on others -they think they can redeem and release monsters, wich results in more suffering Neutral characters: get the job done however nessisary example: good Pc capture the powerfull dark wizard and take him to jail. the jailer says we cannot hold him, the paladin says hold him and try to reform him.good guys leave, wizard teleports out.killing resumes Neutral pc capture the same wizard. one says no one can contain him. coup de grace. no more innocents killed
Guy Humual 02-24-05, 08:24 PM	because by the standards so many expect from good: -they cannot kill (the extreme good) -they cannot do what is nessisary in a difficult situation -they worry too much "is this good..." -they cannot execute prisoners -said prisoners spread more havok when they inevitably escape -if the villan can't escape they are a drain on others -they think they can redeem and release monsters, wich results in more suffering Neutral characters: get the job done however nessisary example: good Pc capture the powerfull dark wizard and take him to jail. the jailer says we cannot hold him, the paladin says hold him and try to reform him.good guys leave, wizard teleports out.killing resumes Neutral pc capture the same wizard. one says no one can contain him. coup de grace. no more innocents killed Absolutely untrue. A good character will not take an innocent life and will take personal risk to prevent the loss of innocent life. A neutral character will only put themselfs at risk to save an innocent life if they have a some personal attachment to that life. Good characters are protectors. Neutral character generally try to do the right thing, but don't, as a rule, put themselfs at risk for strangers. There is nothing in the alignment descriptions on pg 104 that says that a good character can not "get the job done however necessary" when dealing with evil. And BTW I don't know where this rumour started that Paladins try to reform captured villains. The knights of the Templar and Hospitallers certainly didn't try very hard to convert people.
Aramil_silverwind 02-24-05, 08:28 PM	Do you not enjoy playing paladins at all, or do you evoke rule zero to amend the alignment rules? :confused: I'm not trying to claim the high ground here, or trying to condescend. Honestly, I am only trying to understand. :help: I mean, for my part, I enjoy a realistic feel to my alignment wheel, and I don't mind moral issues being the main focus of a campaign (so obviously, I'm not afraid of rule zero either). After all, the basic types of literary conflict are man v. man, man v. nature and man v. himself. If it never sounds like fun to you, well that is one thing. If you are submitting that it can never sound like fun to anyone ever, then that is something else entirely. I suppose you're right.... but believe it or not, I DO like playing Paladins.. I find it very easy actually. It gives me a chance to fight for ther other side of things... kinda like how a really good, moral person likes to play an evil PC every once in a while. It gives diversity. And it reassures them of why they're the way they are. I know the difference between good and evil, I just choose to be on whatever side suits me. CN at its finest. I just realized this, but I've posted 3 times and claimed a different alighnment every time. Yeah, I should just stick with the CN, that seems to suit. And I do admit that you're right as well about the never sounding fun to me argument, but honestly I don't see how it could sound like fun to anyone. I understand that the reason for doing good is because its good, not because its easy. Some people enjoy doing the right thing, but in the short term I believe that being a bad person pays off. In the long term.... well I'd hate to be in the future. Regardless, I'd feel bad if this wonderful thread was derailed, so lets get back on the topic. Yes, 50% of the population being evil is reasonable... they just don't show it, or admit it to themselves. "Eveyone know's he's evil, he just refuses to come out of the closet and admit it to himself"
Andrew_980 02-24-05, 08:56 PM	And BTW I don't know where this rumour started that Paladins try to reform captured villains. The knights of the Templar and Hospitallers certainly didn't try very hard to convert people your right, but all these monkeys that worship at the feet of monte ook and his BoED would never consider them good either
Stafir Ortnev 02-24-05, 09:12 PM	I'd say its unreasonable..in a given D&D world. Infact..I'd say...humans would be one of the few things that has _no_ alignment. This means they are almost wholey..if not totally...subject to nurture as their rasing..not nature. And I'd say..that as a whole...the world would not cause humans to be mostly evil. In other words..if you spread it all out..they are 33.33333333333~% every alignment. However..the problem pops in when you consider how you see things..and how you change the D&D rules to fit your opinion. In that case..the answer is yes..it can be whatever you want it to be.
Guy Humual 02-24-05, 09:18 PM	your right, but all these monkeys that worship at the feet of monte ook and his BoED would never consider them good either he he, well I can accept that. But it's those historical knightly orders are what that the paladin class is built on. I think that most of these arguments are caused by people who apply their modern world views to a fantasy setting. Most people, for example, believe druids are vegans hippies. Now there's nothing wrong with that . . . I just hate it when people try to argue these ideas on the forms as being the proper way to play a druid. What's my point? Just that people read a statement like 50% of NPCs are evil and think 'no way!', not taking into account that the designers who developed those random NPC alignment tables were taking into account for a medieval campaign setting.
Andrew_980 02-24-05, 09:31 PM	yes, down with modern morality. medival "good" had to finish off the foe as it is the best option. apply that to D+D and it is the only way to stop some things