Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Starchaserva 06-07-06, 11:56 PM	I was reading about the "What is evil" posts, and I'm starting to think that certain people can't maintain an intelligent conversation that has meaning, and opinion without eventually messing it up, and turning it into a circus that gets shut down by the COC, which in and of itself, I don't agree with totally, and that's just my opinion. I'd like to have a discussion about the ramifications of alignment, and if you don't have something worthy to add, don't say anything. The last thing the world needs is more idiots messing up other people trying to have a discussion. If this continues, the boards will just be filled up with morons chuckling to each other about stupid junk. I don't mean to rant, but I just had to say this. Anyway, as to alignment. Take the most well known good group in the realms, The Harpers, and compare them to a well known evil group, the Zhentarim. One in game terms, is evil, the other is good. Evil can be defined by both those who inflict the evil, and by those whom the evil is inflicted upon. If an Orc slaughters your family, you'd think that Orc is evil, but if you retaliated and killed members of his clan, he would think you're evil, or at least a jerk. In the typical sense, any random person can go out into the realms, and kill an orc, a creature with a modicum of intelligence, and even a society, and will be lauded for his deed. However, if an orc wandered into a village, was attacked, and responded by killing his attacker, he would be hunted down and killed. Can you truly call a paladin good when if he sees a lizardfolk, or an orc, that he instantly assumes they are evil, even if they are not? Since when was any form of racism good? It is said that the best villain is one who thinks that what he is doing is good, and right. The orcs, and the zhents beleive that they are doing the right thing, and then there are just mindless killing machines like trolls, and the like. What's worse, a killing machine, or a creature that pre-meditates their assault, such as a drow. They can both be as bad as the other. If you're lawful good, that means you should never take lethal action against any creature, unless its evil, or a bane to good folk. Of course, it isn't often you can fault a creature that kills in the act of defending itself. While the lawful character follows, or should follow all the rules, a Chaotic good character doesn't. It may be because he doesn't care about the rules, or doesn't know any better. He could be considered more of a ends justify the means type of good, willing to bend a few minor rules if it means eliminating a greater evil. On the other hand, most players think that a paladin upon sensing evil, should go to any length to exterminate it, irregardless of the rules. On the other hand, however, take the evil PC party. I have seen such games in which the players want nothing more than to go around wantonly slaugthering anything in their paths. That is inequivocally evil. What they don't understand, is that if they torch a village, and cause enough trouble, some power is going to hire some nasty nasty group of good guys to wipe them out. Thats how it would work in the real world. You wouldn't have just four adventurers after you, you'd have the entire militia/police force of every surrouding good nation. I was once told that it is impossible to succesfully roleplay chaotic evil, as you would have to go around mauling any one dumb enough to stand in front of you, and even stabbing your own partners in the back at any chance. Just because you're C/E doesn't mean you're automatically a brainless, beast. Sometimes, you just don't care about the consequences. Imagine the drow, in whose society back room killing is looked highly upon, when it raises your status, but if you wander if a drow wandered into menzoberranzan and starting offing drow left and right, they're gonna kill him, not make him a leader of theres.
Losoyo19 06-08-06, 02:25 AM	Note: I don't go exactly according to the book, I allow for a little bit more grey than what the Dm would say. So when criticizing, take that into effect. In my opinion, I think that the way the alignments are portrayed - the strictness - necessarily is a good way to go about it. I prefer to look at an alignment as a jacket that the character wears. It defines the way they are, but isn't the way they act -every time-. For instance (and I believe this is mentioned in the PHB) A paladin can have a bad day - that's why they have an atonement spell. I also find that if you put an alignment against it's self, that can always be fun. It's not unfounded that a good nation with mostly good people will go against another good nation.. Alot of my adventures involve both sides going after the party for one reason or another. Perhaps they have an evil aligned artifact that - for one reason or another(nothing greedy or 'evil' aligned) - they can't destroy, yet a group of paladins must destroy it for the sake of their nation. I also think that evil characters can have friends they wont betray, nor kill for gold. Some of this is possibly a reiteration of what you have said, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in.
draco1119 06-08-06, 03:33 AM	I also think that evil characters can have friends they wont betray, nor kill for gold. Read: Jarlaxle and Entreri. They both know that, at some point in time, one of them will probably kill the other, but they both know that it wouldn't be for money, or even because one of them has a bad day. It would be a momentous event, that would make the world of the survivor a little smaller, a little drearier.
X-Codes 06-08-06, 03:54 AM	The orcs and the Zhents think what they're doing is good? The orcs believe that they are the supreme race of the world, and that it's their responsibility to bend said world to their will through war and domination. The Zhents are a highly organized militaristic dominion that seeks to spread their influence and power across all of Faerun, if not Toril. Drow are remorseless killers that feel they were betrayed by the gods of Arvandor (even though it was Lolth who was the betrayer) and seek their destruction along with the deaths of all surface elves. As for Paladins, yes some Paladins attack evil on sight, mostly as they purpotrate evil as opposed to three rounds after they use their Detect Evil ability. They also don't hesitate in defending themselves, so long as they're sure their fight won't harm innocents. Alignment is what you make of it. I once had a character who was Neutral because he did all of the following: 1) Put himself far above others. 2) Helped out when he had a chance. 3) Plans out all his ventures, and made sure all participants got a fair share of the spoils after. 4) Routinely disregards rules and authority. He wasn't Neutral because he was uninvolved, he was Neutral because he had elements of all the different alignments.
SoldierOfFortune187 06-08-06, 04:36 AM	Alignment exists as it does because it is a game that needs clear, concise boundaries between what they can call good and evil. The arguements and threads about how it applies in the real world are moot because we are not bound by the same rules as a fantasy and good vs. evil are interpretations and points of view, not set in stone principles people adhere to because a two word descriptor in their "Alignment" entry says they have to. Now are the written definitions lacking in what the majority of people think should be some pretty well drawn-up descriptions of the two sides?... Absolutely! Chaotic evil is interpretted both as animalistic, 'beastial' evil that knows no sense, "evil just for the sake of being evil", and "whatever it takes for me to come out on top." By a few of those definitions, its hard to understand how their could be dieties of such alignment, let alone organizations that are recorded as being CE. Characters that appear in the literature that have official character sheets that say they are this alignment has people scratching their heads, wondering why they aren't 'evil enough' because after all, isn't that what Chaotic Evil is? Going all the way back to the flip side, we have Lawful Good. How much law does it take to be lawful? And how good do you have to be before you are 'good?' Paladin code is questioned almost as much as actual rules because its so up in the air over how strict is strict enough, and when is it justified to sway? A Paladin knifing a particularly powerful and influential evil person that they had no chance of besting in open combat would bring some players asking if that's alright while others staunchly defend any idea to the contrary. With regards to alignments in a campaign setting, there is only one authority: the DM. They know the correct answers because their decisions on how to rule disputes is the correct answer... for their game.
Starchaserva 06-08-06, 09:28 AM	Perhaps its not so much that they think that they're good, just they are doing what they think is right. Look at the orcs logically. Although some do, Orcs aren't just mindless killing machines. They can talk, think, albeit not well in many cases, and they do have a society, much akin to Norse Society. They don't grow crops, they hunt, and raid. It's what they have to do to survive, and this thinking is what lead them to beleive what they beleive. Unfortunetly, the way they go about it, is what has branded them evil. Take this story for example, the only instance that I've ever had with a Dm forcibly changing my alignment after an action. I was a lawful netural samurai, exploring a dungeon along with a rogue, a female wizard, and a monk. We were camping in the entry chamber, and during my watch, I heard footsteps. I wake the monk, seeing as how he's the best fighter aside from me, I wouldn't disturb the lady's sleeping, and I didn't trust the rogue. The monk promptly goes back to sleep. A minute later, I can actually see the enemy, and I try waking the monk, he tells me to stop bothering him (I did explain both times what was happening) and went back to sleep. The guards came, woke up the rest of the party, and forced us outside. I couldn't have taken them by myself. We get outside and the guards leave, and I turn to the monk and accuse him of being lazy and dishonorable, and I stab him in the gut, then cut off his head. My DM instantly tells me that I'm now evil, and wouldn't listen to my arguement. I acted with the samurai's code of dealing with dishonor, which is crucial above all things, as the monk ignored worthy combat, potentially put a lady, not to mention the party at risk, was lazy, generally shirking his duties. I felt justifie, but does that make me evil?
Sereno 06-08-06, 10:58 AM	We get outside and the guards leave, and I turn to the monk and accuse him of being lazy and dishonorable, and I stab him in the gut, then cut off his head. My DM instantly tells me that I'm now evil, and wouldn't listen to my arguement. I acted with the samurai's code of dealing with dishonor, which is crucial above all things, as the monk ignored worthy combat, potentially put a lady, not to mention the party at risk, was lazy, generally shirking his duties. I felt justifie, but does that make me evil? Yes. Murdering a companion because he didn't live up to your ideal of honor was evil. A character who acts like that is (Lawful) Evil. You don't see that? Even if it was completely "in character" and completely "what a samurai would do" ... it's STILL evil to simply murder someone. You don't get to hide behind a "code" as a defense of your actions. A warrior's "code" could easily include "I will cut down anyone who does not immediately proclaim me the greatest warrior in the world." Does that then justify murdering everyone he meets? From the PHB: “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Considering that you did all three; hurt (stabbed in the gut) and killed (cut off his head) and, by extension, oppressed your companion because your motivation was "he didn't live up to my standards" ... it was clearly Evil. If this is how you were planning on playing your character, LE should have been on your sheet from the beginning.
Voldar_Mecorthio 06-08-06, 11:10 AM	Here's a little device that can help you figure out how to play an alignment (I stole this from someone's sig, I can't remember who) Lawful: In ocordance with the laws or your own moral code... Neutral: In a rational, unbiaced maner... Chaotic: By whatever means nessary... Good: ...Help others and try to make the world a better place. Neutral: ...Help yourself without hurting others. Evil: ...Increce your holdings in life at the expence of others.
Hodo 06-08-06, 11:42 AM	Every alignment assumes it's ways are 'right'. Do not neglect neutrality. Just about every Good and Evil debate I see totally ignores the fact that DnD does have a middle ground, a gray area, a place where one can ocassionally perform good or evil acts without being either alignment themselves. It's neutrality. Neutral doesn't mean you can never have self-sacrificng or malicious thoughts or ever perform self-sacrificng or malicious acions. It means that neither one, nor the other really dominates or characterizes your character. If you're going to play a character (orc, human, dwarf, whatever) as having a personality dominated by acts and feelings of self-sacrifice, benevolance, and respect for other sentient beings, then make their alignment good. They believe these things are right. If they have a personality dominated by acts and feelings of selfishness, malice, and lack of respect (maybe even disdain) for other sentient beings, then make their alignment evil. They believe these things are right. Anything showing combinations of the above should be neutral. How one handles races such as Orcs depends on what campaign you're playing in. In the Monster manual, orcs are described as making war and pillaging precisely because they pretty much hate all other sentient races and believe that everything should belong to rocs, even if that means the destruction of everyone else. This is what causes most orcs to be of some kind of evil alignment. They believe that wanton destruction of others and their hatred of others is the right way to feel. If you want to play orcs as just rugged wilderness society with a rich martial culture that hunt and pillage as their only means of survival, then their general alignment should be changed from evil to some kind of neutral alignment, similar to Lizardfolk as described in the Monster Manual. One of the issues with Alignment is that most DMs don't use the PHB or MM descriptions of alignment or appropriate creatures as the basis in their campaign. They introduce their own PERSONAL beliefs about what is good and evil, forgetting that the rest of the written rules were not built around their notions, but on a different and vastly simplieifed set for the sake of playability and homage to the high fantasy adventure works from which they draw influence. Take this story for example, the only instance that I've ever had with a Dm forcibly changing my alignment after an action. I was a lawful netural samurai, exploring a dungeon along with a rogue, a female wizard, and a monk. Check. We were camping in the entry chamber, and during my watch, I heard footsteps. I wake the monk, seeing as how he's the best fighter aside from me, I wouldn't disturb the lady's sleeping, and I didn't trust the rogue. The monk promptly goes back to sleep. A minute later, I can actually see the enemy, and I try waking the monk, he tells me to stop bothering him (I did explain both times what was happening) and went back to sleep. The guards came, woke up the rest of the party, and forced us outside. I couldn't have taken them by myself. We get outside and the guards leave, and I turn to the monk and accuse him of being lazy and dishonorable, and I stab him in the gut, then cut off his head. I would definately deem it an evil act, as you have shown little respect to the Monk's right to life, and I don't see how it's altruistic on your part. My DM instantly tells me that I'm now evil, and wouldn't listen to my arguement. I acted with the samurai's code of dealing with dishonor, which is crucial above all things, as the monk ignored worthy combat, potentially put a lady, not to mention the party at risk, was lazy, generally shirking his duties. I felt justified, but does that make me evil? Not based on this particular instance, no. My question is- if this is how you treat your allies, how do you treat your enemies? If this is a common thing for you, then yeah. i don't think any single act should make one entirely evil, but a mindset or pattern of behavior should eventually reveal that the alignment on your character sheet is innacurate in regards to how your character is. What I think the DM is more concerned about is the disruption of the game. You unexpectedly killed another PC. This usually does not go over well with either the DM or other players. This is probably why the DM was more willing to label you evil (as a sort of punishment).
malignor 06-08-06, 11:43 AM	I'm with Sereno on this one. The monk is no samurai... just because a samurai lives by the bushido, doesn't mean everyone else has to or die. If anything, after repremanding the monk (which would lead to a discussion, which may or may not explain things to your satisfaction) you should have demanded the monk do something to restore his honor. If extremely **** retentive, and the monk didn't act to restore his honor, challenge him to combat to restore honor. Then, if you're borderline obssessed, and you beat him in honorable combat (or he refuses to fight, meaning you win), demand he commit seppuku (ritual suicide). Then if he won't commit seppuku, do it for him like you did. In other words, you skipped steps 1-3 and went straight for the slaughter. Imagine a classic movie with a samurai and a sohei monk. The sohei monk is lazy, but the samurai is shrewd and basically has a stick up his butt. The monk is a true taoist, who lives by the notion of "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it." Now some guards come, and the monk thinks to himself "if they're trouble, I'll handle it then. Until then, let me sleep." but the samurai is jumpy, so he gets all sketchy, pesters the monk over things that "aren't important" and then, after the guards kick everyone out of the place (where they were tresspassing), he calls the monk lazy and kills him... and this makes sense, how exactly?? I think you got caught up in the situation and reacted with your emotions. Not very samurai-like at all. A samurai is one who follows zen, which is very close to taoism in some ways. When a samurai kills, it kills like a volcano or earthquake or typhoon. In other words, not with intent to kill, only to cut, like how a typhoon doesn't kill with intent to kill, only to blow like a fierce wind. Thus, a true samurai kills without malice or anger. Furthermore, a samurai doesn't cut unless there is just cause by Bushido, and punishment for not reacting dangerously when there was no real danger is not just cause. Maybe the monk knew something you didn't (they do tend to be wise and observant). Maybe the monk was so confident in his skill (or yours) that there was no need to get all hot & bothered. You killed in ignorance, you killed in shame. You betrayed a comrade far worse than he "betrayed" you & your comrades, even if you were right.
pres_man 06-08-06, 12:04 PM	Alignment in the books is purposefully vague, so as to allow a wide range of possible methods of play. For example here is how alignment acts in the two games I DM. Game 1: 95%-99% of the total world population is neutral of one form or the other. Being selfish or greedy or mean does not make one "Evil". Likewise, being helpful, nice, or generous does not make one "Good". "Evil" creatures are extreme examples. They are the guys that kidnap children and torture and sacrifice them to dark gods for powers. They are people that kill whenever it is profitable without a second thought. They are people who order others do kill for them when it is in their interest. Similiarly for good, good creatures are basically exalted. Thus in this game, the detect-smite paladin is a very workable concept. If someone detects as evil (barring some rare occurance of deception), they are already judged by the "universal powers". Game 2: Much larger proportions of the population are good or evil then in game 1. Evil is a wide catagory that includes people who intentionally engage in harmful behaviour, even if just causing psychological harm. Likewise, good is also wide, so people who give some money but would never risk their life, could also be good. In this setting the detect-smite paladin is unworkable, as someone could be evil, and yet not be worthy of death. In this second game I explain that good and evil are warring powers. Any good act empowers the forces of good, any evil act empowers the forces of evil. Thus the concept of a good end through evil means is self-contradictory. Also killing an evil creature does not weaken evil (except in the cases of evil beings such as devils or demons), this is because the evil creature's soul will go to a lower plane and just continue to do evil and thus still empower the forces of evil. Of course sometimes it is necessary to kill evil creatures but this is more of a stop-gap measure than a real solution. The greatest method of weaking evil is to redeem an evil creature, since this weakens evil while at the same time strengthens good.
Starchaserva 06-08-06, 12:22 PM	That was the first instance of the samurai acting like that, and not the first instance of the monk shirking his duties. No, he was pretty terrible a monk, only interested in using his skills to beat the crap out of people with his bare hands. His concern was not that he knew anything special, when I brought up why he fell asleep, and went back to sleep was that he was tired and didn't want to be bothered. The samurai told him it was dishonorable, and he'd have to atone for it, and the monk bascially told him to go F himself. The fight went so quickly because I actually won the intiative and managed to one shot him. The other two players/characters didn't care that I killed him.
Losoyo19 06-08-06, 01:07 PM	Are your friends Evil, or are they samurai? If not, I'd question their alignment given they just watched you slaughter someone for being lazy. And did nothing about it - that's pretty heartless.
Losoyo19 06-08-06, 01:14 PM	Are your friends Evil, or are they samurai? If not, I'd question their alignment given they just watched you slaughter someone for being lazy. And did nothing about it - that's pretty heartless. edit: Sory guys, my enter key got stuck and it posted it twice, i appologize.
Hodo 06-08-06, 01:29 PM	That was the first instance of the samurai acting like that, and not the first instance of the monk shirking his duties. No, he was pretty terrible a monk, only interested in using his skills to beat the crap out of people with his bare hands. His concern was not that he knew anything special, when I brought up why he fell asleep, and went back to sleep was that he was tired and didn't want to be bothered. The samurai told him it was dishonorable, and he'd have to atone for it, and the monk bascially told him to go F himself. The fight went so quickly because I actually won the intiative and managed to one shot him. The other two players/characters didn't care that I killed him. But was the threat of death ever mentioned as a possible means of atonement? Also, I'm going to have mimmic Losoyo here and question the alignment of your allies. What were their alignments by the way? What was the monks? Was the player making up for his lack of self control and concern for his duties by being acting lawful in other ways? Lawful alignment is a requirement for being a monk. They didn't care at that you killed someone for shirking their duties? While I certainly wouldn't adventure with someone who was irresponsible and troublesome, I wouldn't support their execution on those grounds. I most definately wouldn't continue travelling with someone who felt that someone else violating THEIR personal code was grounds for an execution. The more I hear, the more this is beginning to sound less and less like a dispute over alignment. This was simply a case of out of game game conflict. You had an annoying PC that got everyone's nerves, so you killed him, which probably got him and the DM responding rashly, which resulted in a demand that you (probably amongst other things) immediately change your alignment from neutral to evil.
Derren S. 06-08-06, 01:45 PM	Alignment is a very tricky thing as most people can't simply accept the D&D alignment system but bring their own belives into the game which makes it much more complicated. Imo if people would simply accept that in D&D morality works different then in real life and don't try to model it according to their own belives there would be much less complains about alignment. And yes, I agree that many DMs are very inconsequetal with alignment. Very often they let their players get away with evil acts only because those acts were against monsters. Most DMs I have seen were pretty racist with their alignment rulings.
interpretivechaos 06-08-06, 02:02 PM	One thing I have is that especially with evil, evil doesn't make you sadistic, cruel, unloyal, uncaring, etc. Most evil people only have one trait that drags them down. I played an evil Illumian cleric. He showed mercy (especially when killing wouldn't gain anything) risked his life for party members he respected (including paladins). He also meant and waxed drunkards in the street to get more shadows to command. Definately evil, but about as dependable as the rest of the party.
malignor 06-08-06, 02:45 PM	I personally include contemporary morals as criteria for the Alignment system. A truly "good" guy doesn't kill unless required, but certainly can use lethal force if defending against attackers where his/her life (or the lives of others) may be threatened. If the opponent dies, it's not the goal, just the result of fighting. No problem there. In other words, no coup de grace on someone who is no longer an apparent threat, unless circumstances demand the killing... such as a being who will undoubtedly bring more pain and death into the world if left alive, or someone who is marked for execution. A good person doesn't steal if it will make others suffer whereas evil don't care (or do it for fun) and neutral do it if needed. A good person doesn't rape, ever, while evil have no problem with it and a neutral person can fall either way, depending on their leaning and the circumstances. The theme is pretty straightforward here, I think (thogh there are some sketchy situations, where you just have to wing it). As for law and chaos, it's about how and why they do the (good, evil or neutral) things they do. Lawful folk do what they are "supposed" to do, by law, oath, rule or code, or because it's "proper". Chaotic do what they want to do, no matter the law, oath, rule or code, and regardless of whether it's proper or not (and often in spite of such things). Neutral do it because it's just what they do, and it's the natural way for them to be.
Bulletproof_Condom 06-08-06, 04:11 PM	I came up with some alignment guidelines a while ago that people seemed to like, mostly because they were simple. Evil benefits the self, often at the expense of the other. Good benefits the other, often at the expense of the self. Order is driven by logic and truth. Chaos is driven by emotion and freedom. Neutrality is driven by nothing in particular. Alignments are not fragile. Shifts in alignment are proportional to the acts that provoked them. It is extremely important to not overthink your alignment. Additionally, I have a third dimension to alignment known as Tendency. A character may be described as being neutral good with chaotic tendencies. In short, your tendency the direction your alignment is most likely to shift if it ever did. Beyond that, I try not to worry about it.
Landman 06-08-06, 05:45 PM	Many people seem to describe evil as self-serving, but I don't really agree with that opinion. That seems like neutral to me. If you were neutral you would have no real ethical beliefs. If you had no ethical beliefs, wouldn't you simply be hedonistic or self-serving? Rather, I would portray evil as purposefully destructive, regardless of self-servitude. Imagine a fire elemental or a pyromaniac who gets pleasure from destruction, or a supremely pessimistic "life is suffering" "bring an end to the universe" type guy, or a necromancer who enjoys butchering the natural order. None of these characters are necessarily self-serving. In fact, they're likely to be a bit masochist. That is what I would consider evil.
Hodo 06-08-06, 05:51 PM	I came up with some alignment guidelines a while ago that people seemed to like, mostly because they were simple. Evil benefits the self, often at the expense of the other. Good benefits the other, often at the expense of the self. Order is driven by logic and truth. Chaos is driven by emotion and freedom. Neutrality is driven by nothing in particular. Alignments are not fragile. Shifts in alignment are proportional to the acts that provoked them. It is extremely important to not overthink your alignment. Additionally, I have a third dimension to alignment known as Tendency. A character may be described as being neutral good with chaotic tendencies. In short, your tendency the direction your alignment is most likely to shift if it ever did. Beyond that, I try not to worry about it. Pretty much what I do, especially in regards to tendencies, only I use the examples given in the DMG to describe planes. Every alignment has a strong, moderate, and weak descriptor. Lawful Good ^ ^ Neutral Neutral V V Chaotic Evil A character that is the ultimate goody-two shoes, never strikes a disarmed opponent, never lies, steals cheats, is always faithful, etc, would be Lawful(strong) Good(strong). One that tries hard to be good, but is a compulsive liar might be Neutral (weak) Good (moderate).
Bulletproof_Condom 06-08-06, 10:14 PM	Rather, I would portray evil as purposefully destructive, regardless of self-servitude. Imagine a fire elemental or a pyromaniac who gets pleasure from destruction, or a supremely pessimistic "life is suffering" "bring an end to the universe" type guy, or a necromancer who enjoys butchering the natural order. That's chaotic evil. They take pleasure in destruction, and they do things to satiate that pleasure at the expense of others. Driven by emotion, benefiting the self.
JulesCARV 06-08-06, 11:22 PM	I think that all people who are selfish beyond a certain point are evil, but all people who are evil are not selfish. The example I use most commonly is the civilian-targetting suicide bomber: supremely unselfish, supremely self-sacrificing, but doing great harm to others, and thus evil. I prefer to reduce good and evil to how you treat others. If you're selfish enough, to the point where you would do any amount of harm to others for the slightest benefit to yourself, then you are evil. The reason you're evil, though, is because you're harming, or are willing to harm, others so much, not because you are willing to help yourself so much. Selfishness frequently motivates evil, but evil can be motivated by other things. IMHO, leads to more interesting games. (I think an evil character with a modified, [Vile] variant on the Vow of Poverty (or maybe who just renounced everything and took an in-character vow of poverty, but never gets exalted feat benefits) could be an interesting character, maybe as an Eberron Child of Winter -- someone who renounced all sense of self and pleasure, going into an uncaring asceticism in which neither her own life nor the life of anyone else mattered at all.) So selfish ---> evil, but evil -/-> selfish.
grelna 06-09-06, 01:52 AM	Good: Put the welfare of others before your own Evil: Put your own welfare/views before the welfare of others Neutral: Live and let live A lot of players think their characters are good because they go around mugging evil monsters and taking their stuff. That's not good. That's just a dangerous job description. Depending on circumstances, e.g., the monsters aren't hurting anyone in their current location, it could even be considered evil, because it is obvious then that the motivation is really simple greed. Now if these characters went around fighting evil monsters that had harmed or were about to harm innocents, and then donated a hefty amount of the loot to rebuilding villages and funding orphanages, that's good. It is not possible to be good without some form of self-sacrifice. Most people are neutral. They don't really want horrible things to happen to other people, and are probably willing to help out others in need/trouble, so long as it isn't very dangerous or terribly inconvenient. In the case of family and friends, they might do almost anything, but only out of personal attachment. They tend not to devote their lives to righteous causes and also tend to avoid any grossly evil actions. Some people are evil. They might perhaps be loving parents, good friends, and devoted spouses (or none of the above), but ultimately they are completely willing to commit acts they know will harm others so long as they see a benefit to themselves. Often, they are capable of doing terrible things because they are unable or unwilling to see others (or maybe just a specific gender, social class, or ethnic group) as real people. They lack empathy for the victims of their actions and so feel no shame (or insufficient shame, anyway) for the consequences. Useful example: I am currently a player in a game in which the party has agreed to go on a quest set by an evil archmage to retrieve an item from a dungeon, in order to buy the freedom of a young girl he had stolen from her (evil) mother to be his apprentice. The party is large, averages about 10th/11th level, and is decidedly non-optimized, and would stand no chance of defeating this particular mage in any conceivable circumstances (Sememmon in FR). Most members of the party talk a good game but are only neutral or weakly good (in my unashamedly neutral character's estimation). We have just discovered that the item in question is guarded by a shadow dragon dracolich. Consternation/panic ensues. The only members of the party who are actually still interested in continuing are: A NE ex-Zhent invoker15/fighter1 who is the mother of the child, a rather tragic figure, and by far the most powerful member of the group (DMPC, and no, there is no collusion between her and Sememmon), A NG cleric9 of Lathander who is one of the two lowest level members of the group (and definitely the most good amongst us), and My character, a brilliant (21 Int) but unwise (8) N(e) necromancer10/rogue2, who has nothing to do with undead, thank you very much, possesses a soft spot for helpless children and small animals and a disdain for stupid adults (almost everyone, in her opinion) and who is the evil wizardess' best friend. Everybody else is looking for an excuse to skedaddle, including the supposedly LG fighter9/cleric3/justiciar of Tyr1 and the CG rogue11 Harper (who seems to die in almost every major adventure we've ever completed and is just sick and tired of it). Their issue: they think we're all going to die and thus we should get while the getting is good. It's fascinating watching the way the characters' alignments are coming into clear focus. The evil wizardess is perfectly willing to sacrifice us all and maybe die herself to get her kid back (although she is grateful to those of us who are still pushing to continue). The good cleric of Lathander knows the danger to himself and is willing to go forward anyway because a child's life is at stake and every part of his faith tells him that a shadow dragon dracolich must be stopped if there is even a ghost of a chance. And my neutral(small e) necromancer is attempting to shame and manipulate the other PCs into helping her friend, saving the kid (because no one doubts that the child will be totally ruined if we don't get her back), and stopping the dracolich from accomplishing his evil goals. Going on this quest is doubtlessly the most selfless act she's ever done. However, as it is an isolated event, it alone does not make her good (and trust me, she's really not). Meanwhile, the supposed heroes of the party are unhappy about continuing now that there is a strong possibility that some or all of them will not make it. Apparently, they were only okay with the mission when they thought the odds were completely with them. But as my character asked the group, "If you are willing to risk death to save a child, how much risk are you willing to accept? One chance of death in twelve? Six in twelve? Eleven in twelve? Each person amongst us must answer that question for himself, or herself." Of course, that's easy for her to say. She's not scared of death at all. In the situation above, what is the correct decision for an individual in this group to make? Answer: There is no "correct decision." It depends completely on the strength of the individuals' G in their alignment, except for the invoker, who is acting on maternal instinct, and my character, who is helping out a friend and likes children, despite her own b****y, sarcastic, deceptive, and generally amoral nature. And what I'm seeing is that a lot of these characters, who could probably pass themselves off as champions of good at some gaming tables, are really only champions when they don't feel there's much risk or sacrifice in it. I think that is true of a lot of characters I've played with in my gaming career. P.S. Please don't bother to write well-meaning messages about how doomed we all may be if we continue. It's kind of irrelevant.
Wood 06-09-06, 02:00 AM	All these alignment threads are gettin on my nerves. Give it a rest already. Here lemme just give you the end-all good/evil equation for determining matters of right and wrong. Party=Good Monster=Bad now shut up already.
Hodo 06-09-06, 07:22 AM	The example I use most commonly is the civilian-targetting suicide bomber: supremely unselfish, supremely self-sacrificing, but doing great harm to others, and thus evil. How about neutral, or even lawful neutral action? A Balance of ultimate self sacrificing, driven by a very stricht adherance to a law or code, but perfoming acts that have little regard for the life of their victims? They're definately non-good. Someone who gives up their life without harming anyone is more along the lines of good. Someone who takes another's life when they know there's no risk to themselves would be more along the lines evil. To illustrate the "shades of gray" in alignments, I think Neutral is a good option. If you like to put LOTS of people with shady alignments in your campaign, rather than making 90% good or evil and then making them act opposite their alignment to confuse players, just make them Neutral and act with common sense/logic/in interests of personal relationships and affiliation.
Traevanon 06-09-06, 08:11 AM	I dont judge the player's alignments as a DM, instead I make them account for their own choice. Should something questionable come up I simply ask for an alignment audit: "You have chosen for your character to be Neutral Good, which is defined on p.105 of the Player's Handbook. I'm not sure his actions of late have been in accordance with this alignment. How do you justify them?" If they can do it reasonably, truthfully and succinctly I let them go. If they have some trouble with it or admit they have strayed but intend to correct it, then I let them know that they are in danger of losing their alignment. If they disregard my concerns or admit they have strayed and do not intend to correct it, then they will lose their alignment. Losing alignment: All benefits (but not penalties) of their current alignment are lost. All questions of alignment against them (including detect spells) are interpreted as if the unaligned person had the most belligerent, worst or most diametrically opposed alignment at the DMs option. They take damage against all magic items that deal damage based on alignment and suffer penalties as if they were the worst possible alignment (such as negative levels) when wielding aligned weapons or using aligned equipment. NPCs percieve their unaligned status as the worst possible alignment for the situation. These penalties last until the PC chooses a new alignment.
WayneTheGame 06-09-06, 08:50 AM	Some people are evil. They might perhaps be loving parents, good friends, and devoted spouses (or none of the above), but ultimately they are completely willing to commit acts they know will harm others so long as they see a benefit to themselves. Often, they are capable of doing terrible things because they are unable or unwilling to see others (or maybe just a specific gender, social class, or ethnic group) as real people. They lack empathy for the victims of their actions and so feel no shame (or insufficient shame, anyway) for the consequences. Well, I guess I am evil then, because that is pretty much exactly my train of thought.. On the alignment debate all I will say is that a) it is like arguing religion or politics; you can never get a total agreement and b) Technically most adventurers would be evil because they usuallly kill monsters for no other reason than to get "phat lewtz" and XP (which is not a tangible game thing, but you get the idea).
Sereno 06-09-06, 09:25 AM	Some people are evil. They might perhaps be loving parents, good friends, and devoted spouses (or none of the above), but ultimately they are completely willing to commit acts they know will harm others so long as they see a benefit to themselves. Often, they are capable of doing terrible things because they are unable or unwilling to see others (or maybe just a specific gender, social class, or ethnic group) as real people. They lack empathy for the victims of their actions and so feel no shame (or insufficient shame, anyway) for the consequences. Well, I guess I am evil then, because that is pretty much exactly my train of thought.. Seriously? You have no compunctions hurting others if it will benefit you? You don't regard others as real people? Hmmmm ... makes mental note to avoid Port Richey, FL....
WayneTheGame 06-09-06, 10:16 AM	Seriously? You have no compunctions hurting others if it will benefit you? You don't regard others as real people? All depends on the circumstances... I consider myself to have Lawful Evil tendencies, to be honest. I have no problem being utterly ruthless to get what I want.. would I deliberately hurt someone for no reason? No, I would not go that far, and besides that would be Neutral Evil. I am loyal to my friends, and I do not break my word (Lawful). But do I have any objection to manipulating things to achieve my ambitions? Not at all. EDIT: Let me rephrase this so you do not think I am a heartless, inhuman monster: I am Lawful Evil because I have no problem with using others to further myself and get what *I* want. I would not intentionally stab them in the back afterwards, nor would I try to screw them over, but I see nothing wrong with utilizing their resources to make myself better, not because it will help them at all but because it is a useful way to increase my own worth. Ex: No problem with taking a job, learning what I can using their technology and then leaving to move on to something better where I can use what I learned previously to become even BETTER at the next place, and so forth.
Hodo 06-09-06, 11:13 AM	EDIT: Let me rephrase this so you do not think I am a heartless, inhuman monster: I am Lawful Evil because I have no problem with using others to further myself and get what *I* want. Once can be manipulative and not be evil. According to the Player's Handbook "“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." Now if you also hurt, opprsss, and kill innocents to get what you want, then you can be evil. If all you are is a jerk, but don't usually actually hurt (I don't think their feelings count), oppress (I don't think being bossy counts), and kill innocents for personal gain or pleasure compared to helping, supporting, or respecting the lives of others then you're more Lawful Neutral. And neutral evil doesn't hurt/kill for no reason. It hurts and kills without worrying about alligences, agreements, a rigid order, or distinction (politician/father/child/ally/etc). Chaotic evil hurts and kills because it feels like it and it appeals to them at that partiular time and place. There's no kind of alignment that justifies it's characters doing something "for no reason".
Sereno 06-09-06, 11:19 AM	All depends on the circumstances... I consider myself to have Lawful Evil tendencies, to be honest. I have no problem being utterly ruthless to get what I want.. would I deliberately hurt someone for no reason? No, I would not go that far, and besides that would be Neutral Evil. I am loyal to my friends, and I do not break my word (Lawful). But do I have any objection to manipulating things to achieve my ambitions? Not at all. EDIT: Let me rephrase this so you do not think I am a heartless, inhuman monster: I am Lawful Evil because I have no problem with using others to further myself and get what *I* want. I would not intentionally stab them in the back afterwards, nor would I try to screw them over, but I see nothing wrong with utilizing their resources to make myself better, not because it will help them at all but because it is a useful way to increase my own worth. Ex: No problem with taking a job, learning what I can using their technology and then leaving to move on to something better where I can use what I learned previously to become even BETTER at the next place, and so forth. "Using" someone's abilities to further your own agenda isn't evil. Every single business in the world is based on that ... every good manager in the world "uses" his employees abilities to further his agenda (the success of the project). So long as you aren't sabotaging the places you leave, there's nothing evil about "learning and moving on". That's what most people do ... sometimes the moving on is within the same organization, sometimes it's to different organizations. That's being aggressive, not evil. The contestants on "The Apprentice" aren't evil. Being evil isn't "using" people ... it's HURTING them (Hurting, killing, or oppressing, according to the PHB). The only thing that gives me pause, here, is this, "I have no problem being utterly ruthless to get what I want." What's your idea of "utterly ruthless"? Would you beat someone up to take something they had that you wanted?
WayneTheGame 06-09-06, 11:20 AM	So long as you aren't sabotaging the places you leave, Umm.. what about thinking of doing it? Never actually DONE it.. ;) Would you beat someone up to take something they had that you wanted? No, I would not go that far. I meant ruthless in a business sense, as in whatever it takes to get ahead. I guess I am more on the extreme side of Lawful Neutral, then. I can sleep better now. :)
Traevanon 06-09-06, 11:32 AM	"Using" someone's abilities to further your own agenda isn't evil. Every single business in the world is based on that ... every good manager in the world "uses" his employees abilities to further his agenda (the success of the project). Actually there was a time and place where this was considered sin. Profit beyond compensation for physical work done and interest on debt were once considered evil. So its not beyond comprehension that this might be the case in a particular society. It's a sidetrack though. We should stay away from real world morals and stick to p.104 PHB (or whatever a particular DM has established as a house rule) for what is evil and good in a particular session of D&D.
WayneTheGame 06-09-06, 11:43 AM	I agree, and I apologize for taking us off-topic. My problem with D&D alignment is that except in certain scenarios (e.g. Eberron) it IS black and white. A monster who has "Evil" in its alignment is EVIL, no matter what. This is why the "If it glows, kill it" Paladin came about; because that IS how the alignment system works. I personally think that the Eberron mentality (i.e. "shades of gray") should be the default in D&D.
Sereno 06-09-06, 11:50 AM	Umm.. what about thinking of doing it? Never actually DONE it.. ;) I don't think that either in the gaming world OR the real world someone should be "convicted" for their thoughts. It's actions that "earn" an alignment. Even to a Catholic (which I am), it's not a mortal sin unless it's sufficiently grievous, you've thought about it sufficiently, and then you do it with "full consent of the will". No, I would not go that far. I meant ruthless in a business sense, as in whatever it takes to get ahead. I guess I am more on the extreme side of Lawful Neutral, then. I can sleep better now. :) Seriously, if you wouldn't really hurt, kill, or oppress others you AREN'T evil. You can be an aggressive businessman, you can be a jerk, you can be callous, you can be obnoxious, you can be all about "if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes" "2nd place is the first loser" ... and STILL not be evil. To call these things evil waters down and trivializes the term, and desensitized us to real (or even gaming) evil. Strangling a girl with her own bikini top after raping her is EVIL ... being Donald Trump is not. Actually there was a time and place where this was considered sin. Profit beyond compensation for physical work done and interest on debt were once considered evil. So its not beyond comprehension that this might be the case in a particular society. Although I agree that "usuary" has been (and is still considered) a sin by some religions (including my own). But, I don't think using your skills to the best of your abilities falls under "usury" ... I think that actual term was reserved for charging high interest on loans or otherwise extorting money (like give me an additional $5000 or I won't finish fixing your pipes) from customers.
pres_man 06-09-06, 11:54 AM	In response to grelna story, I would just say this. The lack of a suicidal tendency does not indicate the lack of goodness. Good characters are suppose to respect life, including their own. Throwing one's life away for very little chance of doing good (which surviving this might be very little chance, but even if they survive they are still working in collusion with an evil mage, thus the chance of an eventual good outcome is extremely small) is hardly justified for many good characters. If one's death does not ensure the safety of innocents then the death may have been a waste. Let's say in a "modern" setting game, a good character learns that a bomb is going to blow up in a nearby city and destroy the whole thing. There is no way for the character to know where the bomb is exactly in time. Do they go to the city so they can be blown up along side of everyone else or do they try to minimize the damage by trying to get the people evacuated. Being suicidal does not make one good.
Hodo 06-09-06, 12:20 PM	I agree, and I apologize for taking us off-topic. My problem with D&D alignment is that except in certain scenarios (e.g. Eberron) it IS black and white. A monster who has "Evil" in its alignment is EVIL, no matter what. This is why the "If it glows, kill it" Paladin came about; because that IS how the alignment system works. I personally think that the Eberron mentality (i.e. "shades of gray") should be the default in D&D. Eberron's shady alignment doesn't mean that people who are evil still don't do and think evil things. It means that creatures in the MM that have the Alignment descriptor of "usually", "often" and "always" don't follow those alignments as easily. Also, alignments don't dictate whether or not a cleric can choose a certain patron deity. Annoyingly, it still applies to a Paladin, Barbarian, Monk, and Bard classes. This results in a situation where not every Vampiric cleric of Val Dorn is necessarily Neutral Evil. However, if that character IS Neutral Evil, they're just as nasty and vicious, and willing to harm innocents as Neutral Evil is described in the PHB. Any evil person in Eberron who hasn't hurt or killed anyone yet is simply a coward. Eberron uses an example of a man in a tavern who WANTS to kill the PCs, but just doesn't have the guts or oppurtunity to do it. Elves in the MM are "often Chaotic Good", but in Eberron, you're just as likely to meet a "lawful neutral" or "chaotic evil" one. That doesn't mean that good, neutral, and evil have lost any of their PHB meanings, but rather, that they no longer apply so universally and consistently to entire races as described in the MM. You're also going to also see a whole lot more neutrals, lawful neutrals, and chaotic neutrals. Also, a Paladin shouldn't be smiting anything that registers anything in any campaign whether alignments come in shades of gray or black and white. The detect evil is there to help him/her make better decisions, not completely govern those decisions. By knowing which characters are evil, he/she knows which ones to watch more closely, which ones may be more dangerous, and which ones he/she CAN use his/her smite abilities on depending on the situation. Just because the Paladin has a good BaB, smite ability, and heavy armor doesn't mean that his answer to evil is to always slay it ASAP. There are many GOOD ways to deal with evil characters, especially those that don't want to fight.
Hodo 06-09-06, 12:32 PM	In response to grelna story, I would just say this. The lack of a suicidal tendency does not indicate the lack of goodness. Good characters are suppose to respect life, including their own. Throwing one's life away for very little chance of doing good (which surviving this might be very little chance, but even if they survive they are still working in collusion with an evil mage, thus the chance of an eventual good outcome is extremely small) is hardly justified for many good characters. If one's death does not ensure the safety of innocents then the death may have been a waste. But it is the ultimate act of goodness using DnD logic. Let's say in a "modern" setting game, a good character learns that a bomb is going to blow up in a nearby city and destroy the whole thing. There is no way for the character to know where the bomb is exactly in time. Do they go to the city so they can be blown up along side of everyone else or do they try to minimize the damage by trying to get the people evacuated. Being suicidal does not make one good. First option is more neutral. You aren't harming yourself to try to help anyone, but you're not harming anyone to help yourself. The second option would be considered good. You are putting yourself in danger of being blown up in order to get people to safety. Now if you somehow carried off the bomb or threw yourself on it, killing yourself, but preventing it from killing many or all of the other people, that would be considered good in DnD. Now whether or not trying to evacuate people (if you have enough time) is a smarter option than diving on the bomb in an attempt to save them (which may not work) is a different matter. That might have more to do with someone's Int score.
pres_man 06-09-06, 12:39 PM	But it is the ultimate act of goodness using DnD logic. I noticed you changed your original comment before I could quote it, but I'll still address it anyway. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. respect for life - this does not mean just other life, but for one's own as well. You can't say you respect life while not respecting your own life, throwing your life away in a useless gesture is not respecting it. make personal sacrifices to help others - people focus on the first part of this statement without looking at the second, to help others. A sacrifice that is believed to not have a chance at helping others is not a good act. Again throwing your life away when you know there is not really a chance that you will be able to help others is not a good act.
Wood 06-09-06, 01:03 PM	once again... party=good monster=bad Why is this not sufficient?
Losoyo19 06-09-06, 01:14 PM	What if they're not fighting a monster? What if a Paladin was misinformed and felt they broke the law and wanted to take them in.. Party= good Paladin= ? Though plot twists may not be your thing.
WayneTheGame 06-09-06, 01:17 PM	once again... party=good monster=bad Why is this not sufficient? Because that is an ignorant, bigoted and one-sided way to look at the debate?
pres_man 06-09-06, 01:30 PM	Because that is an ignorant, bigoted and one-sided way to look at the debate? I disagree. It has its place, anyone who has ever played a dungeon crawl type game has played under exactly these conditions, group = good, monsters = bad. My old heroquest game was set up under those conditions, I mean how else can you justify breaking into people's homes to kill them and take their stuff. Having said that, this is not sufficient for most roleplaying groups. Especially when party members may come into conflict. Also where the options of behaviour much greater, such torture, rape, raising dead, etc, then a much more detailed description is required. If you limit the actions of characters in the game, then this is much less of an issue. Player: I kill the little girl. DM: No you don't, you can't do that. Player: Why not? DM: The rules are when in town you CAN'T do any attacks, towns are where you rest and buy things, you don't combat options there.
Sevil 06-09-06, 02:35 PM	With regards to alignments in a campaign setting, there is only one authority: the DM. They know the correct answers because their decisions on how to rule disputes is the correct answer... for their game. Finally, somebody that understands the difference between game and reality. Please, allow me a moment of perspective. Reality: It is in human condition to act 100% selfishly to attain 'pleasure'. I don't necessarily imply 'pleasure' to mean sitting by the pool drinking a beer and eating cheetos. Pleasure, in the philosophical sense, is the root of EVERYTHING you do. Every single action you take is for the maximum amount of pleasure. Take for example being mugged at gunpoint in the street. You can either give up the wallet and live, or get shot. Most people would give up their wallet because it gives them 'more' pleasure than getting shot. If donating to charities gives you 'pleasure', then you will do it. If killing people gives you 'more' pleasure than the thought of going to jail, being looked down upon, etc. then you would do it. Every single thought and action can be rooted in 'pleasure'. This makes 'good and evil' relative terms that don't have real world implications. We are commonly confronted with general societal beliefs on what would give the 'most pleasure' to everybody and understand that as being 'good'. We are selfish beings. We often do 'unselfish acts' (like helping a friend move) but that act will 100% of the time make YOU feel good about doing it. The root is still pleasure. This is why there are no good/evil alignments in real life, and thus makes it nearly impossible to prescribe in objective terms this notion in a game setting. Thus ultimately, it is up to your DM to decide what good and evil means in his/her campaign. I tried to take out philosophical jargon in the hopes that I've distilled it down into a 'forum-friendly' post. So please, let me know if it doesn't make sense. Before arguing with the logic, please try and come up with one scenario where pleasure is not at the root of an action. Anything counter to this logic is irrational, and impossible to actually do. Even trying to do something irrational to disprove this argument is really giving you pleasure in trying to disprove the argument. Thanks, Sevil
Gedrin 06-09-06, 02:39 PM	I think the biggest issue with the bit about killing orcs and lizardmen (or any other group that is supposedly not "always evil") is that PC's almost never see these hypothetical good orcs. IMC, orcs are either Detain on Sight within the borders of most goodly nations. This is because orcs are very often deadly trouble. In one good nation Orcs are KoS, because that nation was enslaved by Orcs within the lifetime of some of its citizens, and there's still offically a state of war. Still, there are Orcish traders with their wagons. They show up in border towns of good lands (even the KoS land), offering various hides and animal goods in exchange for coin, steel tools, and luxury goods. Some relatively civilized places allow orcs into their citizenry, and the Orcs own shops, run businesses, and drink in the local bars. They even speak the language of those cities...just like other people living there. Same for lizard men. Lizardman sailing ships can be seen on some coasts. Traders can be found in many places. Of course, like orcs, lizard men raiders are perfectly willing to take advantage of easy prey they find outside the protection of civilization. However, lizardman traders won't normally risk their cargo on such escapades. Generally, when interacting with Orcs and Lizardmen, PC's will not initiate hostilities. They'll wave, offer a greeting, probably draw their weapons to demonstrate strength, but they won't load bows or start casting spells openly. Sometimes they'll open trade if they think it's safe. Orcish traders have some of the finest wild furs on the world, and Lizardmen (IMC) have very advanced luxury crafts like silk and certain jewelry. I've never had the "killing the orc women and children" in my game, even though I ran a whole campaign with Orcs as the chief enemy. PC's just left the children to the other non-combatants. They ignored the women who were huddled and hiding, and killed the women that came at them with pitchforks. They ignored the crying orc children, and lopped the arm off the orc teen with an axe. They were also willing to use every weapon at their disposal against an invading army, but they never intentionally targetted non-combatants or non-support personel. In my most recent campaing, the PC's occasionally had an orc on the crew of their ship. I think the reason I don't have this problem is that the PC's actually have seen Orcish traders and other orcs that won't try to murder them. IMC, the PC's have seen orcs that want to sell them things, and buy things from them, or who will make a fair bet on a game of darts in a bar. Sure, all the orcs they meet are basically agressive, like the "let's punch each other" game, and are often mean...but not all of them want to kill them. IMC the PC's know and can relate to the fact that orcs and lizardmen are not "always evil" because they've crossed paths with orcs and no one died. If you can't remember a time when your PC's crossed paths with orcs and someone didn't die...then in your PC's experience, orcs are quite likely "always evil". I know it doesn't say so on the MM entry, but if every orc they meet is a murderous thug...how can we expect our players to react otherwise.
JulesCARV 06-09-06, 02:52 PM	Well, from an economics perspective, I'd just like to say that the idea of the "utility maximizing rational agent" is horrendously misunderstood. Or rather, at least, what economists mean by it is misunderstood. Here's the popular version, which is true according to psychological hedonism, but as far as I know, few psychologists believe it: people attempt to maximize the amount of pleasure they feel (utility). Certain things add or subtract from that pleasure. People try to maximize the difference between the things which add to pleasure and things which subtract from it, developing preferences for some things over others. As such, they act in accordance with their preferences. In other words, utility ---> preferences ---> actions. Here's what economists actually mean, which is a behavioristic model which has little to do with people's internal psychology, but is effectively designed to make the math of modeling economic behavior easier: people act in certain ways. We don't know whether it makes them happy, or really why: it's just what we do. When someone does one action instead of another, we say that she prefers that action she took. As such, a set of preferences an agent has may be empirically deduced. Over any given set of preferences, a utility function can be constructed, which is simply a monotonic transformation of ordinal preferences into a cardinal function. This utility function has no more information than the preferences, but does allow some new math to be applied to them, such as differentiation. In other words, actions ---> preferences ---> utility.
Hodo 06-09-06, 03:01 PM	Double post
Hodo 06-09-06, 03:05 PM	once again... party=good monster=bad Why is this not sufficient? Not all of DnD worlds consist of just the Party and monsters, and their relationship is not always that simple. There are people living in the towns and cities. Some are good, some are neutral, some are evil. The stereotypical evil duke/wizard/assassin/traitor is not always a monster, but is still bad. Those who help, protect, guide, or assist the party are not always non-monsters (Unicrons, Good Dragons, Centaurs, etc) but are good or neutral and are not bad. The party=good, monster=bad concept can work for some games, but many popular works in the fantasy genere from which DnD draws inspiration, player expectations, and most established gaming worlds (including all of the official DnD ones) assume a more complex relationship that cannot reasonably coexist with the party=good, monster=bad concept. respect for life - this does not mean just other life, but for one's own as well. You can't say you respect life while not respecting your own life, throwing your life away in a useless gesture is not respecting it. I edited my statement because I wanted to avoid hearing the counterpoint you just made so I would have to make the folliowng one. By that logic, an evil person doesn't respect their own life either, since they are described as having no respect for sentient life (including their own). However, evil characters are not any more prone to suicide for the sake of their goals or desires any more than good or neutral characters. So I concluded that when the PHB refers to respect or lack of respect for sentient life, it refers to others and not the character themself. make personal sacrifices to help others - people focus on the first part of this statement without looking at the second, to help others. A sacrifice that is believed to not have a chance at helping others is not a good act. Again throwing your life away when you know there is not really a chance that you will be able to help others is not a good act. I didn't say a sacrifice made WITHOUT the belief that it will never help anyone is good in DnD. I said a sacrifice made WITH the belief/intent/knowledge that it will help someone else is the act that is good DnD. Just killing yourself off with no intent to help or harm or otherwise affect anyone else is at best/worst- neutral in DnD. That is the same stance I took on you man+bomb+city scenario. This is why there are no good/evil alignments in real life, and thus makes it nearly impossible to prescribe in objective terms this notion in a game setting. Thus ultimately, it is up to your DM to decide what good and evil means in his/her campaign. This should be the standard (as in I agree with you). Every DM has a different interpretation. However, if one is to ever discuss alignment to examine the way it's implemented, can enhance, detract from, or otherwise affect a campaign, it helps to have something resembling an official stance, and that official stance would be the Core Books. Although not all comprehensive or immune to being interpreted in different ways, it's the best we've got.
Gedrin 06-09-06, 03:10 PM	It is in human condition to act 100% selfishly to attain 'pleasure'. I don't necessarily imply 'pleasure' to mean sitting by the pool drinking a beer and eating cheetos. Pleasure, in the philosophical sense, is the root of EVERYTHING you do. Every single action you take is for the maximum amount of pleasure.I'm unsure that a soldier who does his duty and dies in a war he does not agree with is primarily motivated by his own personal pleasure. Same for a person who chooses a humble life of charitable work. I'm unsure that pleasure is a good word for those motivations, and it seems that pleasure is being defined as "whatever someone would choose to do". To me, it seems imprecise language. However, if one obtains pleasure from doing what is Good...that seems like a good thing to me. It may even be that obtaining pleasure from doing what is Good is a functional definition for being Good Aligned. This seems even more true if all our actions are determined by what gives us pleasure (I'm not saying I agree with that, just working within that frame). At that point one recieves pleasure and acts on that by adhering to Good. This seems to cover both motive and intent of actions, again providing that all actions are pleasure motivated and that the person derives pleasure from doing Good. Of course, that brings us back to "what is Good". Fortunately, we actually have a source of definition for our individual game worlds: With regards to alignments in a campaign setting, there is only one authority: the DM. They know the correct answers because their decisions on how to rule disputes is the correct answer... for their game.
Darkuwa 06-09-06, 05:15 PM	Your alignment is your predisposition toward doing one thing vs another. If you do the right thing 8/10 you have a good alignment if you do it 1/10 you have an evil alignment if you do it 5/10 your have a neutral alignment. If you do the wrong thing 10/10 but you always think that it was the right thing to do, due to misinformation, your still good. 1 act will never send you over the deep end unless its rediculously evil. Like if its 5 seconds till the BBEG's evil ritual is completed by slitting the virgins throat and you jump up and slit it before he can, to gain the power, then yah, imediate shift to evil. If you do it thinking that as long as she's dead the rest of the world is safe, then not, its an evil act, but its not going to change your alignment (would probly make a paladin fall, b/c there would obviously be other options.)
Sevil 06-09-06, 06:20 PM	I'm unsure that a soldier who does his duty and dies in a war he does not agree with is primarily motivated by his own personal pleasure. Same for a person who chooses a humble life of charitable work. I'm unsure that pleasure is a good word for those motivations, and it seems that pleasure is being defined as "whatever someone would choose to do". To me, it seems imprecise language. However, if one obtains pleasure from doing what is Good...that seems like a good thing to me. It may even be that obtaining pleasure from doing what is Good is a functional definition for being Good Aligned. This seems even more true if all our actions are determined by what gives us pleasure (I'm not saying I agree with that, just working within that frame). At that point one recieves pleasure and acts on that by adhering to Good. This seems to cover both motive and intent of actions, again providing that all actions are pleasure motivated and that the person derives pleasure from doing Good. Of course, that brings us back to "what is Good". Fortunately, we actually have a source of definition for our individual game worlds: I don't think you quite got the jist of my argument. Pleasure is not necessarily equated to 'happiness'. It is simply the root to all actions one can take. Let me take your examples: The soldier that dies in a war he does not believe in. The root: He made a decision to become a soldier. Whether to support a family, protect a nation, etc. his pleasure derived from this was GREATER than the knowledge that he MAY eventually have to fight in a war that he didn't agree with. He also has additional options. He could drop out of the military. However, sticking with the military was preferable (gave him more pleasure) than reaping the repercussions of dropping out (dishonorable discharge, etc) The man who chooses a life of humble charitable work. The root: The man derives MORE pleasure out of doing charitable work than say, not doing anything at all. You have to understand that when I say we, as human beings, are selfish creatures first and foremost. Even when doing 'unselfish' deeds, we are in fact still serving ourselves. The language is precise, it's just not your 'everyday' use of the terms. I know the word 'pleasure' is difficult to understand in a philosophical sense - but I believe it is more accurate than a previous poster's 'preference' argument. Also, if you, yourself as an individual, define certain actions as 'good', then they are. But you need to understand that it is self-referential. Just because YOU think it's good, somebody else may think opposite. Because the argument is circular, it proves there is no objectively 'good' or 'evil' in reality.
Wood 06-09-06, 08:11 PM	Because that is an ignorant, bigoted and one-sided way to look at the debate? hmm... Leaving aside that comment for just a moment, lets examine this "debate". The "debate" is supposedly directed to arguing the merits of an alignment system wherein good and evil represent the diametrically opposed ends of a behavioral spectrum. This spectrum, as it is defined within the confines of the idea of "alignment" as it pertains to the Dungeons&Dragons game, is supposedly the sum total of human action, ideas, capacity for imagination, and whatever else a human being (or whatever race a human being might be playing) is capable of. I consider arguing the merits of such a system something of a strange endeavour as one has no points of merit or validity from which to make assertions. Matters of "good" or "evil" are entirely subjective and determinable only on an individual level, and on an individual basis. For thousands of years the best and brightest minds that this planet has had to offer have wrestled with this concept of "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil". To date the best that our best have been able to rule on the matter is, "figure it out for yourselves." From the temple priests at Thebes to Heinrich von Nettesheim to Ayn Rand there has yet to be a person to tackle the Scales of Balance and come away with a reasonable definitive answer about what is right or wrong or good or bad or up or down or anything else. And I doubt the meaningless boring long-winded sermonizing of a handful of gamers will accomplish greatness where scholars have failed. And so, if that is my belief, and it is, why then would I want to waste my time in a futile endeavour? Why not just simplify the whole matter and make it easier on both myself and the players by making a very simple and accomodating ruling? Hence: Party=Good Monster=Bad So you guys wanna keep putting forth individual situations and individual conclusions about universal concepts you go right ahead. I'll sit here and watch. Who knows? Maybe you'll unravel the fabric of the universe, achieve enlightenment, enter nirvana, and order me a Big Mac. (thanks in advance, but super size it- with a coke.) but I wont hold my breath. oh and fah q wayne
grelna 06-09-06, 08:21 PM	I don't think you quite got the jist of my argument. Pleasure is not necessarily equated to 'happiness'. It is simply the root to all actions one can take. ... You have to understand that when I say we, as human beings, are selfish creatures first and foremost. Even when doing 'unselfish' deeds, we are in fact still serving ourselves. The language is precise, it's just not your 'everyday' use of the terms. I know the word 'pleasure' is difficult to understand in a philosophical sense - but I believe it is more accurate than a previous poster's 'preference' argument. Also, if you, yourself as an individual, define certain actions as 'good', then they are. But you need to understand that it is self-referential. Just because YOU think it's good, somebody else may think opposite. Because the argument is circular, it proves there is no objectively 'good' or 'evil' in reality. Objective good - objective evil, whoa. Here's a conversation that really could go on forever. Immanuel Kant made a very creditable attempt (in my opinion) at coming up with an objective definition of good, but even he failed. He based his entire logical argument on the premise that a logical person would wish to do what is right and could then deduce it from first principles. Even though I was attracted to his philosophy in college Ethics, I saw the problem with the first half of that premise instantly. A lot of people have no real interest in placing any restraints on their actions at all, and any restraints they do have are imposed by society and followed solely through fear of punishment or ostracism. But we're not discussing the real world here, where objective good and evil may or may not exist (subjectively, there is no doubt that they do). We're talking about D&D, where they most definitely do objectively exist. If you took that assumption out, it would be a completely different game. That doesn't mean that alignment questions are clear-cut and that answers are easy. It just means that, in D&D at least, there are answers. In answer to Pres_man, who responded to my earlier post In response to grelna story, I would just say this. The lack of a suicidal tendency does not indicate the lack of goodness. Good characters are suppose to respect life, including their own. Throwing one's life away for very little chance of doing good (which surviving this might be very little chance, but even if they survive they are still working in collusion with an evil mage, thus the chance of an eventual good outcome is extremely small) is hardly justified for many good characters. If one's death does not ensure the safety of innocents then the death may have been a waste.Of course there is nothing wrong with attempting to preserve your own life. No PC (except possibly a paladin) seeing an army of undead with a dracolich leader preparing to march on civilized lands is obligated to do anything about it. Fighting such a creature is incredibly dangerous. And if there is no chance of success whatsoever, then I would agree with you. It's just further waste of life. But if there is a chance, even a small chance, of success, what then? I might point out that that is exactly the situation in most epic fantasy, starting with LOTR. Boromir and Denethor were not evil men. They saw the unlikelihood of the ringbearers managing to complete their quest, and thought that it was a stupid waste of life that would probably benefit the Enemy. From their point of view, they were absolutely right, too. I would not say that any characters are evil who choose not to help others because it would place their own lives in jeopardy. I will say that characters who go into mortal peril thinking that there is a chance to help others by doing so are acting in a far more "good" fashion.
Herald@Large 06-09-06, 08:38 PM	Why not just simplify the whole matter and make it easier on both myself and the players by making a very simple and accomodating ruling? Hence: Party=Good Monster=Bad So you guys wanna keep putting forth individual situations and individual conclusions about universal concepts you go right ahead. I'll sit here and watch. Who knows? Maybe you'll unravel the fabric of the universe, achieve enlightenment, enter nirvana, and order me a Big Mac. (thanks in advance, but super size it- with a coke.) but I wont hold my breath. oh and fah q wayne Wood, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to either read or contribute to this thread. The rest of us are enjoying a stimulating intellectual exercise. So what if we don't solve the mysteries of the universe? It's like D&D itself: we're having fun doing this, why criticize our methods or means?
Wood 06-09-06, 08:54 PM	Herald you're just ****** because I made fun of you because you want to be a girl. for some reason. have you considered therapy? edit: and BTW, why would anyone outlaw catapults?
pres_man 06-09-06, 10:21 PM	I love how people make a closed definition and then ask you to prove it wrong. All choices by definition are caused by a seeking of pleasure. Don't agree, well guess what you are wrong because that is how I defined it. Nope, sorry I won't accept the normal definitions of what these words mean you have to use my definitions which prove I am right. You know I could set up a competing theory where all decisions are based on an attempt to avoid suffering. So when someone does something like say, doing the dishes, it is not because they find pleasure in it, though they may, it is because not doing the dishes is more suffering then doing them. "Ok, I'll do the dishes." "I don't want you to do the dishes, I want you to want to do the dishes!" "Why would I want to do the dishes?" Now prove my theory wrong, go ahead.
Sevil 06-09-06, 10:58 PM	I love how people make a closed definition and then ask you to prove it wrong. All choices by definition are caused by a seeking of pleasure. Don't agree, well guess what you are wrong because that is how I defined it. Nope, sorry I won't accept the normal definitions of what these words mean you have to use my definitions which prove I am right. You know I could set up a competing theory where all decisions are based on an attempt to avoid suffering. So when someone does something like say, doing the dishes, it is not because they find pleasure in it, though they may, it is because not doing the dishes is more suffering then doing them. "Ok, I'll do the dishes." "I don't want you to do the dishes, I want you to want to do the dishes!" "Why would I want to do the dishes?" Now prove my theory wrong, go ahead. Wow, I never intended to attack anybody - and I certainly am not implying that I have all the answers. Simply bringing argument to the table. Sorry I offended you by laying out what I think to be reason. Oh, and avoiding suffering IS pleasure you jack***.
Hodo 06-10-06, 02:23 AM	And so, if that is my belief, and it is, why then would I want to waste my time in a futile endeavour? Why not just simplify the whole matter and make it easier on both myself and the players by making a very simple and accomodating ruling? Hence: Party=Good Monster=Bad So you guys wanna keep putting forth individual situations and individual conclusions about universal concepts you go right ahead. I'll sit here and watch. Who knows? Maybe you'll unravel the fabric of the universe, achieve enlightenment, enter nirvana, and order me a Big Mac. (thanks in advance, but super size it- with a coke.) but I wont hold my breath. Not all of DnD worlds consist of just the Party and monsters, and their relationship is not always that simple. There are people living in the towns and cities. Some are good, some are neutral, some are evil. The stereotypical evil duke/wizard/assassin/traitor is not always a monster, but is still bad. Those who help, protect, guide, or assist the party are not always non-monsters (Unicrons, Good Dragons, Centaurs, etc) but are good or neutral and are not bad. The party=good, monster=bad concept can work for some games, but many popular works in the fantasy genere from which DnD draws inspiration, player expectations, and most established gaming worlds (including all of the official DnD ones) assume a more complex relationship that cannot reasonably coexist with the party=good, monster=bad concept. A discussion of alignment in DnD should NEVER be about interjecting real world concepts of what is considered "good" and "evil". To do so is to lose sight of what DnD alignment really is. The way to think of good and evil in DnD would be as if it were a computer game like Knights of the Old Republic , Jade Empire, or Fable. For the sake of those who have never heard of or are unfamiliar with these games.... In these games, one often comes to a situation in which an NPC adresses them, and they must select a response or action. Some responses will net you good alignment points. Others will net you evil ones. Some are neutral and net either. We may not always agree that the "good" dialogue choices in those games are truely good or that the "evil" dialogue choices in those games are trully evil within the context of reality, but most of us can figure out through what the game illustrates through examples and experience, what the game design considers a good or evil response. I don't think that my jedi asking for more money after a deal's been made makes him an evil guy or that denying rewards even when the other party insists makes him that good in reality, but the designers in Knights of the Old Republic think it makes your character evil/good if they do it in the game. Therefore, I know that, in the game, if I want to avoid evil and pursue goodness, I have to avoid pushing people to give me more money and deny rewards that come my way as much as possible. In Fable, killing my wife in one stroke earns me +15 evil points. However, hitting her once causes her to accuse me of being abusive and results in a divorce, netting me dozens of evil points. Does it mesh with how I view the relative evil of either act in reality? Nope. Is it the way it works in the game and is the rule the game was designed to operate under? Yep. One could argue that this game would be much better if they did away with alignment and just made all options neutral, made me good, and all potential enemies evil. While that would certainly simplify the game, I don't think that would necessarily make it any more fun. These games were actually quite popular, and I can tell you that it wasn't the major result of stellar gameplay or an exceptional/immersive combat system.
Gedrin 06-10-06, 07:05 AM	I don't think you quite got the jist of my argument. Pleasure is not necessarily equated to 'happiness'. It is simply the root to all actions one can take.No, I got what you said. I've just found that the term "pleasure" has been expanded to such a point that it is too broad. It almost is defined as "that which one would prefer". Pleasure has even been expanded to mean spiritual pleasures. I do understand that it is the term used, I just have never found it particularly precise. Let me take your examples:I'm willing to conceed that if you define "what someone chooses to do" as pleasurable, then any action a person takes can be determined to be done for pleasure. p. implies q. suppose p. therefore q. where p="A person does X" and q="X is pleasurable". I think you'll recognize the logical model. The language is precise, it's just not your 'everyday' use of the terms. I know the word 'pleasure' is difficult to understand in a philosophical sense - but I believe it is more accurate than a previous poster's 'preference' argument.No, I understand it in the philosophical sense. I just don't find it particularly useful a term. Also, if you, yourself as an individual, define certain actions as 'good', then they are. But you need to understand that it is self-referential. Just because YOU think it's good, somebody else may think opposite. Because the argument is circular, it proves there is no objectively 'good' or 'evil' in reality.This logic works perfectly, unless there really is an external Good such as a Platonic Form of Good or Natural Law. Then you can make whatever internal judgement you like, and you may or may not come close to the Ideal. Much like gravity, if there is an external Good phenomenon, our opinions or understanding of the phenomenon will do very little to change its existance. Of course, we aproach these issues from radically different foundations. Given that, and the extraordinarily slim possibility that you'll become a Locke or Aquainas fan, it's likely best we agree to disagree on the matter. Feel free to take the last on the matter.
DeathsAudit 06-10-06, 10:42 AM	A good person doesn't rape, ever, while evil have no problem with it and a neutral person can fall either way, depending on their leaning and the circumstances. Read the next few pages. (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2006-01-19) (Slightly mature not for kiddies) One could argue that this game would be much better if they did away with alignment and just made all options neutral, made me good, and all potential enemies evil. While that would certainly simplify the game, I don't think that would necessarily make it any more fun. These games were actually quite popular, and I can tell you that it wasn't the major result of stellar gameplay or an exceptional/immersive combat system. My view is alignments should be "opt in" not default.
Hodo 06-10-06, 12:37 PM	My view is alignments should be "opt in" not default. Many DMs do opt out of it, but it takes effort to rebalance classes, effects of spells, and take into account how it changes the dynamics of the world and interaction between PCs. The game was long ago designed with the concept of alignment already an integral part of it's mechanics. It's not just flavor. It's not the kind of thing that can be optionally taken out without larger changes without also altering classes, spells, and many other mechanics in the game. If it's any consolation, the alignment system is getting more flexible as it goes along. Used to be that the only alignments you had were lawful (which was the same as good), neutrality, and chaos (which was essentially evil).
pres_man 06-10-06, 01:05 PM	Wow, I never intended to attack anybody - and I certainly am not implying that I have all the answers. Simply bringing argument to the table. Sorry I offended you by laying out what I think to be reason. Oh, and avoiding suffering IS pleasure you jack***. Lol, it appears the only one that felt under attack was yourself. I challenged your idea, not you. On the other hand you are the one calling people names. Very mature. When someone has to fall to name calling, we have to wonder at the validity of their arguments. And no, avoiding suffering is not pleasure. Eating gruel so you do not starve to death does not mean you are taking pleasure in eating the gruel, it means you are avoiding the suffering of starving to death. Not killing people because you fear going to prison is defined by avoiding something, not seeking something, avoiding prison, not seeking to be free. I believe a much stronger argument can be made to avoiding suffering then for seeking pleasure. So if want to try to define "morality" by one or the other, making it based on avoiding suffering makes a lot more sense. Of course I believe both ideas are just bs, but that is besides the point. Back on topic, there is no reason that characters in a game might not know what are the absolute goods and evils. They can believe what they want and act accordingly, but that doesn't mean there are not absolutes and they may be wrong about them. Of course the players should be informed about them, but the characters may or may not know. For example, a character may believe that it is not evil to kill humanoid young of "monstrous" races (orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc). Now just because the character doesn't believe it is evil, does not mean it is not evil, and that the doing of such acts will move one's alignment towards evil.