Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LordChronos 03-25-07, 01:27 PM	Okay my problem is that I have no idea how to play a good alignment correctly and I need suggestions/role playing tips. I normally play evil and barely neutral(sp?) most of the time. And the few times ive played 'good' its just been a label while fighting another combat... Example: How do the good guys go about getting information from prisoners? Our last group just went about killing the enemies and asking the bodies/souls (most of us were necromancers of some sort) for the information we needed. And before that we usually just open with torture. I realize that these are not good acts, but how else will they answer questions? Thanks in advance
epifreak 03-25-07, 02:47 PM	Information out of prisoners? Depends. If the prisoners are (mostly) harmless mooks, you can offer them some form of mitigating effect on their inevitable sentencing if they tell you what they know. If you make it juicy enough, they'll probably tell you. If the prisoner you have is actually some un-redeemable being of absolute evil, there's nothing stopping you from just killing him/her and casting speak with dead. It's all a question of extent, unless you're a paladin, at which point I have no advice for you because I just can't bring my thought processes to the level of :censored: brainless.
Augurer 03-25-07, 03:00 PM	Good actions would just entail not harming the prisoner. Any form of trade for the information would be acceptable for a Good aligned character. If you're Lawful Good, aside from perhaps a plea bargain, I don't believe there are any options.
Prator_the_Legendary 03-25-07, 03:20 PM	If you're refusing to think about it, then sure it LOOKS like there's no options. But there's plenty of things paladins and good-aligned characters can do. Your best friend with interrogation is the diplomacy check and whatever circumstancial modifiers you can add to it. If your DM is liberal about alignments, you can use intimidate checks the same way, even if you ARE a paladin, so long as you don't actually DO any of the stuff you threaten. Possible Modifiers/interrogation tactics: 1. Offer a Plea Bargain 2. Offer total release 3. Make a seperate diplomacy check to try to convince him/her of the error of his/her ways and ask them to repent (It's worth a shot) first. 4. Bribe them with gold or items. Yes, paladins can do this too. Or at least they should... 5. Gently explain to them that all their allies are dead, their master is not in a position to help or harm them, and they have nothing to lose by squealing. 6. Charm them. 7. Dominate them. 8. Use suggestion on them. 9. Use brain-picking spells like detect thoughts and brain spider. 10. Tell them "If you don't talk, then I will have no choice but to resort to a course of action I'm sure I will regret later." (i.e. let them go). 11. Get them drunk. 12. Make them stand in a room that's full of their dead comrades. 13. Make whatever you're offering a "limited time" thing, so they think they must choose fast or possibly die. 14. Scare them with tales of what the Hells and Abyss are like. 15. Use truth serum. 16. And many more! Grey Area tactics: Threaten bodily harm or death, but don't actually do it.
Morits 03-25-07, 03:31 PM	Intimidate. The Rules specify that torture is evil, but put no alignment restrictions on Intimidate. Diplomacy and trickery "So you are the great hero? Who were the other five guys who helped you beat up that Hobbit?" "You *** liar! There was only me and Dave and it was a *** big hobbit! Oh ***."
LordChronos 03-25-07, 04:04 PM	Intimidate is what the warpriest usually uses. I had not thought of the pleabargin idea. I feel that the prisoner(s) will be a problem/threat later on if they are not dealt with right now. I also think of said warpriest as a rival and if I were playing an evil char would have taken him out (tried to at least) while we were fighting dopplegangers last time. At this point I think the char (ranger) will just leave the group since I cannot think of a good reason to 'deal' with him or to rival him. Im talking about on a combat basis for my rivalry, ie hes never gets hit, fights well, and has just the right tool/spell for every situation. He even has the enemies leaving combat with me to attack him, not even moving to flank him. Yes I know it is jealousy somewhat as a player, but what to do when you know the rival will be better than you?
Gedrin 03-25-07, 04:12 PM	If they've committed crimes for which the punishment is death...Speak With Dead works just fine.
Syn_Exelian 03-25-07, 05:07 PM	Just because a character is of the good alignment dosen't mean they can't seem evil when looking for info. Depending on the character's personality, they could easily be just fine with making some rather frightening threats, even though they have no intention of carrying them out. As for your rival issue, you could have your charcter just see him as an asset to your own. Having a powerful fighter on a team does make things occaisionally easier and can help your character reach their goals.
DarkRhystar 03-25-07, 06:04 PM	Okay my problem is that I have no idea how to play a good alignment correctly and I need suggestions/role playing tips. I normally play evil and barely neutral(sp?) most of the time. And the few times ive played 'good' its just been a label while fighting another combat... Sometimes you don't have options. Accept it. Sometimes good means taking the high road and it can be a lot harder than the alternative. Being a good character isn't easy, it's pretty darn challenging actually. You have morals. You have principles. You have a standard that says "X is wrong so I won't do it." Sometimes it won't be convenient, but that's the way it goes. Right now you're looking for a way to get the same results with a good character as with a Neutral or Evil character. In some cases you can get similar results (Prator made a semi-decent list above), but you can't always and probably shouldn't make a practice out of it. You're may always going to be saying "If I wasn't so morally bound I could..." and, while getting into this mindset is bad, many of the great conflicts with heroes (on TV and in comics) are when they know they have to take the hard way. The moral high ground is hard to hold. As a last resort... ask yourself "Would Batman do it?" or "Would Superman do it?" or "Would X do it?" where X is someone you respect as having a good alignment.
Prator_the_Legendary 03-25-07, 06:42 PM	Harrumph. Semi-decent? Just what, in your mind, qualifies for decency? You're right about the rest though, I'll give you that. Lord Chronos, I think you'll find the biggest difference about how you play your character is that you really have to think now about the ethics of what you're doing. You can't just pick whatever route seems to be the most effective without considerig the moral implications first.
Daydreamer 03-25-07, 06:53 PM	Read some novels from D&D, they will give u illustrations good alightned people of different stripes. The only thing i will say is that d&d is not quite the same as 'real life morality'. The bad guys tend to be much more clearly the bad guys, so its more like a comic book, or movies from back in the day. The action movies the hero will blast up the bad guys etc. NOw this varies from dm to dm of course, but the novels are good guides.
lancean 03-25-07, 07:52 PM	General rule of thumb... evil people think of themselves and their own needs first and foremost, while good people think of the needs of others (or the consequences on others) first. Good characters aren't going to interrogate someone real hard unless someone's life (or a village) depends on it. In that case, extreme measures might even be justified. Take a paladin, for example, trying to save a village from bandits. He's not going to accept the surrender of a murdering bandit without the condition that the bandit be truthful and comply with his capture. That said, the party has a prisoner now. When they interrogate him and he refuses to tell them where the bandit camp is, the paladin could insist that the man remain manacled in his underwear in the cold and not fed or given water until he complies with the agreed terms of the surrender. The paladin would use his Lay on Hands to keep the man alive, and would give him clothing and food once he did spill the beans. It's not torture if the rules are fair, if the rules don't change, and if the prisoner follows the rules. It _IS_ torture to "soften him up first" without asking any questions or to keep him suffering after he has complied with everything. In any case, a good party can't just kill or discard a captive who has lived out his usefulness. The paladin's group could, after battling the bandits and killing or routing them, give the captive the option of returning with them to local authorities, or just let him go without weapons and armor with the understanding that they will consider him an enemy the next time they meet.
DarkNick 03-25-07, 08:19 PM	I say forget about being 'correct'. I mean how does one be a good person? Personally I think torture in some circumstances might not be considered evil by one good person while another will find it totally unacceptable. Some good people would execute prisoners of war, others won't. As for your prisoner problem, take no prisoners. That should fix it. Or you could use your skills - diplomacy, intimidation, bluff, sense motive.
DarkRhystar 03-25-07, 10:41 PM	Harrumph. Semi-decent? Just what, in your mind, qualifies for decency? Very little when it comes to alignment. It's a very gray and ambiguous area for many folks and some of what you mentioned crosses boundaries with some DMs but not with others. What you or I consider within alignment boundaries may not be such with the OP's DM. Sorry if it came off harshly, but the OP should run the list by his DM to get a feel for where the DM sets alignment boundaries. :)
calronmoonflower 03-25-07, 10:49 PM	It's not torture if the rules are fair, if the rules don't change, and if the prisoner follows the rules. It _IS_ torture to "soften him up first" without asking any questions or to keep him suffering after he has complied with everything. If it deals damage to the prisoner then it is torture. In the real world you could get away with it, but in D&D good and evil are supposed to be absolute. Also in D&D you have alternatives. using magic to force information out of someone is perfectly reasonable and should be tried before physical harm.
Daydreamer 03-25-07, 10:55 PM	You have to be careful to avoid arguiging real world moral standards when discussing this issue. At best real life morality serves as a lose interpretative basis for whats good or not in d&d.
Callista 03-26-07, 12:03 AM	Most Good-aligned characters are OK with mind-reading and mind-control spells, so long as they are not cruel in some other way. However, it's definitely an intrusion on privacy; so most Good characters will offer the man a chance (under Zone of Truth) to spill the beans before someone has to probe his brain. Some Chaotic Good characters would hate to use mind-reading because it infringes on privacy (though many CGs would probably say, "Hey, he brought it on himself when he decided to hire on with the BBEG"). All in all, Good characters care about other people; many actively seek to convert those who are Neutral or Evil, if they can be redeemed. Basically, a Good character is just a nice person, all around (though some of them have gruff exteriors, bad pasts, a lot of cynicism, or character flaws). Good need not be Honorable. A Good thief--Robin Hood comes to mind--will use trickery and stealth; he probably doesn't care one whit about the law. Yet what he does, he does for others. A Good character can be flawed. Greed, pride, alcoholism, anger problems... You can be good and have all those and more. But the difference between somebody who's Good and somebody who's Neutral and has those flaws is that the Good guy will, once he understands that his fault has hurt someone else, be at the very least conscience-stricken and at the most desperate to repair his error and change himself. Whether he succeeds is another matter. Good-aligned guys in battle are very much like any other alignment. The only bar on what they do is that they wouldn't use methods which are deliberately and extremely painful. A sword cut, a fireball, or a paralyzing toxin--no picnic, sure, but they're there to put the enemy down, not to torture him. A poison deliberately concocted to cause pain, a spell designed to cause disabling agony, or the deliberate prolongation of battle by "toying with" an opponent--these are all tactics a Good character would rarely, if ever, use. It simply isn't in his nature to do such things. The thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of Good characters don't see "Good" as a restriction on their behavior. It's simply their personality. Yes, they can't torture Joe Guard if they want to stay Good; but such an act would be revolting to them. They don't WANT to do Evil things; their thought patterns just don't work that way. Your Good character may commit an Evil act--and, yes, most of them eventually do; temptations for an adventurer are pretty high, and sometimes there's even a no-win scenario the character can't weasel out of on time. So is that the time to say, "Oh, well--I've messed up now. I'll just commence to kicking puppies"? Nope. Your character's personality is much the same now as before the Evil act; and that means he still wants to do Good. (His actual alignment could slip to Neutral, but personality is always more important than alignment, and his thinking processes don't change that much from a single act; so a Good character who slips to Neutral through a single truly vile act is often horrified at himself and wants to atone. A series of acts is another matter--each gets him a little less disgusted with the idea of evil, a little more willing to compromise. If you find your character is going through a change of this sort, you should change his alignment to match.) A character with a Good-aligned personality will probably want to atone after having done something against his code of ethics--usually something that has hurt somebody else. I don't mean the Atonement spell (though that could come into it, if your character's a cleric or paladin). By "atonement", I mean making up for what he's done: setting it right. Let's say a NG Fighter who is prone to anger gets into a tavern brawl--Good fun, until somebody tips over a lantern and the inn goes up in flames. Mr. Fighter has just made a mistake (not an evil act, just a mistake) which can now result in hurt to other people. So, if he's thinking straight, he makes sure everyone's out of the inn and helps put out the fire. If he's not thinking straight (booze can do that to you), he may have to be dragged out himself, after which he pays for Cure spells for scorched patrons (or the funerals of fully barbecued ones) and a new inn. Because he's flawed, he's made a mistake. But because he's Good, he wants to make up for what he did. And chances are that he will, in the future, attempt to curb his anger... though he can be unsuccessful, if you wish him to remain short-fused. So yeah... playing Good characters: Treat others like you'd want to be treated. Fight evil, have your own style, don't worry about being perfect. Just have a strong conscience and a desire to help others.
Tzor 03-26-07, 11:44 AM	Example: How do the good guys go about getting information from prisoners? I suppose the simple answer would be "in a 'good' manner." Actually there are far more nastier things in the rules as written than torture. Diplomacy doesn't get a save. Make them your best friends and they will tell you everything. :angel: This begs the question. Generally speaking no villian worth his salt will give more information to his hirelings than is absolutely necessary. Most of the information low level lackey will have will probably be false red herrings. Good people are nortorious for telling their underlings the truth, but not evil.
Thangodin 03-26-07, 11:23 PM	Sense Motive, with careful cross questioning. This is the way that real interrogators do it. Torture is actually an unreliable means of gaining information, because the subject will tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear. The trick is to get him talking, approach what you want to know in an oblique manner, let on that you already know something about what you're asking about, and offer clemency if he cooperates. Sleep deprivation and high sugar foods will also help, because he'll crash and become exhausted. Of course, you may need to instruct your DM about this. But this is how interrogators in law enforcement and in the military do it. Torture isn't just wrong, it's incompetent.
navar100 03-26-07, 11:28 PM	Paladins don't threaten. They make promises, and paladins always keep their promises. :)
kelvinaw273 03-27-07, 12:18 PM	Being Good aligned is generally harder work and entails bigger risks than being evil-aligned, but it can very often be worthwhile in the long run. To interrogate prisoners, you need make use of Gather Information and Snese Motive (to pick up what you can from what they say and don't say), and also Bluff (to make them think you know more than you do, or that you are not really that nice) and Intimidate (Intimidate is not just about immediate threats, you can put in threats about what the judicial system might do to them). Spells and similar are also useful, for obvious reasons. Some of the suggestions here - don't take prisoners, execute them etc. are a shortcut to having an evil alignment. While you shouldn't confuse game morality with real world morality, neither should you use it as an excuse to treat Good and Evil as a hat-change. Good is characterised by compassion, by placing a value on life and quality of life for everyone. Put simply, would you risk your life for someone if there was nothing for you to gain by doing so: Good = Yes. Neutral = If they are someone I care about. Evil = No. Would you cause grevious harm to another solely for personal gain? Good = No. Neutral = Only if they are someone I really don't like. Evil = Yes.
BW0222 03-27-07, 01:57 PM	navar100, Paladins don't threaten. They make promises, and paladins always keep their promises. Paladins can most certainly threaten people. "Look... as you know, the penalty for murder of merchants out here is death. Now, you know we can just hang you here or take you back to town and they'll hang you. Of course, if you let us know where you got those weapons from, we would be more likely to drag you back to town and we could then let the sherrif know that you at least helped us. You might only get jail, a decade in the salt mines or something." or "Kid. I would be most appreciative if you were to take that pouch hidden under your cloak back to the lady you just pickpocketted. You might also volunteer to white wash her house, chop her wood, clean her carpets and anything else she might like you to do for her for the next month. Alternatively, we can walk over to the guard post where you will be arrested, convicted, and most likely have your hand cut off. You might also try running, but then again I'd have to put an arrow through your back." A threat can still be the truth.
navar100 03-27-07, 11:33 PM	You missed the joke. Threaten. Promise. Same difference.
Nephlite 03-28-07, 09:17 AM	Put simply, would you risk your life for someone if there was nothing for you to gain by doing so: Good = Yes. Neutral = If they are someone I care about. Evil = No. This is erronous. Good=Yes Evil and Neutral=If they are someone I care about. Both are the same.
Prator_the_Legendary 03-28-07, 11:29 AM	This is erronous. Good=Yes Evil and Neutral=If they are someone I care about. The assumption here is that evil people really care about other people. They don't, generally, at least in D&D games I've played.
Augurer 03-28-07, 11:42 AM	The assumption here is that evil people really care about other people. They don't, generally, at least in D&D games I've played. Chaotic Evil people might not. Lawful and Neutral Evil people quite likely do. They care about other people in-so-far as those other people further their own desires.
kelvinaw273 03-28-07, 02:20 PM	Chaotic Evil people might not. Lawful and Neutral Evil people quite likely do. They care about other people in-so-far as those other people further their own desires. That comes under the "Self Interest" catagory and doesn't count because the question states: would you risk your life for someone if there was nothing for you to gain by doing so? A lawful evil person might 'care' about someone placed in his care, but it is actually his honour and ego he cares about - it would look bad on him if he allowed harm to come to them, so it is self-interest again. That is what evil is, ultimately - self interest over all else.
Augurer 03-28-07, 03:06 PM	A lawful evil person might 'care' about someone placed in his care, but it is actually his honour and ego he cares about - it would look bad on him if he allowed harm to come to them, so it is self-interest again. That is what evil is, ultimately - self interest over all else. I'm not quite sure what your point here is. The Lawful Evil person you are discussing could, in fact, risk his life to protect his charge. You're just playing with semantics about who he really cares about that justify his reasons for doing so. The Neutral person isn't going to risk his life with nothing to gain from it. If he loves the person in danger, he either has something to gain from it, or is sparing himself the pain of loss. It simply isn't possible to have a personal relationship with someone and not having something to gain or [more likely] lose through their death. Either way, the character's desires are what actually drive their action. AKA self interest. Self interest is not Evil by D&D terms. Destruction or debasement of innocent life for fun or profit (arguably a form of self interest, depending upon long-term vs. short-term outlook) is the RAW definition of Evil. Self interest on its own, no.
Tonio 03-28-07, 03:26 PM	Self interest is not Evil by D&D terms. Destruction or debasement of innocent life for fun or profit (arguably a form of self interest, depending upon how long-term your outlook is) is the RAW definition of Evil. Self interest on its own, no. If this is true, then it has changed. I remember a time when "Evil" as a character alignment was defined precisely by self interest above public interest.
Augurer 03-28-07, 03:28 PM	If this is true, then it has changed. I remember a time when "Evil" as a character alignment was defined precisely by self interest above public interest. Using the definition you remember, anyone who's not an altruist is Evil? I only have the PHB 3.5 and the d20 SRD to consult, but the definition given therein is: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Tonio 03-28-07, 03:45 PM	Using the definition you remember, anyone who's not an altruist is Evil? No, not quite... it was about placing self-interest high enough above public interest so as to become a problem for those around you. You can be a non-altruist, yet respect public interest enough not to be willing to damage it in order to further your own self interest. I always thought the definition was too limiting, although I always agreed it should generally be part of evilness vs. goodness. Exceptions could definitely exist... the guy who's evil only because his beliefs are different and include wanton murder and destruction (but he's still doing it "for the right reasons" and "for the public good", in his head).
Augurer 03-28-07, 03:57 PM	No, not quite... it was about placing self-interest high enough above public interest so as to become a problem for those around you. You can be a non-altruist, yet respect public interest enough not to be willing to damage it in order to further your own self interest. Isn't that "debasement" of the "innocent"? Seems like your definition of Evil falls within the PHB's, mostly. There's still the corner cases when "self-interest" isn't fun or profit, but perhaps one's life. Is it Evil with a capital E to debase an innocent life to save your own? I personally think this example is a good demonstration of a Neutral action, but is placing one's self-interest above the "public".
Tonio 03-28-07, 04:03 PM	So, say, dumping toxic waste into the environment is Evil with a capital E? Certainly. Importing workers from another region who will work for lower wages is Evil with a capital E? What if it improved the worker's lot in life over where they came from? If you're only doing it to save on costs, and are treating them fairly, it'd be neutral at worst, unless there's currently an economic crisis in your country (which would be unlikely, since then you'd be able to pay less by hiring locally). If you're mistreating them, paying them much less than they're worth, it'd be evil. If you improved their lot significantly, it'd probably be good. "Public interest" doesn't mean "local public interest", but rather "the wellbeing of others". Or at least that's what I meant by it.
Augurer 03-28-07, 04:10 PM	Certainly. If you're only doing it to save on costs, and are treating them fairly, it'd be neutral at worst, unless there's currently an economic crisis in your country (which would be unlikely, since then you'd be able to pay less by hiring locally). If you're mistreating them, paying them much less than they're worth, it'd be evil. If you improved their lot significantly, it'd probably be good. "Public interest" doesn't mean "local public interest", but rather "the wellbeing of others". Or at least that's what I meant by it. Sorry, I removed my examples because, in restrospect, they were pretty terrible :) I altered my post taking a different tact.
Tonio 03-28-07, 04:36 PM	Isn't that "debasement" of the "innocent"? Seems like your definition of Evil falls within the PHB's, mostly. There's still the corner cases when "self-interest" isn't fun or profit, but perhaps one's life. Is it Evil with a capital E to debase an innocent life to save your own? I personally think this example is a good demonstration of a Neutral action, but is placing one's self-interest above the "public". Isn't what, exactly, debasement of the innocent? And yes, it's evil to debase an innocent life to save one's own. It doesn't MAKE you evil, but it's an evil act. Not terribly evil, I suppose, but certainly in the domain of evil.
Augurer 03-28-07, 05:06 PM	Isn't what, exactly, debasement of the innocent? To not respect public interest such that you are willing to damage it in order to further your own self interest. I just reversed your statement: respect public interest enough not to be willing to damage it in order to further your own self interest And yes, it's evil to debase an innocent life to save one's own. It doesn't MAKE you evil, but it's an evil act. Not terribly evil, I suppose, but certainly in the domain of evil. So you're just replacing the qualifying words "fun or profit" with "self-interest", or using a very liberal definition of "profit". I don't particularly agree, but its within a DM's right, as long as he makes it known at the outset.
SilverFoxKnows 03-28-07, 05:16 PM	I'm playing a CG Dwarven Barbarian right now. A few games back we ended up with a Drow tied to a chair. The Drow wasn't our real enemy, it was the folks the Drow was fighting and he knew more about them than we did. The CN Fighter socked him in the back of the head, to get his attention. I threatened to break his fingers but it was a hollow threat. In the end I cut one leg loose after he told us something. I cut the other leg loose when he told us a little more. Eventually I cut him loose. Torture wasn't going to make him talk. Nothing we could do to him was as bad as what his own people would do to him if he failed. It hasn't come back to bite us in the behind yet but I expect it will. I hated to do it but he was the lesser of two evils and I really don't know if we'll live long enough to worry about the Drow.
Tonio 03-28-07, 05:40 PM	To not respect public interest such that you are willing to damage it in order to further your own self interest. Oh. Well, it CAN be, but it doesn't have to be. The other party need not be innocent in order to qualify as "public". I don't particularly agree, but its within a DM's right, as long as he makes it known at the outset. Well, the reason I believe it'd be evil is that first, you're immediately assigning more value to your own life over someone else's, and second, and more importantly, you're harming an innocent, which almost by definition you're supposed to defend, if you're good. Again, depending on the circumstances, it might not be a terribly evil act, not even enough to warrant an "alignment shift warning". For example, you're battling the BBEG, and the only way to defeat him at this point would be a fireball that would also kill a peasant. Certainly justifiable, although someone with a paladin's code would probably avoid it. On the other hand, if you're being chased by a dragon, and you grab the nearest innocent halfling and chuck it at the dragon to slow him down and save your life... that'd be evil, I'm pretty sure.
Augurer 03-28-07, 06:26 PM	Oh. Well, it CAN be, but it doesn't have to be. The other party need not be innocent in order to qualify as "public". By RAW, the party the debasement is performed upon must be innocent for it to be Evil. What definition you use for innocent is left vague. There exist definitions of innocent which could include the public at large. Well, the reason I believe it'd be evil is that first, you're immediately assigning more value to your own life over someone else's, and second, and more importantly, you're harming an innocent, which almost by definition you're supposed to defend, if you're good. I purposely said debasement, which I don't believe includes killing. I'm definitely torn in regards to killing, but I'm not 100% convinced I'd say its Evil with a capital E, especially not in a game like D&D. Again, depending on the circumstances, it might not be a terribly evil act, not even enough to warrant an "alignment shift warning". For example, you're battling the BBEG, and the only way to defeat him at this point would be a fireball that would also kill a peasant. Certainly justifiable, although someone with a paladin's code would probably avoid it. Unless the BBEG was going to kill you with a certainty in this instance, you aren't really sacrificing another's life for your own. The act you've described is clearly Evil, in my opinion, as you don't need to kill the BBEG right now. On the other hand, if you're being chased by a dragon, and you grab the nearest innocent halfling and chuck it at the dragon to slow him down and save your life... that'd be evil, I'm pretty sure. This is what I'm talking about, an act where you have but two choices: die, or sacrifice some innocent to live. I don't think that'd be Evil. The only difference between this and the above scenario, is here your death is assured, and above it doesn't seem to be.
Tonio 03-28-07, 07:02 PM	By RAW, the party the debasement is performed upon must be innocent for it to be Evil. What definition you use for innocent is left vague. There exist definitions of innocent which could include the public at large. I think you may have misunderstood my comment. What I meant was that by "public" I might be including people who are not "innocent". I merely mean "others", as in "not me". I purposely said debasement, which I don't believe includes killing. I'm definitely torn in regards to killing, but I'm not 100% convinced I'd say its Evil with a capital E, especially not in a game like D&D. Ah, ok. I understand now. At least, I think. You say debasement of the innocent IS evil, but you're torn as to killing? Unless the BBEG was going to kill you with a certainty in this instance, you aren't really sacrificing another's life for your own. The act you've described is clearly Evil, in my opinion, as you don't need to kill the BBEG right now. I meant to say it was a kill-or-be-killed situation: either you kill the BBEG, and the peasant, too, or the BBEG kills you (and goes on terrorizing the peasants). I hafta admit I left some stuff out, unintentionally. This is what I'm talking about, an act where you have but two choices: die, or sacrifice some innocent to live. I don't think that'd be Evil. The only difference between this and the above scenario, is here your death is assured, and above it doesn't seem to be. I can see how you could argue it's not evil, since it describes "survival of the fittest", an instinct, which, scientifically speaking, is non-evil, neutral at worst, possibly good, since it helps the species as a whole. On the other hand, in D&D, while intent DOES go a long way, intent-less actions DO have alignment. A Paladin who kills an innocent while under an illusion that makes him seem a fiend would have to atone in order to stay a paladin; even though his intention was good (to slay a fiend), his actions were evil (killing an innocent). I believe in D&D killing an innocent to save your life is an evil act (again, not an act that makes you evil, just an evil act). It is characteristic of evil characters, certainly. Neutral characters might do it, but would feel bad about it (or would feel the same as they'd feel by sacrificing their life to save an innocent). Good characters would only do it if by doing it, a greater good would be served (the peasant, if saved, would only go on farming and living his normal life, while I, if saved, would keep on fighting evil... in this case it'd be the lesser of two evils, or more correctly, a justifiable evil). By the way, I would really rather not beat a dead horse... if you feel either you or I haven't added any new ideas to the argument for a couple of posts, let me know, I'll quit. =)
Stormbrand 03-28-07, 07:20 PM	This is erronous. Good=Yes Evil and Neutral=If they are someone I care about. Both are the same. General assumption is that the Evil mindset does not care about others on a personal level. That comes under the "Self Interest" catagory and doesn't count because the question states: A lawful evil person might 'care' about someone placed in his care, but it is actually his honour and ego he cares about - it would look bad on him if he allowed harm to come to them, so it is self-interest again. That is what evil is, ultimately - self interest over all else. Exactly. The assumption is that 'caring about' someone in the context of an evil character means some form of personal benefit. Taking a risk for someone with no other reason than concern for their welfare is beyond an Evil person - saving someone would be serving their own interests, nothing else. I'm not quite sure what your point here is. The Lawful Evil person you are discussing could, in fact, risk his life to protect his charge. You're just playing with semantics about who he really cares about that justify his reasons for doing so. The Neutral person isn't going to risk his life with nothing to gain from it. If he loves the person in danger, he either has something to gain from it, or is sparing himself the pain of loss. It simply isn't possible to have a personal relationship with someone and not having something to gain or [more likely] lose through their death. Either way, the character's desires are what actually drive their action. AKA self interest. That emotional connection is not enough reason for the Evil mind to accept risk to protect someone. We are kind of derailing the thread. Lets get back to what GOOD does.
Augurer 03-28-07, 08:55 PM	Ah, ok. I understand now. At least, I think. You say debasement of the innocent IS evil, but you're torn as to killing? Debasement for fun or profit is Evil. Debasement for survival, or other self interests, isn't. Killing for self survival might be... that's what I'm torn on. We are kind of derailing the thread. Lets get back to what GOOD does. Good protects the innocents. At the very worst, it avoids destroying or debasing innocents. Defining what Good does is really pretty easy. Defining where Evil begins is the harder point, in my opinion. If we define where Evil begins, we know to what extent Good can go to.
Prator_the_Legendary 03-28-07, 09:46 PM	If we define where Evil begins, we know to what extent Good can go to. *Sigh*...All of you are so smart, yet you fail to grasp that IT'S OPEN TO OPINION. Your opinions, the players' opinions, and the DM's opinion especially define what is right and wrong. It's a matter of individual choices: No one can just say out of the blue that the ethical grey area is split exactly THERE, and have that standard forced on everyone. The original point of this thread was just to give the nongood player some good ideas on how to work through his problems. Therefore, it should be up to that player, and that player alone, without our advice, to decide whether what suggestions we give him fit his personal conception of "good." Also, I am REALLY tired of every thread that relates to alignments in any way turning into a debate on ethical abstracts that can only be proven by other abstracts which are themselves unprovable. On an unrelated note, I quit my debate team in high school over stuff like this...
Tonio 03-29-07, 01:56 AM	*Sigh*...All of you are so smart, yet you fail to grasp that IT'S OPEN TO OPINION. Your opinions, the players' opinions, and the DM's opinion especially define what is right and wrong. It's a matter of individual choices: No one can just say out of the blue that the ethical grey area is split exactly THERE, and have that standard forced on everyone. The original point of this thread was just to give the nongood player some good ideas on how to work through his problems. Therefore, it should be up to that player, and that player alone, without our advice, to decide whether what suggestions we give him fit his personal conception of "good." Also, I am REALLY tired of every thread that relates to alignments in any way turning into a debate on ethical abstracts that can only be proven by other abstracts which are themselves unprovable. If we were fighting over who's right and who's wrong, maybe you'd have a point. But we're arguing (not fighting), we're expressing our opinions and defending them. Why? Well, partly 'cuz arguing can be fun, partly out of a desire to convince others, partly out of a desire to see things done right (yes, to my opinion). But as far as I can tell nobody's gotten uncivil here, nobody's attacking anybody, we're just arguing our points like civilized people. Nothing wrong with that. :) On an unrelated note, I quit my debate team in high school over stuff like this... Totally understandable... you don't like debating/arguing, apparently. Nothing wrong with that, either. :)
kelvinaw273 03-29-07, 04:41 AM	I'm not quite sure what your point here is. The Lawful Evil person you are discussing could, in fact, risk his life to protect his charge. You're just playing with semantics about who he really cares about that justify his reasons for doing so. The Neutral person isn't going to risk his life with nothing to gain from it. If he loves the person in danger, he either has something to gain from it, or is sparing himself the pain of loss. It simply isn't possible to have a personal relationship with someone and not having something to gain or [more likely] lose through their death. Either way, the character's desires are what actually drive their action. AKA self interest. Self interest is not Evil by D&D terms. Destruction or debasement of innocent life for fun or profit (arguably a form of self interest, depending upon long-term vs. short-term outlook) is the RAW definition of Evil. Self interest on its own, no. Wrong. The reasons why somebody does something are almost important as the actions they themselves take. An Evil person can do the "right" thing that preverse the greater good for the worst of all reasons; that does not make him Good. Evil is precisely defined by placing self-interest above all else. Note the bold: the evil person thinks of himself first and foremost. It is usually justified through: "He offended me" "they made me do it" "I had no choice" "I deserve it" and so on. Evil people usually see themselves as either having "Enlightened Self-Interest" or else "It's my Right". This is why ultimately evil always acts evil: they always end up killing, stealing, and engaging in acts of torture or other heinous deeds, because they believe that their desires are of ultimate importance. Neutral is not the same. The neutral person is not motivated solely by self-interest; he is also motivated by ethics and morals. However, unlike the Good person he is altruistic to people he sees as important to him. Why they are important is not self-interest (you should write a BBEG speach on the subject, you argue very well on the "No one is Good, everyone is really evil at heart" theme, by the way) in every case. No matter how upset you can be over the death of a loved one, it is not "self interest" to risk or even sacrifice yourself for them, which neutral people can and will do. The big difference is that a Neutral person won't do so for a stranger, but a Good person will. A neutral person balances self-interest against the needs of those around them. A Good person always puts the good of others high on their agenda. They don't always put others first, but they do give as much attention to those they do not know as to those they do. You are correct in that self-interest is not evil. You are incorrect in that self-interest is evil on its own when pursued obsessively. Self-interest is evil when you place it above all else. There are many forms of self-interest, however, some more obvious than others. Pride is a form of self-interest, wherein you place your pride and self-image above all other interests: Pride is one source of a Paladin's fall, as he places his 'honour' before the rights and needs of others. Pride can also motivate evil people to do good deeds: the Lawful Evil despot may torture to death a peasent for letting their shadow fall on his horse, but then defend his people savagely against an invader. Greed is a common form of self-interest among adventurers - I have often seen "neutral" parties who robbed, murdered and pillaged their way across campaigns on the claim that "We're not evil, just self-interested". Again, greed can be a good motivator to do good deeds if someone is paying you to. Yes, Good is altruistism in one form or another. This does not always mean giving money away (that's philanthropy), it means acting in the benefit of others and refraining from actions which would harm others. If you are not altruistic in some form or another, by definition you are not Good.
Augurer 03-29-07, 10:05 AM	Evil is precisely defined by placing self-interest above all else. Where is this definition? I just want to clear up that we're talking about D&D alignment specifically. If you can't quote a source book for this definition, it isn't true in D&D. Neutral is not the same. The neutral person is not motivated solely by self-interest; he is also motivated by ethics and morals. Ethics and morals can be defined by self-interest. Such people are not necessarily Evil. They might even be Good. Self-interest covers a lot of ground, especially when viewed over a long period of time. However, unlike the Good person he is altruistic to people he sees as important to him. Why they are important is not self-interest (you should write a BBEG speach on the subject, you argue very well on the "No one is Good, everyone is really evil at heart" theme, by the way) in every case. No matter how upset you can be over the death of a loved one, it is not "self interest" to risk or even sacrifice yourself for them, which neutral people can and will do. We seem unable to agree on what self-interest covers. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I believe self-interest covers every aspect that is of interest to one's self. This includes emotions, social status, economic status, power... everything. An Evil BBEG might use the theory of self-interest to justify his actions, but it'd almost certainly require using a very short term application of self-interest. The big difference is that a Neutral person won't do so for a stranger, but a Good person will. A neutral person balances self-interest against the needs of those around them. A Neutral person very well might. If the Neutral person believes the stranger he could save might provide him something he wants, and that thing might be of greater value than the risk taken, they'll do it. An Evil person might do it, too. In either case, the decision could be based entirely upon self-interest. A Good person always puts the good of others high on their agenda. They don't always put others first, but they do give as much attention to those they do not know as to those they do. I agree with everything you state here. I think the designers/developers avoided the word self-interest because of its wide application/scope. It is arguable that Good people act the way they do out of self-interest. Take a look at Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy. It is built entirely upon self-interest as a way to define ethical and moral principles. I don't think Ayn Rand's philosophy is Evil in D&D. I certainly recognize that opinion exists outside of D&D.
kelvinaw273 03-29-07, 01:19 PM	But that's enough about Evil. We are meant to be saying what GOOD is. Good is basically showing altruism, compassion, mercy and love. A Good person does not have to be nice, but they have to hold the needs of others above their own, sometimes. The man who jumps in the lake to save a stranger and then berates them about their foolishness is still perfomring a good act. Good people refrain from killing if the do not have to. They don't torture others, and they don't hurt people needlessly. A good question is to why Good characters behave this way. Some do so from a set of carefully considered ethics, others because they just don't like to see others suffer. Can good people be vindictive, greedy, and violent? Yes. But these features do not dominate them - they know when to stop.