Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 blueflames Dec 22, 2004 21:34:40	In my short time being registered in these forums, I've found myself playing devil's advocate in two debates about evil adventurers and arguably evil actions. Over the years I've played D&D, alignment is something that has always taken my interest, particularly what subtle behaviors fall under which alignment and how the various alignments can conflict or get along in unexpected ways. The result is that I often find the boundaries between alignments to be somewhat foggy, but more importantly, I know that characters of radically different alignments are not necessarily incompatible in a party. My observation is that people quite often fail to understand the 'evil' end of the morality axis. Many DMs simply ban characters of evil alignment, presuming that those characters will be hell-bent to destroy the party and anything else they lay their eyes on. This is a myth that is, unfortunately, perpetuated by the 3.5 Player's Handbook's terrible description of the morality alignment axis that focuses almost entirely on preservation versus destruction of life. In the absence of law (since I'm currently discussing good versus evil), the first question on my mind when I first meet someone is not likely to be, "Should I be killing this person?" Since I consider myself a borderline evil person, according to the 3.5 PHB, that should be the first question on my mind, and the answer should almost always be, "Yes," but neither is the case. Instead, I find myself wondering how I can best exploit those that I meet. What can I get out of a person by being acquainted with them and how can I most quickly and effectively get it? You may be familiar with the term, "enlightened self-interest." For a truly evil character, self-interest (enlightenment is less a function of alignment than stats) is the true guiding force behind their actions, not homicidal instinct. Speaking in general terms, the best way to get some person or group to work for you, possibly without realizing it, is to be "nice" to them. Hey, that is how Stewie finally got his Plutonium in the Family Guy Christmas special, after all. In contrast, you get very little out of killing a person. Sure, you might quench some sadistic thirst for blood, if only temporarily, but in most cases, the overall benefit is minimal at best. At worst, it turns others against you, and people working against your interests is exactly the opposite effect of what an evil character tends to seek. If murder is such a poor example of evil behavior, what are good examples? To list a few broad categories, unrepentant greed, slanderous politicking, and gross ignorance of the needs of others. An evil character has a sort of social tunnel-vision, where he/she is only really aware of the needs of himself and perhaps a few allies (who are likely only kept around because it benefits the evil character). The more evil the person is, the narrower this tunnel-vision becomes to a point where he/she will only help someone if benefits are guaranteed in the foreseeable future. To be much more specific, let's take the example of the "Teach/give a man a fish" adage. A man near starvation is sitting in a boat with a fishing rod, but does not know how to maneuver the boat or effectively catch any fish. He calls upon any being that may be passing to help him, and an Abishai (a lesser Baatezu and thus extremely Lawful Evil), sensing opportunity pops out of the Nine Hells to lend a helping hand. The Abishai brings with him a contract, naturally, and has the starving man read and sign it before assisting. The terms of the contract? The Abishai will provide a fish for the man to eat so that he won't starve on the spot and then teach him how to fish. In exchange, the man owes the Abishai his soul, and should he ever turn his fishing skill into a business, he will owe the Abishai a royalty totaling a large portion of his gross profits. The thought of killing the starving man never even crosses the Abishai's mind, as there are greater benefits to letting him live. The fiend might not go out of his way to save the man a second time, but the circumstance and potential benefits would be the determining factors. All-in-all, saying that an evil character is destructive and homicidal is over-simplifying the nature of evil. The law-chaos axis of the alignment scale seems to have the opposite problem of the evil end of the good-evil axis. It seems to be described fairly well in the 3.5 PHB, but people simply ignore the description. Certainly the law-chaos axis does directly relate to laws established by various governing bodies in obvious ways, but there are also more subtle aspects of a character's personality that this alignment axis affects. "'Law' implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience, and reliability. ... 'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" (3.5 PHB, 104). Note that the emphasis here is not on laws laid down by nobles and legislative bodies, but on behavioral descriptors. The practical consequences of these descriptors that the 3.5 PHB doles out are that a lawful adventurer is likely to be a calculated person who prefers structured organization and operational plans for all contingencies. Meanwhile, a chaotic adventurer disdains any chain of command or authority and is more apt to jump into any scenario with little to no planning, preferring to just 'wing it.' Much of the time, I see those aspects of the law-chaos axis ignored. Lawful characters should rarely act impulsive, and chaotic characters should not be the cool, calculating members of the party. This is why it is possible for a rogue to cut someone's purse strings without any qualms and still be borderline lawful, as long as he plans his approach, carefully chooses his mark, assigns his cohorts appropriate supporting tasks, and makes sure he is prepared for likely contingencies. Given these views, what alignments are really incompatible? Given proper circumstances, any two alignments can be made to work together, but there are some two difficult combinations. A lawful/neutral good party will have a difficult time working in a chaotic evil character, and likewise a lawful/neutral evil party will not work well with a chaotic good character. The reason for trouble here is that, obviously, the morality of the characters are contrary, and the chaotic character is not likely to abide by any authority or command structure within the more orderly party. A chaotic evil character might tag along with a lawful/neutral good party if there were some sort of payoff visible in the future, but given the impulsive nature inherent to a chaotic alignment, the goal would have to be (or seem to be) attainable in the very, very near future. A chaotic good character is even less compatible with a lawful/neutral evil party, unless being deceived into believing that the party is working toward the greater good of humanity. Parties of lawful or near-lawful characters with someone of opposing moral alignment are simple to maintain. Using the party's internal command structure (or a vote, if you take the democratic route), an unwilling character can be shanghaied into working with the group towards a goal counter to his/her moral alignment. Similarly, someone with the same moral alignment can be made to follow a regimented plan, if chaotic, or do without one, if lawful, since the goal can justify the execution. In both cases, the character acting against his alignment will probably put up some kind of argument (consistently, if these tactics are used often enough), and that is appropriate roleplaying, but the debate is not likely to lead to blows. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ As a footnote, my favorite alignment is lawful evil. I tend to play in parties that average to about neutral good. I've never attempted to kill another player character in a campaign. A few of the players, out of character, have stood aghast at what my character will do when their characters are not around, but I don't actively work against the party. That would be neither fun nor beneficial to my character. Thus, killing the good-aligned party would not be truly evil for my character or myself.
#2 loopy Jan 11, 2005 12:32:58	I think that all too often, people confuse mean, antagonistic, unscrupulous behavior with pure evil and I think that is what you have done here. My sugar-coating is thus: this is a very well-written article and I agree with you on several points and I hate it when people disagree with someone without pointing out that the person was correct about things in their post. That said, I think that the alignment issue generally degrades into an argument of opinion vs opinion on what, exactly evil truly is. We can go back and forth all day on what is evil and what isn't and I think you really give away your position when you explained that you thought the definition of evil in the Player's Handbook is flawed. That is my problem with your assessment. The Player's Guide is basically stating its stance on the opinion and tells players and DMs what the alignment rules are going to follow as a guideline for evil. Is it evil to look at Catholic School Girls with lust? Maybe in some eyes, but not in D&D. Is it good to bomb a country for no reason? Maybe in some eyes, but not in D&D. Is it evil to torture people for information. Maybe not in some eyes, but it is in D&D. Now, there is a reason for this. The rules tell us what is considered evil in D&D because there are spells, abilities and magic items that affect those characters. If a Holy Sword dealt +2d6 damage against every person who thought Susie Hawkins was gonna be one hot piece when she turns 18, well let's just say that it would be grossly overpowered as just about every man in the world would be "evil". I think that the main problem with this argument is that a lot of people want to play "dark" characters, unscrupulous characters or antiheros. These characters are almost always not truly evil based on the D&D guidelines and in the eyes of most people. They are evil, however in the eyes of people who think it's cooooooooool.
#3 zombiegleemax Jan 11, 2005 12:59:28	Great piece BlueFlames. I too find that players have difficulty truly playing the law/chaos axis. I think it's easier to pretend to be good or evil, but challenging to act more or less orderly than one has a tendency to in RL. I also agree that evil is more about self interest than destruction, especially LE and NE. Still, CE characters would probably kill much of what is in their path just for fun.
#4 danielinthewolvesden Jan 11, 2005 19:22:11	Yes, for some reason many players tend to play many alignments (NN, CN, CE, LE, etc as Sociopathic rather than Evil or Chaotic (or worse- rather than Neutral). Even CE PC's do not routinely kill or steal from their party members. Sure- the rest of the whole wide world may be 'fair game", but any sane person realizes that you need to trust and rely on some others to get by.
#5 melpomene Jan 11, 2005 21:27:04	Well spake. I'v DA'd a few rounds, m'self. I also like LE. ::clap, clap:: Jolly good show.
#6 philosofool Jan 11, 2005 22:03:07	The description above captures an important dimension of the good-evil axis. Because good and evil are so often portrayed in extremes in fantasy, it is often a mistake of gamers to think that it is the extreme best characterize the distinction, but, as pointed out above, that isn't right. But I think you are too quick to jump to the conception that evil is only taking one's self-interest to be overriding. A truly malevolent creature might simply wish to foil to interests of others. Angel in season two of Buffy is a malevolent creature more interested in promoting the suffering of others than achieving any self-interested end. (He's willing to destroy the world and himself as well just to harm others.) You're absolutely right that a person who cares only about his own interests is evil, but that isn't the only way to be evil--another is malevolence. I think that your characterization of the lawful-chaotic axis is less good. The distinction should not, as you suggest, merely capture behavioral facts about characters, but also facts about what characters respect and value. Lawful characters are inclined to think that order, honor, trustworthiness and the like are valuable. Characters who keep their word are lawful. Characters who respect legitimate governments are lawful. Chaotic characters tend to value liberty and individuality over order, honor and the like. Characters keep or break a promise depending on whether keeping the promise suits their dispositions on the good-evil axis are chaotic. Characters who mistrust authorities or ignore laws when it is good or evil (as their alignment inclines them) are chaotic.
#7 zombiegleemax Jan 14, 2005 18:37:39	I think that the main problem with this argument is that a lot of people want to play "dark" characters, unscrupulous characters or antiheros. These characters are almost always not truly evil based on the D&D guidelines and in the eyes of most people. They are evil, however in the eyes of people who think it's cooooooooool. I disagree. I think you're being too lenient on such characters, and shrinking the definition of evil so that it only fits the most vile, reprehensible, and unrelatable of characters. This is a huge fallacy, (and it's something evil characters often do). Not all dark antiheroes are evil, no, but too many people seem to think that because a character is psychologically plausible, or has reasons for behaving the way they do, this determinism excuses their behavior and doesn't really make them 'evil'. I passionately hate this perspective. In the original D&D game, before the horrid 3e alignment definitions (and the BOVD especially), good and evil were only defined in the broadest of philosophical terms. In these days, 'evil' simply meant being unscrupulous to the point of harming other people for your own personal gain. Not too many people actually think of themselves as evil, since the evil philosophy isn't all that rational (but merely convenient) that's how they justify it to themselves. You can be evil and love your friends, raise a family, and desire to save the world. Good and evil characters can even work together if faced with a common goal or enemy. Just because you're Chaotic evil doesn't mean you run around like a madman and attack everything you see. That would, after all, be stupid, pointless, and ineffective. The problem is that many people don't realise that evil characters need just as much depth as good ones. If we can acknowledge that good characters can sometimes falter and do evil things, why can we not acknowledge that evil characters are (demi)human as well? That's why the BOVD does not help at all. It believes itself to be mature by exploiting evil acts rather than actually dealing with them, if that makes sense. It's bells and whistles a mile wide and an inch deep. The old 2e Complete Book of Villains was lightyears ahead of any 3e book on the subject.
#8 zombiegleemax Jan 14, 2005 20:11:51	I think the real problem is that the good-evil axis is often portrayed at the very extremes of the spectrum. The BoVD and BoED are both very good books, but you have to keep in mind that they are portraying the worst of the worst and the best of the best respectively. If you read the BoVD section on playing evil characters, it gives what I think is one of the best descriptions of the difference between well-played good and evil PCs: motivation. An evil character may do the exact same things that a good character would do, but his motivation will be different. In the end, every evil character is not a blood-drinking demon worshipper. Most of them are just greedy, selfish bastards.
#9 zombiegleemax Feb 02, 2005 11:44:40	My main issue with the alignments as stated is who people perceive people with "Chaotic" alignments. I actually met someone who played his CN character by rolling a die every round to see if he would stay in combat, run away, or even join the other side for a while. He had even made up his own Chart for this roll! When I tried to suggest to him that he wasn't "Chaotic Neutral" but instead he was "Insane Neutral tending towards Evil," he got the weirdest look on his face. ("But..but I am chaotic...") I told him that a loner who was just living by himself, keeping to himself, living as far away from any city-state as he could so that he didn't have to worry about society's laws could be considered chaotic neutral. Before he could say a word, I opened up the PH and showed him the definition of CN as listed. I don't think he had ever truly read what the meaning of Chaotic (as it refers to alignment) was. Yes, this is an extreme example, but I know most if not all of us have run into people like this. Just my 2 copper pieces, M
#10 mandarbgrim Feb 09, 2005 0:26:57	I agree with the poster on the issue of alignment especially Good vs. Evil in Dungeons and Dragons. Everyone seems to have a different view on what it means to be Good or to be Evil... It ends up being extremely subjective. And there are a lot of different factors that don't seem involved. Example: Cultural Relativism is a philosophical theory concerned with each culture sanctioning different behaviors. So you can only judge someone's morals by comparing it to the morals of the culture that they are in. There are problems with it, but it also has some appeal. D&D doesn't really take subjectivity into account very well. It is a game based on some objective definitions that are suspiciously vague all the same. I would personally prefer someone come up with a background for their character, describe their personality, quirks, how others might view him, how he views himself, and how he reacts to certain things. How would the LE Necromancer who was bullied as a child feel when he comes across some drunkards beating a halfling? He is likely going to kill them all.. and would like be rather benevolent and empathic concerning the halfling. He wouldn't turn around and kill the halfling too, or rob him. There are many scenarios that you can imagine where Evil characters would act consistently good for their own reasons, or that otherwise Good characters may act consistently ignorant, racist, or righteous. Aristocratic Paladin ignoring the plight of the peasants of his land even as he strives to destroy demons roaming the land. CE Barbarians who won't attack or harm a woman if they can at all prevent it. Lawful characters who put service to a patron before the laws of the land, and their own honor. Chaotic characters who follow all the laws in a land because they all fit with his own personal code of conduct. I am really liking Eberron right now because of its views on Alignment and Religion. They seem a lot more fluid and realistic than the core D&D views which seem entirely too confining.
#11 crandor Feb 10, 2005 1:57:15	Loopy, your post confuses me. What I read (which is not always necessarily what's written) is that you don't like that the initial poster disagreed with the definition given by the book, but that you also don't like the generic definition, which is the one given by the book. Perhaps you could clarify. In any case, we're talking about two different things: actions (dissociated from creatures) and creatures (deciding which actions to take). I think it would behoove us to define our alignments differently for the two.
#12 friendofthedork Feb 15, 2005 9:14:49	Alignment will probably be a never-ending topic for discussion on these boards, as it is not that well defined in the core rules. Alignment in D&D is overly simplified and as general as possible. My take on alignment is this: Allow the player to decide his PCs alignment (within agreed terms). Then, if you feel that the PC in question doesn't fit the alignment the player has written down on the character sheet, try to convince him that his character fits better as another alignment. That's not changing alignment, that is correcting alignment. True alignment change should only occur if the player wants it (unless magical change) and should take time and roleplaying effort (again, unless magical change). "Alignments are not straightjackets" is a phrase many has read but many seem to forget. A character doesn't have to act in a certain way because of his alignment. In addition, single acts does not change alignment. Mordek, the LE cleric of tyranny, might love smelling roses and keeps a beautiful garden that he even allows commoners to walk in a admire. Hector the LG Paladin might try to seduce his best friend's wife. Slig the CN thief may have a soft spot for begging children and give them generous sums as he flee from the law. Shere the CE assassin loves his girl and would sacrifice his life for her. Bork the Neutral fighter sometimes beats prisoners after combat to lessen his own fear of death. All of the above retains their alignment despite acts outside their alignment. It doesn't change what they really are, and their view on the world. Now, as to the general topic, Evil characters will not murder unless there is some gain. A few evil characters are psychopaths that enjoy killing, but most only do it when it is convenient. LE should not kill people without good reason and perhaps with the backing of an organization or country. NE may kill when they are pretty sure they both got something good to gain and that they'll get away with it. CE characters are unpredictable and may kill simply because of a perceived insult or because of feelings such as lust or greed. Combined with low wisdom, this could mean murdering even when it is likely to be discovered. That doesn't mean CE characters will always kill party members, especially if these are people the character trusts and has a good relationship with, but some adventurers he met at the local inn the other day? Too bad, so sad. Here are some concluding questions: Can evil characters work together? Yes Can evil PCs work with good ones? Yes, but they should share a common goal and have a good relationship. Should you let your group fight it out among themselves? No, you should never let things slide that far. Are evil people just hard and self centered? No, they're evil. Neutral people can be hard and self centered.