Introduction:
No Act is Aligned
When I say ‘evil’ which acts does it make you think? Stealing, lying, murdering... Are they evil?
A paladin kills an orc in order to save a child, a lawyer lies at the court in order to save a clean person, a mother steals just to feed her children but not for herself –or those acts evil?
No act can be discriminated by words ‘evil,’ ‘good,’ ‘chaotic’ and ‘lawful.’
A chaotic person would work disciplined just to get his freedom back. A lawful person would act confusing and meaningless just to get accepted to a chaotic society. A good person would steal from a rich evil person just to give the money to the ones the rich guy robbed. An evil person would give money to a beggar just to bring him on his side.
It is our intentions, motivations, and goals we choose as we choose an alignment, not acts. Remember it as you read the rest.
Chapter One:
Good, Evil, Law, Chaos and Neutrality Defined:
[color=silver]Good, Goodness:[/size] Good is the state of feeling responsible for himself and for others. Goodness can be selfish, too, just to sleep better at night, good people try to act as good as they can. Goodness is often called moral, but I reject to that statement, for in different societies, morality changes.
Good people do not just try to help people, they try not to hurt or harm people too. They try to be just, equal when it comes to act good. They can not always know who deserves goodness and who doesn’t. They are only mortal, with a tool in their hand, not gods who gave the tool.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings and positivity. Good people do not always fight evil, but the people who fights evil is always good.
Evil, Evilness: Evil is the state of concerning self. An evil person is selfish, but different from a good person in that he doesn’t feel responsible for the people around him. An evil person does not always make plans to kill everyone, hurt people and behave in a cruel way. Instead, he only does what he can do to gain power, money, or whatever he is after.
For example, a fighter who fought for a patron and never betrayed to him because of fear of death or arrest, who then retires can be evil.
I read a really interesting column about evil angels, not to be mistaken for fiends. Evil angels know and admire good although they can’t be called ‘good,’ These evil angels work for good gods yet act purposely evil, like raiding a whole town.
“Evil” implies no respect for life or dignity, and implies negativity. Evil people do not always fight good, but the people who fights good is always evil.
Chaos, Anarchy: Chaos is the state of being free / disordered. Freedom is not something unlimited, though, chaotic people do respect other people’s freedom too. Freedom is ability to do anything without violating any other’s freedom. Chaotic societies do exist, but since there aren’t a lot, chaotic people feel uncomfortable in a society and can’t find a place for themselves. A chaotic person respects other’s freedom and tries not to violate it, but he usually doesn’t bother to protect other’s freedom. Avoiding rules and traditions, chaos favors new over old. Times change, so do conditions, and the societies must be built to adapt to the new, for chaotic people. Remember that chaos-law are not chosen like evil-good, chaos and law represent the way you / your character feel, not think or decide.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. Any chaotic person fights order, traditions and law.
Lawful, Axiomat: Lawful is the state of depending on certain rules, traditions, or personal truths. Lawful people usually support these ideas. A lawful person respects other’s rights and fights for them when it’s necessary. ‘Rights’ are restricted versions of freedom, edited to fit the purpose of the community. Most societies are lawful, although there are some evil-good societies. Chaotic societies are almost unheard of.
A lawful person believes that protecting other’s rights is equal to protecting his own rights, thus, he fights for everyone. A lawful person knows his place in the society, and his duties, always tries to do what’s expected from him.
“Law” implies obedience to authority. Any lawful person fights chaos and anarchy.
Neutrality:
[i]Undecided:[/b] An undecided person simply don’t know the differences of good-evil and law-chaos, or just doesn’t bother to know. He does whatever seems like a good idea. He chooses lawful and good friends, neighbors etc. for chaos and evil make trouble in his eyes. Although he doesn’t fight anyone who isn’t hostile to him.
Philosopher: A philosopher sees good-evil and chaos-law as extreme ideas which are early the same. To him, world spins with a neutral balance of good-evil and law-chaos axises. He knows that these ideas do and must exist, but doesn’t favour any of them.
Coming up next: "Chapter Three: Alignments Defined"
Good is sacrificing self for others.
Neutral is helping self equally with others.
Evil is sacrificing others for self.
Other than the wonky colors, it's a nice article.
Is the guy just a Lawful Good villain? That would make a use for all my paladin minis ;) .
Even in the examples you provide to try and justify your relativistic view, you are appealing to a greater good in order to justify the commission of a lesser evil. That kind of choice implies that there are other, higher goods that trump the lower goods. In other words, when you talk about the mother stealing food to feed her child so it doesn't starve, that example implicitly includes the notion that there is a higher, absolute moral standard that allowing a child to starve to death is wrong. So in this case, you are setting apart the act of stealing from being evil by appealing to a higher and absolute morality that comes into play due to extenuating circumstances.
I guarantee you this, try as hard as you might, you will be unable to say that there are no things that are absolutely and clearly either evil or good. Some things are inherently evil it’s unavoidable.
Just as different people view different actions as evil, different gods would too, especially since some were born mortal and became gods later on. So when one uses a divine method of finding out a person's alignment, it would depend on the God who is the source. A cleric of palor using detect evil would see all undead as evil creatures because palor loathes the undead, a cleric of the god of death will see them as neutral, because they have no will of their own. And a cleric of a certain lawful or just neutral god might say it depends on the undead, that mindless ones cannot be applied such a stigmata while sentient ones are judged by their actions.
As for arcane magic which detects such things, why not settle that what the person views himself as is what counts. If one recognizes what he does to be wrong, but does it regardless, then one is evil. If one recognizes what he does to be altruistic, no matter what it is, then it is good. To use your example of child molestation, It would take some very twisted view of the world to cause such a person to actually view his actions as altruistic, in fact so extreme I can barely think of one. But regardless if the spell just taps their awareness, then that is what it should read...
For arcane magic it is likely to depend on the spell actually, a spell should specify, and if it doesn’t then the dm should decide, the source of the knowledge, that can be the person's psyche, or a divination of a person's past actions and comparing them to the caster's moral beliefs...
The options are limitless, just remember that it works best when the DM decides how something works, that an explanation can always be made to fit the rules, rather then attempting to fit the rules to the explanation, and that the players should NOT always know how it works, it suffices that the dm knows that had the other person cast the detection spell the result would have been different!
Then, I finally get the ability to take a feat called “smite angst”. It also provides a nice description of the character, and furthermore you help reduce the dependency on alignments to define the character. How many people you know are just set in stone that way for their entire life? and alignment change penalties? Only if you are a divine caster.
Divination spells would become more useful, as you could actually determine most of a person's personality based on spells like "detect angst" or "detect cruelty" etc. The plots will have more ways to branch. Cool spells like ward cruelty could be developed.
There would be less argument on what constitutes evil. In most games there is only good and evil, and stealing is evil. For example, in D&D you at least can steal from someone and only be chaotic (unless you are rich and stealing food from starving children). If this was expanded to multiple other alignments, then instead of arguing about the alignments and what they mean, people could know straight forth. You are either cruel or not.
Also if someone isn’t sure what his character is on some of these, then they are neutral. Because the extremes mean just that, extremes, to be on one you have to practice and believe that to an extreme.
While the inherent goodness or evilness of an action is (not just often, but always) subjective, and the motivations are the important part, nothing makes someone who is evil necessarily wrong. It is precisely because no one believes this that many gamers get such a kick out of playing evil characters, and others won't play them at all. However, examine, for a moment, the point of view of a snake (as shown in Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land). You may see a snake as a vicious killer, mercilessly devouring helpless baby field-mice and whatnot, but there is also an intense beauty in its simplistic drive to kill. Who decided that evil's wrong? When you can prove to me that any action that can be taken (what the heck, you can throw in a motivation, too, though it will be more difficult for me) is necessarily wrong, I'll concede.
On another note, I'd like to introduce a new definition of evil. The one above was just fine, but I've been waffling between it and the one below for quite a while:
Evil is the desire to hurt, to inflict pain, to destroy. If two paths reach the same end, the one that hurts the most people will be taken. These nihilistic tendencies may be the result of (or at least an attempt is made to excuse them by) the reasoning that anyone other than the self is a potential enemy, and eliminating a potential enemy is helpful. This reasoning is, of course, flawed in that Paladins exist, people who actively try to crush those who crush others (which brings up the question, "Why don't Paladins hunt each other?" but that's for another day...if I feel like it). This is why those who are evil don't always run around destroying everything as quickly as possible; they only do that when they're gonna die, anyway ;)
Also, the "Simpler Summary" is a gross over-simplification, not even accurate to the original post. It is, however, useful in reminding a reader of the main points and solidifying them, and something like it was needed. I'd say kudos, but it'd make me sound stuck-up ;)
And so, in an attempt to prevent a simple summary of my own article, I'll do it myself.
good/evil /= right/wrong
evil ?= sadism
My view is that the ends don't justify the means. You can't say that killing someone is good, or at least not neutral to save five, or even the whole planar universe. If it's a sacrafice that a character is willing to take, so be it...but I see it as a neutral act. It's definitely not a good act, and it's probably not evil either.
As others have said, I think that no matter what the circumstances, child killing/molesting is wrong. Torture is wrong. Some things are inherently evil, but not all things.
Stealing is not evil. A CN rogue who steals isn't out of his alignment. A CE rogue isn't either. And a CG rogue isn't always (depending on circumstance). So stealing is neutral. Most things are.
A sacrifice for other's gain is almost always good. I mean, there are exceptions, like a wizard cutting off his left arm for a demon lord. But that's why we, the DMs, are here. We must be the judges.
What I said was that from an objective standpoint, and, indeed, from any educated standpoint, neither good or evil is right or wrong. If I want to eat baby children, that's my business. If you want to kill people who eat baby children, that's your business. However, the baby-eater is not condemnable on those grounds, is honorable, and is to be respected (you could, on the other hand, condemn him on the grounds that you want to). To say that it's wrong to be evil or right to be good is like saying it's wrong to play fighters because they don't cast magic; it's completely arbitrary and, actually, rather stupid, whether from actual stupidity or from a practiced variety.
In conclusion, try again :D
Oh, wait, about your examples. By your approaches, not just most but all actions would be neutral. Everything is situational, so you have to know what you're looking for. The important thing to look at when determining whether an action is good or evil is the motivation. You seem to know this at least half the time, anyway.
Killing, molesting, and torture are ot inherently wrong. See above if you want real proof, but here's an example more like your own; maybe you'll get this part: what if an insane, evil mage has locked your innocent family up in a hold with no food or water and locked and warded the area from scrying with iron, abjuration, and whatever else you want to throw in; your family will die if you don't get this wizard to tell you where they are. Or better yet, he's put them in another plane in a bigger version of Leomund's Secret Chest and only he can call them back before they suffocate. Ignoring questions of whether it would work or not (whether the wizard would give in), would it be okay to torture him to save your family?
Also, to take another look at sacrifices (specifically the ones you think of as good), what emotions would you feel if someone came up to you and dropped half of their life savings to give food to people in your community? They specifically walk up to you with pity in their eyes, hand you a can of soup, pat you on the head, and say into their video cameras, "THIS is why we're here--to help great kids like this one right here." You don't need them to give you food. You have a job. Why are they giving you food? Don't they think you can make it without their help? You're indignant. You're probably even outright angry. But weren't they doing something good? They were sacrificing for another; I thought that was an inherently good action ;)