In a way, it would have been easier if alignments weren't absolute. Then we wouldn't have to worry about defining them.
The Player's Handbook gives a brief overview of what it means to be good or evil. You can read it in the SRD if you'd like; it's the fourth one down. My intent with this post is to find some patterns on the moral axis of the D&D alignment system. My references to good and evil "actions" instead of "characters" is intentional, for a character is what his actions make him.
From the SRD
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
In his Republic, Plato tells the story of the Ring of Gyges, a ring which turns the wearer invisible. The story forms the context of a debate about why people do good - or, more precisely, why people refrain from evil. If a person refrains from evil simply out of fear of being caught, then when that possibility is removed (as by becoming invisible), the person will commit evil acts, or so the argument goes. A good person, on the other hand, would continue to refrain from evil even if no one were watching, or there was no reason to fear any reprisal.
I don't disagree with the spectrum of actions suggested in the original post; I just think that motivation also needs to be considered.
Reasons and motivations come in three forms. These three forms define good vs. evil vs. neutrality.
Self-Interest: The default neutral, animal, motivation, is self-interest. All creatures, even sentient ones, instinctively act to further themselves primarily. Any action in which the sole and only motivation is self interest is neutral, as its what they would do without a guiding sentience.
Harm: The default Evil, demonic, motivation, is harming others. All evil creatures like to harm others, and will do so even if it doesn't benefit them, but most will not do so if it might hurt them. Any action in which the sole motivations are hatred of others or a desire to harm them, with no other reason, is evil.
Aid: The default Good, angellic, motivation, is helping others. All good creatures like to help others, and will do so even if it doesn't benefit them, though they might not do so if it could harm them to. Any action in which the sole motivation is to help someone else, without care as to whats gained in the process, is good.
For example a Lawful Evil character that saves someone’s life may decide to do it for selfish reasons. A neutral character that saves someone’s life may do it so she won't get blamed for that person’s death and then run out of town.
Yes, rationalization can include self-deception ie. I steal because I have a good excuse. This is not my point.
A persons' perspective can be valid and even in the face of law and order one common example is self-preservation, killing in self-defense or poaching to feed a starving family.
If we consider Harm an evil act then Paladins are anathema.
I suggest another view.
Self-interest, the neutral point. This means positioning the Self above the Other, not maliciously but matter-of-factly. Likewise, you can place Another above All Others, doing so in a Neutral fashion, as a monk places his training above the wellbeing of others, or a cleric his diety above anything else.
Empathy, the good view, the ability to connect to the Other. This view places Others above Self. It does not mean that the person is not selfish, it means that the person can place the Other above himself, whether it be borne of creed, desire, whatever.
Apathy, the evil, that which not only disconnects the Self from the Other, it completely eliminates the Other from the equation. This leads towards the ability to do harm upon the innocent, to place the Self above all else, etc.
In this way, Apathy towards Others is the underlying foundation of Evil, while Empathy is the underlying foundation of Good.
This takes into account both action and motivation.
You seem to be heading in the right direction, but this seems problematical.
Apathy, in this case, would be not caring if your actions harmed others. This is, in reality, neutral, as you don't really intend them harm, and, since you don't care, are no more likely to harm them than hurt them.
And yes, harm is exceptionally evil. You say most parties commit harm upon others and do not consider it an evil act. And that if Harm were truly the root of evil, then a Paladin would be Anathema.
Look at it this way:
If a group of PCs is out killing Orcs in order to save a village, they are not in fact causing harm in their view, but aiding others by defending them from the Orc transgressions.
If a group of PCs is out killing Orcs for cash, or because they threaten the PCs themselves, they are not caring about the harm they cause, but instead working towards self-preservation. The excuse of the Soldier, the Assassin, and the Adventurer; he kills because it benefits him to do so, not because he wants to.
If a group of PCs is out killing Orcs, and the Orcs aren't threatening them, they aren't being paid, and the Orcs haven't been raiding villages and don't seem likely to, they are committing an evil act, as their sole motivation is harming the orcs, not protecting anyone or benefiting themselves.
Thus, we get the sliding scale of good and evil. Many adventurers, even Paladins, slide over to the 'dark side' by mass-slaughtering sentient creatures without mercy and without cause. It doesn't matter if the creatures they kill are evil or not. If the Paladin were to kill every creature his powers sensed as evil, he would spent a week in a city slaughtering people by the dozen before the city guard caught him and executed him. What matters is, instead, why you are killing them.
Any sentient creature which is evil can be converted. Even in settings where a given race is predominantly evil, there are examples of good members. There are, albeit few, good Drow, Orcs, Goblins, and so forth, in Faerun. There are even good chromatic dragons.
Many adventurers do perform evil acts. Hack n Slash adventures are in fact evil-oriented, as wandering about slaughtering things without reason or care is an evil act. And since Hack n Slash is the 'default' type of game... most games have evil characters, and simply have the wrong alignment label.
For example,
The ranger Henem often protects wayward travellers he finds on the road out of the local village, but every so often one of them shows up drunk. Whether because he has a childhood-related angst of drunks or a newfound distaste for their tomfoolery, Henem might at times be pushed over the edge and actually berate, harm or chase off the drunk from his neck of the woods. Not a very good act, but he's a pretty good guy.
Frequency permitting, this may render him neutral. In which case, sure he's a good guy, but he has his limits and when pushed, they can be forced out.
I dunno, I think it's worth mentioning *Shrug*
I have always tended to say that good acted in such a way to preserve the innocents life at all costs. This means that a premptive strike would not be good if what was struck had not yet developed evil intentions. For example, you can not kill the baby orc even though your are 99.99% sure that it well murder in the future.
On the other hand, evil has no respect for life. I had a Lawful-Evil character who once slaughtered 150 orc children. She then mocked the good character who was outraged. The dialogue went something like this:
"Yes, I have killed innocents, but I have saved more. If twenty percent of those orcs had grown up to be productive members of a society, then a hundred and twenty would have killed before having to be killed. If they each only killed one human, then 240 orcs and humans would have died. I just saved 90 of your so called precious lives. So who is the great protector of the innocent, you? ha!"
That can be evil, also.
Originally posted by Duloth
Apathy, in this case, would be not caring if your actions harmed others. This is, in reality, neutral,
Not caring if your actions harm others is Evil. It means "willing to hurt others, if it benefits me, even if they are not threatening me or those I care about". That is basically an assasin's attitude, and assasins are all Evil per the class prereqs.
Neutral would be "not caring if others get hurt by my inaction". Some philosophers might consider this evil also, but within the text of D&D I'd say it's not.
Good is "not willing to stand by idly while others suffer".
At least those are my definitions. They are not perfect, and won't get rid of all catch 22s for paladins, but then again, morality isn't black and white in real life, and the more your games emulate real moral dilemas, the more the artificial system of the game will fail.
If we take Good and Evil as Absolutes (as well as Law and Chaos) then Paladins do not have any conflicts. The paladin will ALWAYS act for Good and Law (and Good over Law - but in a lawful fashion). Taken this way, there are no conflicts with the paladin.
We must remember that Good and Evil must be absolutes in the D&D world - for there are Clerics dedicated to these ideals and they are capable of getting spells; thus proving that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are not just absolute, but they're entities as well.
They are not, however, absolute in the individual - they are more than that. They are their own forces, and various people have varying degrees of all in them. Paladins would just have more of them.
An assassin who is solely motivated by his own self-interest is neutral. Like an animal, it doesn't cross the line into being evil untill it stops being in his own interest to commit the harm. The animal acts by instinct, always doing whats in its own interest, thus maintaining neutrality.
Standing by while others suffer is neutral. Harming others for you own benefit is neutral. Helping others for your own benefit is neutral.
Neutral is the default action. What all creatures would do if they had no conscience, no soul, no guidance. Whatever made the most logical sense, whatever benefited them the most.
I steal for food/to survive; I am neutral. I steal to deprive others; I am evil. I steal to aid others; I am good.
I kill for food/money/to survive; I am neutral. I kill because I want to/I hate them; I am evil. I kill to aid others; I am good.
When considering whether an action is good, evil, or otherwise, compare it to the true neutral baseline, the animal.
The difference between the two lies in the internal battle that this event brings about.
A truly good Paladin will be horrified with his actions, he will take every measure to atone for this deed even though it was arguably an accident. He will seek punishment, and to find the child's family -- and he might seek a cleric that will be able to ressurect the child and right the wrong as best he can. If he cannot do so -- he might indenture himself to the family providing service for the rest of his life in an attempt to atone. To a good character the good/evilness of the act doesn't matter -- they believe it wrong -- they will avoid the act at all costs. No single act will have any effect on their alignment. It is the course of actions they choose afterwards that displays the alignment they already have.
The same holds true for an evil character. The evil character will try and justify the act -- they will say "it was an accident" or any such thing they can to avoid or shirk the consequences of the action. Truly vile beings will take delight in the action they might defile the body or raise it as an undead to torment the child's family. That chaotic evil warlord will rip the childs spine from their corpse and wear it as a trophy. Most of all evil characters will not regret their action.
Further -- we can look at before the event (the death of the child) and examine probable actions based on good and evil.
Good people might hesitate to attack unless it seemed that the "monster" was hostile. Moreover I believe that good creatures distinguish themselves from evil in the method of attack.
Good creatures use weapons and tactics designed to be efficient and as painless as possible. They avoid any cruelty they can. Evil creatures react visciously to presumed attacks and even if they knew that the monster was actually a child might attack anyways if there are no inconvenient consequences of doing so. Moreso evil creatures may use serated weapons and tactics designed to maximise the creature's pain. If they know their enemy is neutral or good they might choose not to kill them but instead leave them maimed and near death -- choosing to deplete the resources of good clerics and Paladins who would feel obligated to help them.
Conversely an act of generosity such as healing can mean different things. Good characters heal out of compasion -- Evil characters heal to build debts and create servitors.
No act can be judged good or evil on its own. Good and evil are more than singular acts -- even in an objective world. Good and Evil are a composite of Methodology, Motivation, Intentions, and Reactions among any other things. Going back to the killed child example there is no doubt that the death of the child by error of the character was wrong. It should not of happened. But it is not by definition an evil act. A good creature who seeks to correct or atone the act has merely made a mistake -- Even the greatest make mistakes and to think otherwise would be fatal hubris. By their very nature, a good creature will carry remorse and doubt in their heart for the rest of their mortal life because of this. What makes an act such as this is when one does not feel any consequences are necessary -- Neutral and evil characters might shrug this off "oh well, just an accident" and move on. And again truly evil individuals will rejoice in the act.
I propose a simple formula to determine if a given act has evil connotations:
1) Intent: Did the character kill with a desire for violence or out of fear of attack? For more general situations -- Is their intent defense or violence?
2) Implementation or Methodology: Is the character needlessly cruel In their actions? Warning signs of needless cruelty during battle include: Do they use serated weapons? Do they inflict superficial but painful damage? Do they dismember their opponents? Do they gloat over their enemies? Do they make their enemies beg for death?
3)Motivation: Do they wish something that is not rightly theirs and act accordingly to acquire it? Is question two also true for this act?
4) Reaction: If the act was in error and obviously wrong -- does the person regret their action? Do they seek to atone for their error?
Any expansions to this list are welcome.
One final thought. Good and Evil are absolutes in DnD. Obviously the circumstances around an act are not absolute. Thus actions should not be defined as good or evil. I propose that we expand on another term instead -- "Wrong." In this system -- Dieties and entities of a specific alignment define certain actions as "Wrong" Wrong actions for a person of good alignment are different than Wrong actions for a person of evil alignment. This distinction may seem small, but it is an important distinction. Calling an act good or evil suggests that the act instantly makes that person more good or evil. Even in a world of absolutes this is incorrect. A Paladin who kills a child by accident should not be defined as evil, any more than An Chaotic Evil Warlord who accidentally forgets to murder the population of a town should be defined as good. But both acts could be considered wrong for their alignment. By calling them wrong we suggest that actions should be taken to reconcile the act to the person's alignment -- which is much better than saying -- "Dude since you accidentally killed this kid -- you fall from LG to CE."
Apologies all if it seems that I have repeated my idea too many times, sometimes I do that.
Anyone who wishes to discuss this topic with me should feel free to email me at [email]Rebel_leader64@hotmail.com[/email].
Ta Ta For Now,
Jkol the Butcher
What makes an act such as this is when one does not feel any consequences are necessary -- Neutral and evil characters might shrug this off "oh well, just an accident" and move on.
How should neutral characters think about
- intent
- methodology (actions)
- motivation
- reaction
And specifically, in what way does that differ from an evil or good character?
Geek
Originally posted by Geek
Only once did you mention neutrality.
How should neutral characters think about
- intent
- methodology (actions)
- motivation
- reaction
And specifically, in what way does that differ from an evil or good character?
Geek
In my mind there are two kinds of neutrality, active and passive. Active neutrality would take action to maintain the balance while passive neutrality would be more apathetic. Animals are passive neutrals because of a low intelligence and lack of awareness. A sentient, free willed being may be passively neutral but only because she chooses to be. I believe that only the passive neutral that would "shrug off" a violent act.
Now, I've never actually counted but I expect the MM has more evil creatures than good. And in most adventures evil is more often encountered. Hence a neutral character, the average druid for example, would most often join with the good characters to defeat the evil.
Her intent is to counter that which brings unbalance.
Her methodology, at that time, would be similar to a good character since that's what defeats evil.
Her motivation is to restore balance.
Her reaction to the violence may be to accept it or to be sad. That's more about personality than alignment and I think many people mix the two too often.
Methodology: This has no real link to alignment; specific actions are never of a particular alignment. But, a neutral character would choose the methodology that most benefited himself; in battle, whatever made him most likely to win. The evil character would do whatever harmed/pained others the most, and the good character would be trying to minimize harm to others.
Motivation: Equal to Intent. A neutral character is motivated by self-interest, a good character by helping others, and an evil character by harming others.
Reaction: A neutral character, unless he tends towards good, will not regret an action done solely for his own benefit, but might regret unintended consequences of such an action that cause unnecessary harm; a lawful neutral assassin hired to kill a young mother would not regret killing the woman, but might regret what her children will go through without her. An evil character will not only enjoy this unnecessary harm, but go out of his way to cause it. A good character will do whatever is in his power to undo the harm once done.
Originally posted by Duloth
Intent: An neutral character's intent is to aid himself, pure self-interest, without care to harm or aid coming to others.
Using that definition, a serial murderer is neutral . . . as long as he loots the bodies.
Morality is about choices.
Take for example, a burly commoner in town.
He needs some cash.
He has identified 3 ways to get that cash.
1) Look after a sick child while the child's mother runs some errands.
2) Spend an hour unloading a ship.
3) Mug a little old lady.
All 3 opportunities are expected to yield the same amount of cash.
If he picks option 3 over the other two options, he is evil.
From the SRD, Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. The fact that he chose the option that caused harm over other viable options is what makes him evil.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil...
(PHB p. 104)
Indeed, there appear to be a few parts of the descriptions that could be used for litmus tests:
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Thus, a person who does not make personal sacrifices to help others must not be good.
People who are neutral...have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Thus, a person who does not have compunctions against killing the innocent must not be neutral.
Ergo, a person motivated purely by their own self-interest and not giving a thought to the harm they cause others fails the test for both good and neutral, and must therefore be evil, as the first quote suggests.
Moreover, note that even the "actively harms others" evil (often called 'Eeeeeeevil!') person can be said to be acting from self-interest, since harming others brings them either enjoyment or gain (from a dark master).
One could see this as a scale of how the person sees their place in society. At one end, good characters see the welfare of all as taking precedence over their own welfare - "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". At the other end, evil characters see their welfare as completely outweighing the welfare of others - "looking out for number one". In the middle, neutral characters try to strike a balance between their own personal welfare and the welfare of others - "do I feed the homeless or buy a new CD?"
I would argue that alignment comes from motivation, which is why creatures not capable of higher thought can't really be said to have any alignment. Consider the following scenario:
A wealthy man is riding through a poor slum whose streets are thick with the destitute and starving. The man reaches into his purse and pulls out a handful of coins, scattering them through the crowd. The poor immediately scrabble for the coins, some coming to blows over the sudden windfall.
What is the alignment of this act?
If the man was motivated by a genuine desire to help these poor, starving people get food, is it good?
If the man felt threatened by the crowding poor and tossed the coins to get some breathing room, is it neutral?
If the man enjoys seeing wretches scrabble in the dirt and hurt each other fighting and loves knowing he can cause this with the flick of a wrist, is it evil?
I would argue that alignment in D&D is determined by genuine motivation, and that the empathy/apathy (or compassion/disregard, or compassionate/psychopath) dichotomy informs much of the good/evil axis.
I think we come closer and closer to outlining a pure definition of "good" and "evil" which will get rid of these so called "problems" in the system.
Now, from a roleplayer's perspective, or perhaps a Dungeon Master's perspective, we see there are two roads.
The first, alignment will dictate action. Here, the character acts good because the character's sheet says he's good. As such, at least 50% of his actions will pass the litmus test for "good" (as delineated above). We must allow the rest to fall into neutral because, without evil, there is no need for a scaled majority of Good. The only exception perhaps to this rule are paladins, in whom I would think more than a plurality is needed to dictate their behavior.
The second, action dictates alignment. This puts the strain of the DM to judge the PCs. the DM decides if a character is good is 50% of his actions or more pass the litmus test for "good".
Note that the above can be said for evil as well.
Neutrality is another matter entirely. IMO, there are two parts to Neutrality: Balanced Neutrality and Innocent (or Uncaring) Neutrality.
Balanced Neutrality is where if 50% of your actions are Good, then 50% of your actions must be Evil. This serves as a simple mathematical formula to ensure that neither good nor evil gets ahead on the world. It seems harsh, but in the extremist world of D&D there are beings such as this (the Rilmani come to mind).
Innocent Neutrality, or Uncaring Neutrality (in order not to throw around the word "innocent") is that which comes from either not knowing the difference between good and evil (as an animal would commit an evil act without knowing it is so) or a farmer refusing to enlist in the military during times of war. The farmer, in this case, is innocent, not because he doesn't know his failure to enlist is going to hurt some one or something (indeed, perhaps his enlistment in the army could lead to his country's victory), but because he's just a farmer who doesn't want to get hurt. This example is self-preserving, but inasmuch as there is no direct harm from enlisting in the military, the self-preservation defense can only take you so far. The real motivation is an uncaring sense of self-devotion: the farmer doesn't care who he pays taxes to as long as the taxes aren't raised. Thus it makes no difference to him which side of a battle he joins, as long as he's not hurt by the process.
This act isn't evil per se; chaotic, perhaps, but certainly not evil. Even if failure to stand in this moment allows some great evil to occur, since there is no clear and present threat of evil at the immediate moment then the act cannot be considered evil.
1. I seek to balance good and evil.
2. I don't know the difference between good and evil.
3. I don't care about good and evil.
Perhaps you have defined lawful neutral, true neutral, and chaotic neutral.
As for taxes, I think it is lawful to pay and unlawful (chaotic) to cheat. However, my reasons for cheating the tax man will determine my alignment.
CG "The tax is unfair" - Boston Teaparty
CN "I like to see what I can get away with." - Cleptomania?
CE "I am greedy and want all the money" - Greedy
Bob
Lawful neutral cares about the Law and nothing but the Law.
Chaotic neutral is just chaotic. He does things because its what he wants to do.
Granted, my definitions can fit Lawful/Chaotic neutral just fine. Just that they do not take into account the Law/Chaos aspect of it as I wrote it.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
In determining the direction in which an individual's moral compass points, it is helpful to consider not only what the individual does, but also why he or she does it.
Exactly. It is not the action itself that determines good versus evil, but rather the reasoning for the action. For instance, I kill a person. Why did I kill him? If it was in defense of my family, friends, children, elderly, then it was probably an evil act. If I killed a man so that I could freely ravage his wife, sister, or daughter, or so that I could place his family, friends, or neighbors into bondage, or so that I could more easily kill them, then the act is evil.
It is the why which drives us along the path of good and evil, order and chaos. Fighting for freedom against a government is not necessarily a chaotic thing. Killing someone or destroying something is not necessarily evil. It is the reason for which we took the action that differentiates us on the moral compass. The “why” is what matters.
As soon as I rest up and read the previous posts...
For example the 'Law' that a lawful person respects may differ quite a bit from person to person. For example, the PHB says that characters my be a law untu themselves, abiding to a strict, self-imposed personal code that may or may not agree with regular authority. There are also Lawful creatures that deal with concepts that are beyond the scope of mortal law. Preserving the cosmic order, per se. This will also most likely disagree with standard authority. For example, in a city where murder is illegal, a Marut would most likely not give a second thought to local concerns when persuing a target. The same goes for other inevitables, not to mention the Modrons.
Normally I wouldn't just bump a year-old Regdar's Repository thread, but because I was never able to give my take on some of the issues raised by these posts, I feel I have at least some entitlement. And so, without further ado, I present Ancient Wyrm's Much-Belated Reply.
Brom Blackforge - I believe I was referring to an individual's motives behind his or her actions in my post. Words like "altruism" and "self-interest" deal with motivation, not just action. If you perceived a contrary meaning to my post I can only apologize for a lack of clarity.
Duloth (and others) - I respectfully disagree with your categorization of self-interest as strictly neutral, and evil being an active will to harm. As has been noted before, it results in assassination - murder for money - being classified as a neutral act, and the utterly absurd (but excellently stated) case of a serial killer mitigating his crimes by looting the corpses. Finally, I believe that very few people are actually motivated by the desire to harm others - those who are are most likely completely insane. On the other hand, quite common are people who are willing to step on others to benefit themselves.
disinterestedthirdparty - What you call "rationalization" seems to me to be basically the same thing as motive. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. Your scenario of a LE character saving a life out of self-interest I would classify as a neutral act: it respects innocent life (in fact, preserves it) but is motivated by self-interest.
Archmage Atrus - Perhaps you are responding to disinterestedthirdparty rather than to my original post, but note that I qualify my harm/don't-harm dichotomy with the phrase "innocent life;" at least in DnD, good characters are quite capable of slaying the guilty. And what does a self-interested person with neither apathy or empathy look like? It seems to me that the two qualities are not only mutually exclusive, but also all-encompassing. What, after all, is the difference between "disconnecting the Self from the Other" and "completely eliminating the Other from the equation?"
Duloth again - Your post seems confused. Is not caring about the harm you caused an evil act, or a neutral one? Is killing orcs for money neutral or evil? You fail to answer these questions definitively, at least as far as I can understand.
aldymnior - Sure, every character has weaknesses. That's what makes them interesting to roleplay.
Fanrat - If you use "ends-justify-the-means" tactics such as orc-baby-slaughtering, then you are no longer respecting innocent life and so, on my little sliding scale, fall on the evil side of the neutral/evil line.
PhaedrusXY - Inaction is a tricky concept philosophically. Certainly I'm not evil for failing to give all my money to Amnesty International or... what's Mother Teresa's order called again? But do I remain nonevil for failing to save a man drowning right in front of me when I have the strength and training to save him? I would argue that this scenario has no neutral action. Perhaps I could say that my inaction is, in itself, an action while my inaction re Amnesty International is just an inaction - but where's the dividing line? I don't have the energy to philosophize along these lines much further tonight. Moving on...
Archmage Atrus - You are correct based on DnD theory. However, the whole point of this exercise is to determine what is good and evil, and so what, in any particular case, a paladin should do. As DnD is based on a real world where good and evil are not absolute, I have my doubts as to the possibility of us reaching a satisfactory conclusion, as it would mean reaching a satisfactory conclusion for real-world cases as well. However, we are certainly striving for a worthy goal.
Duloth #3 - Read the Assassin's flavor text again. It seems to be guild-based. And even if it is a cult, an argument can be made for this being the "default" assassin; they were originally a militant Muslim sect in the real world. You seem to have made your general stance regarding killing for money plain in this post, and it is one with which I must disagree completely. Again, I bring up the excellent serial killer example: if he leaves the body lie, than he killed for pleasure, and is thus evil; but if he takes the money, then he killed for profit, and is thus neutral. Common intuition says that both are equally evil, and perhaps the profit one is worse. I cannot comprehend killing an innocent ever being neutral, whether one's motivations are sadism or self-interest.
Jkol the Butcher - "Lump the LG paladin with the CE warlord?!" I do no such thing! Again I stress that the good/neutral and neutral/evil dichotomies I present are based in a character's motives. Your proposal of using regret and internal struggle to test good and evil leaves much to be desired; it only applies in specific scenarios. Say a character slew a dragon that was threatening a village. He feels no regret. Is he good or evil? Your test can't tell. You also say that an individual action cannot be decided as good or evil - then proceed to give us some criteria to determine whether an act is evil. You give the example that evil characters can use healing to build debts - their motives, then, by my definition, would be neutral, self-interested but respecting life. Finally, you seem to believe that a single act of an alignment switches you to that alignment, and therefore introduce this term "wrong" in order to sidestep this. I believe that the use of this new term "wrong" is unnecessary, as the alignment of a character is built up by an accumulation of the alignment of his or her acts. It's not an even balance, of course - a paladin who performs one evil act for every two good acts doesn't stay good for long - but the alignment of a character's actions do determine the general course of his character alignment.
boatslayer and others - I have found this so-called "active neutrality" to be completely nuts. A player in my play group once parodied this idea with a zealous monk who, every time he killed an evil creature, also hunted down and killed in cold blood a good creature. This, in my mind, isn't neutral; it's evil. The character is not respecting innocent life, even if he is also protecting it by slaying evil. As I hinted at in my response to the previous post, I see a sort of asymmetry, or perhaps a metaphorical one-way mirror, between good and evil: evil can do "good" actions, but good can't do evil actions.
Duloth IV - Again, gotta disagree with your categorization of self-interest as strictly neutral; an "assassin hired to kill a young mother" would not be LN but evil, evil, evil.
Ehelonna - Great job. I might elaborate on your guy-in-need-of-cash scenario on the amount of effort required; if all these actions required equal effort, wouldn't everybody choose the baby option? Even evil people, so long as they're sane, would in my mind choose to do good, all other things being equal. The difference between good, neutral, and evil becomes obvious when the payoff, or the effort required, favors the evil act.
Dire Celestial Bonobo - You seem to have almost restated the dichotomies I outlined in my original post.
Archmage Atrus II - You introduce the mathematical reasoning of good/neutral/evil act ratios. While I don't disagree with you that a 50/50/0 person would be good, I think that this is unrealistic; surely most actions anyone takes respect innocent life but are out of self-interest, e.g. scratching oneself, eating breakfast, paying the rent. Certainly the standard you suggest of a plurality, or more for paladins, is ridiculous in this light. I think neutral can be therefore largely disregarded; let's deal with just good/evil ratios. And here we come to the point I made above that there is an imbalance between good and evil; a 100/0 person is good, a 0/100 person is evil, but (at least in my mind) a 50/50 person is not neutral, nor even a 66/34 or 75/25. I think the problem lies in the very mathematical methodology we're using. By coldly calculating "How many good acts would I have to do to balance this evil act?" you're most certainly not acting in the spirit of good; you are in effect saying "It's okay if I do this evil act as long as I can balance it out later," when to a truly good person the phrase "It's okay if I do this evil act..." are anathema, no matter what they're qualified with.
Skipping the discussion of law/chaos, as it's getting late...
Ssussenriyh - However, many evil characters might not inconvenience themselves to harm others; they might only harm others when it is a convenience to do so. My vision of neutrality is "Doesn't go out of the way to help others, and doesn't harm others (who don't deserve it, protection of the innocent, yadda yadda yadda)."
Whew! Here endeth the Much-Belated Reply.
Good, to me, seemed to be a genuine interest in benefiting others, and attempting to avoid harming others whenever possible. Neutrality was a stance that you didn't go out of your way either to help or harm others; you are motivated solely by succeeding on your own, and if you must interact with others, you will do so only as much as necessary. Evil was a stance that you deliberately preyed on other sentient beings to prosper at their expense, by causing injury in some fashion to them (physical, emotional, financial, etc.).
I often explain the paladin's ability to detect evil as being a way to gauge the general disposition of the creature. In fact, I have noted to any players of paladin PCs that maybe 1/3 to 1/4 of all the people in the world are evil (selfish and predatory), but not all are in league with undead or infernal beings. Some are just selfish, cruel people.
Dungeons and Dragons is played in a world that, unlike reality, has absolute concepts of morality.
True, but it doesn’t follow from the existence of moral absolutes that any characters will know what the absolutes are.
A paladin can cast detect evil on someone and know, beyond any shadow of doubt (beyond alignment-masking magic), that this guy is E-V-I-L. Not evil from the paladin's (or anyone else's) point of view, just evil. Period.
I would say what Paladin’s have is more of a detect altruism ability than a detect good ability. The Paladin has a supernatural power that goes “Ding!” whenever he looks at someone cruel/selfish/callous/etc… There is another step needed to say those traits are evil. Suppose there were an Orc PrC which had CE as an alignment prerequisite and ‘Detect Good’ as a class power. The Orc presumably thinks that being bloodthirsty, vicious, domineering, etc… are good ways to be. The powerful CE tyrant is his ethical ideal, that’s what he strives to be day by day. The altruism of a Paladin fills him with a deep moral loathing. “How could anyone be so pathetic? So ignorant of their ability to crush the weak? So ignoble. What a terrible life, and what an immoral human!” thinks the Orc.
Faced with a Paladin and accusations of evil, the Orc presumably laughs and says “No no my misguided friend. It’s you who are the evil one! I can tell, you set off my detect evil power!” Both characters know the other sets off their supernatural ‘Ding!’. They both know one of them has detect evil and the other detect good. I don’t see how they could work out which one had which though. The DM knows. The player knows. The Paladin doesn’t know. He’s just got to go on faith that altruism is good and admirable and exploitation is evil and despicable.
A Paladin’s power reliably identifies people who are altruistic, it takes a further philosophical leap to call that type of behavior the best aim of a well lived life. At best he’s got a “lifestyle” detector. When it comes to holding up one lifestyle as superior and preferable to all others he’s in no better epistemic position than people in the real world.
-Stephen
In his Republic, Plato tells the story of the Ring of Gyges, a ring which turns the wearer invisible. The story forms the context of a debate about why people do good - or, more precisely, why people refrain from evil. If a person refrains from evil simply out of fear of being caught, then when that possibility is removed (as by becoming invisible), the person will commit evil acts, or so the argument goes. A good person, on the other hand, would continue to refrain from evil even if no one were watching, or there was no reason to fear any reprisal.
I think that the moral of the story proves that fear is a factor in peoples' actions. And that people have different levels to their morality.
True, but it doesn’t follow from the existence of moral absolutes that any characters will know what the absolutes are.
A Paladin’s power reliably identifies people who are altruistic, it takes a further philosophical leap to call that type of behavior the best aim of a well lived life. At best he’s got a “lifestyle” detector. When it comes to holding up one lifestyle as superior and preferable to all others he’s in no better epistemic position than people in the real world.
-Stephen
But DnD has something the real world doesn't; outsiders who are the personification of these cosmic forces. An orc shaman may be misguided with regards to his morality, but a pit fiend, being evil incarnate, is going to have no illusions that what he does is good. Demons and devils know they're evil, and revel in it.
So the problem of "calibrating" your detect ability is quite simple to solve; summon an outsider with a relatively weak Will save. Cast detect lies or zone of truth, just to be sure. Then ask "Are you evil?" If the outsider answers "yes" and your detect ability goes DING, you've got yourself detect evil. Repeat several times to make sure the beastie didn't roll a 20 on his save against the truth spell.
But DnD has something the real world doesn't; outsiders who are the personification of these cosmic forces. An orc shaman may be misguided with regards to his morality, but a pit fiend, being evil incarnate, is going to have no illusions that what he does is good. Demons and devils know they're evil, and revel in it.
So the problem of "calibrating" your detect ability is quite simple to solve; summon an outsider with a relatively weak Will save. Cast detect lies or zone of truth, just to be sure. Then ask "Are you evil?" If the outsider answers "yes" and your detect ability goes DING, you've got yourself detect evil. Repeat several times to make sure the beastie didn't roll a 20 on his save against the truth spell.
It’s a clever test, but I think it still fails. “Evil” is ambiguous in English. On the one hand it refers to the sorts of things we normally think of as evil, lying, cruelty, gratuitous violence and so on. It also refers to a general category, i.e. things that shouldn’t be done. Ask a Balor if he is “evil” and he could give you an answer using either of these two senses.
If he takes you to mean the first sense he’ll say “Yes, I’m evil.” but, that only tells you that he is cruel, deceitful, murderous, etc… That doesn’t do you any good, you already knew your ability detected that sort of conduct.
If he takes you to mean the second sense he’ll say “No, I’m not evil.” since surely he doesn’t think his conduct is “things that shouldn’t be done.” The Balor revels in evil and thinks everyone else should to. A world in which everyone started acting like a Balor is a world Balors labor hard to bring about. In this sense of the word the Balor says he’s good, while a Solar says the Balor is evil. A supernatural ding doesn’t tell you who to believe, nor is the Solar or Balor deliberately lying (the Balor is wrong, not deceptive) so Zone of Truth is fine.
Taken on the first sense you don’t learn anything you didn’t already know, taken on the second sense you don’t get an unambiguous result. The basic problem is that alignment is a function of behavior in D&D, if you perform evil acts you become evil, if you’re a supernatural evil beast you always commit evil acts. Given that an alignment detector can only be a behavior detector from the point of view of its user.
Now, you might object that my description of Balor psychology is wrong. Maybe you think that a Balor holds some rather perverse position like “I should do things that shouldn’t be done” when he’s planning some demonic mischief. The trouble is that maintaining anyone (including yourself) should do something that shouldn’t be done is deeply irrational. It’s logically impossible for such a thing to be true. This might not be a problem, normal fallible people hold inconsistent beliefs from time to time. The trouble with a Balor making such a fundamental logical gaff is that he’s Int:20 and Wis: 20. It seems much more plausible that a Balor just believes evil acts are “the thing to do” than believes the obviously false “I should do that which shouldn’t be done”. Wis: 20 is a phenomenal level of introspection and general clarity of thought. Creatures like that shouldn’t be making logical errors a first year philosophy student wouldn’t make.
-Stephen
On a side note, even if your second definition of evil held in the D&D cosmology, I don't see it as impossible for a creature with Int 20 and Wis 20 to believe that "I should do things that shouldn't be done." Psychopaths are often quite intelligent; if I recall correctly, even disproportionately so. Though, of course, what the balor displays here is quite a bit beyond simple psychopathy.
Dungeons and Dragons is played in a world that, unlike reality, has absolute concepts of morality. A paladin can cast detect evil on someone and know, beyond any shadow of doubt (beyond alignment-masking magic), that this guy is E-V-I-L. Not evil from the paladin's (or anyone else's) point of view, just evil. Period.
In a way, it would have been easier if alignments weren't absolute. Then we wouldn't have to worry about defining them.
The Player's Handbook gives a brief overview of what it means to be good or evil. You can read it in the SRD if you'd like; it's the fourth one down. My intent with this post is to find some patterns on the moral axis of the D&D alignment system. My references to good and evil "actions" instead of "characters" is intentional, for a character is what his actions make him.
Simple, truthful, but not that helpful in resolving most of the "Paladin Moral Dilemmas" that lace the Classes board. I feel that the best course is to treat the axis as an unbroken line - good flows into moral neutrality flows into evil - and define them by finding where one stops and the next starts.
Good is fairly easy: altruism, or self-sacrifice. An action taken in the interest of others is good; one taken in self-interest is nongood - morally neutral or evil. Some may question my classification of moral neutrality as self-interested, but self-interest is not as evil as is sometimes thought: feeding oneself, for example, is a self-interested action.
Evil could be defined as a more sinister form of self interest - greed - but deciding where a person starts becoming greedy is more thinking than I want to do at the moment, and there is an easier way in any case, hinted at in the quote above: respect for life, and, by by an extension I doubt many will argue with, quality thereof. An action that takes an innocent life or decreases its quality is evil; one that doesn't is nonevil.
Put it all together and you have the following: Good actions are altruistic and respect innocent life. Morally neutral actions still respect innocent life, but are motivated by self-interest. Evil actions are motivated by self-interest and harm innocents. Note that the vast majority of actions you can think of are probably morally neutral. That's okay - your paladin character is not drifting closer and closer to ex-paladinhood each time he eats breakfast. It's only when he chooses a neutral course of action over a good one that the alignment written on the character sheet starts to change.
Alignments WEREN'T absolute in the days of 1e and 2e, and those rulebooks acknowledged it. They stated that characters are complex and inconsistent. And character's personalities are more important than alignment. Then, alignments were just broad philosophies, and that's all they ever should be. Alignment is not a straightjacket, it is said, but then 3e made it into one by stating that good and evil in human terms are not philosophical differences, and tacitly disallowing the PCs to play as evil characters, and by popping out the poorly-written and painfully shallow Book of Vile Darkness. That's why 3e sucks.
Good means you value/respect life and try not to see it come to harm. You also try to udo any damage you've done. Evil means life is valueless, and you have no qualms about harming others to accomplish your own ends. Neutrality varies on this view; they are loathe to harm others except when attacked or when they feel it is necessary (In which case the good person feels guilty, but the neutral person is more apt to think it is unavoidable. The evil person simply doesn't care). Evil is selfishness--selfishness that makes it okay for you to harm others or allow them to come to harm. Evil views the good alignment as an excuse to promote the weakness and mediocrity that prevents the worthy from attaining what they deserve. It's basically Nietzsche. It's usually evil people who say there is no good or evil (and perhaps not coincidentally, most people who hate the alignment system prefer to play as evil characters).
Lawful means you place importance on groups, unity of action, and everything that goes with it--tradition, planning, loyalty, oaths, contracts and governments. Chaotic means you place more importance on individuality and your own needs. Chaotic characters are reliable if they are personally devoted to the cause, not because it is their duty to be.
The 2e Paladin's handbook stated, for instance that it's NOT okay for a Paladin to randomly kill someone because their alignment is evil. In order for his "detect evil" ability to work, he has to be sensing evil intent--not just alignment. A Chaotic evil fighter sitting at the bench drinking some ale is just relaxing, so he doesn't show up. A Neutral evil assassin stalking someone else in the crowd does. Some creatures, like fiends and most undead, for instance, are inhumanly and evoke the Paladin's senses merely with their presence.
Killing an evil creature is not actually seen as a good act in the D&D game (which assumes a Christian morality in a Pagan universe, but never mind). Killing is seen as justifiable when in self-defense, defense of another, or in war. However, it is accomplishing this end, defending the principle, that is considered good. Likewise, the Chaotic good thief who robs from the rich to give to the poor is not doing a good deed in robbing from the evil covetous baron--his good deed is giving to the poor, to which he feels his ends justify his means.
And some actions can never be justified as good acts. In D&D torture, poison, and assassination (well, in most cases, but a there could be a neutral pragmatic assassin) are all evil. So is ****. A "good" character who does these things to evil characters is not good, and the DM is fully justified in switching his alignment to evil (as stated in the days of 1e and 2e), no matter who's side he's fighting for.
The D&D alignment system (NOT 3e, which as I said before, sucks) does believe in moral absolutes--to an extent. It does not, however, believe that imperfect, mortal humans and demi-humans, who each have a little bit of law, chaos, good, evil, and neutrality within us, are living paragons of moral absolutes. Remember that alignment is actions in addition to philosophy (Yes! That's what alignment is! Philosophy!).
The reason why most people in real life do not have clear-cut alignments (not that it is important for them to be) is simply because most of us are not adventurers or figures with political power. We are most likely True Neutral. We are not regularly thrown into situations in which we will have to take risks and make moral decisions (well most of us aren't, anyway).
By introducing a moral framework in addition to the spiritual/magical fabric of the milieu, the D&D game adds depth. It's then become a game where not you exist in a living, breathing world, where you are forced to think about what it is you believe in, and contemplate the moral consequences of your actions.
I think Sgingell you are making a mistake in your 'two type of evil' bit. As far as i can see, the first is evil the second is wrongness. Lying, cruelty, stealing, they are evil. Things that should not be done, are wrong. The devil has just the same good-evil understanding as the paladin, he just has a different right and wrong understanding.
I can't wait to get some time to go over more of this thread. Duloth's opening paragraph inspires me somewhat.
Alignments WEREN'T absolute in the days of 1e and 2e, and those rulebooks acknowledged it. They stated that characters are complex and inconsistent. And character's personalities are more important than alignment. Then, alignments were just broad philosophies, and that's all they ever should be. Alignment is not a straightjacket, it is said, but then 3e made it into one by stating that good and evil in human terms are not philosophical differences, and tacitly disallowing the PCs to play as evil characters, and by popping out the poorly-written and painfully shallow Book of Vile Darkness. That's why 3e sucks.
I don't want this to become a 3e vs. previous thread, but I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the alignment system in this most recent edition.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other. [...] Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions.
If 3rd Edition seems to make alignments a straightjacket to you, then I can only conclude it is your DM's fault, because it certainly isn't the fault of the rules. And weren't there devils and angels in 1st and 2nd Editions? Perhaps not; I must admit that the closest I've come to playing one is Baldur's Gate (which had fiends, but again, perhaps that's an innovation of BioWare's).
Good means you value/respect life and try not to see it come to harm. You also try to undo any damage you've done. Evil means life is valueless, and you have no qualms about harming others to accomplish your own ends. Neutrality varies on this view; they are loathe to harm others except when attacked or when they feel it is necessary (In which case the good person feels guilty, but the neutral person is more apt to think it is unavoidable. The evil person simply doesn't care). Evil is selfishness--selfishness that makes it okay for you to harm others or allow them to come to harm. Evil views the good alignment as an excuse to promote the weakness and mediocrity that prevents the worthy from attaining what they deserve. It's basically Nietzsche. It's usually evil people who say there is no good or evil (and perhaps not coincidentally, most people who hate the alignment system prefer to play as evil characters).
I mostly agree with you, except I see neutral as self-interested. Neutral characters value/respect life, like good characters, but they also are selfish. They will neither commit atrocities to get their way, like evil characters, nor go out of their way to preserve and better the lives of people they have no personal connection to, like good ones.
Lawful means you place importance on groups, unity of action, and everything that goes with it--tradition, planning, loyalty, oaths, contracts and governments. Chaotic means you place more importance on individuality and your own needs. Chaotic characters are reliable if they are personally devoted to the cause, not because it is their duty to be.
This I really like. Too often have I seen players play chaotic characters as if they were all madmen, and lawful characters as if they were all sticks-in-the-mud or Puritans.
The 2e Paladin's handbook stated, for instance that it's NOT okay for a Paladin to randomly kill someone because their alignment is evil. In order for his "detect evil" ability to work, he has to be sensing evil intent--not just alignment. A Chaotic evil fighter sitting at the bench drinking some ale is just relaxing, so he doesn't show up. A Neutral evil assassin stalking someone else in the crowd does. Some creatures, like fiends and most undead, for instance, are inhumanly and evoke the Paladin's senses merely with their presence.
Well, that's 2nd Edition. In 3rd it's just the detect evil spell, which finds anyone of an evil alignment. I take it this is part of what you don't like about 3rd Edition, and I can understand your standpoint.
Killing an evil creature is not actually seen as a good act in the D&D game (which assumes a Christian morality in a Pagan universe, but never mind). Killing is seen as justifiable when in self-defense, defense of another, or in war. However, it is accomplishing this end, defending the principle, that is considered good. Likewise, the Chaotic good thief who robs from the rich to give to the poor is not doing a good deed in robbing from the evil covetous baron--his good deed is giving to the poor, to which he feels his ends justify his means.
Rather than Christian morality in a Pagan universe, I'd say Pagan gods in a Christian universe. Though there is a pantheon, D&D is based off of the Medieval European tradition, which was of course Christian, and it shows in the celestials and fiends as well as the powers of clerics and paladins. Presenting a holy symbol to turn the undead? Show me a text where a Greek high priest of Apollo does that and I'll show you an incompetent forgery.
I agree with you on the whole killing thing, of course. It's an inherently evil act, as good and neutral both respect life, but, in order for the D&D game to function, it must be justifiable by the greater good. "The ends justify the means" is often a rallying cry of evil, though, so characters must beware!
And some actions can never be justified as good acts. In D&D torture, poison, and assassination (well, in most cases, but a there could be a neutral pragmatic assassin) are all evil. So is ****. A "good" character who does these things to evil characters is not good, and the DM is fully justified in switching his alignment to evil (as stated in the days of 1e and 2e), no matter who's side he's fighting for.
Again, he can switch it in 3e, too.
The D&D alignment system (NOT 3e, which as I said before, sucks) does believe in moral absolutes--to an extent. It does not, however, believe that imperfect, mortal humans and demi-humans, who each have a little bit of law, chaos, good, evil, and neutrality within us, are living paragons of moral absolutes. Remember that alignment is actions in addition to philosophy (Yes! That's what alignment is! Philosophy!).
See the quote from the 3e PHB that I posted.
The reason why most people in real life do not have clear-cut alignments (not that it is important for them to be) is simply because most of us are not adventurers or figures with political power. We are most likely True Neutral. We are not regularly thrown into situations in which we will have to take risks and make moral decisions (well most of us aren't, anyway).
I tend to shy away from applying the alignment system to our own world, on account of the lack of outer planes and detect evil spells. There exist people I'm not afraid to categorize as evil, but they are few and far between. I tend to use it as a far more intense version of the word "wrong," which is very different from its meaning in D&D.
By introducing a moral framework in addition to the spiritual/magical fabric of the milieu, the D&D game adds depth. It's then become a game where not you exist in a living, breathing world, where you are forced to think about what it is you believe in, and contemplate the moral consequences of your actions.
I agree with you completely. I think I speak for everybody when I say so. Introducing a moral framework is what my original post was intended to do, or at least to begin to do.
Here, on the theory that a post with a visual aid is better than one without, I made a little chart of the view I presented:
Izmobe, are you responding directly to my original post (as implied by the format of your post) or stating your own opinions on the matter of alignment? If the latter, that's fine by me, and it is in that light that I will respond to them. If the former, I simply recommend that you read my post more closely, as I agree with you on many things.
My thanks for writing a thoughtful reply. I hope I didn't sound too much like an indignant idiot on a soap box.
If 3rd Edition seems to make alignments a straightjacket to you, then I can only conclude it is your DM's fault, because it certainly isn't the fault of the rules. And weren't there devils and angels in 1st and 2nd Editions? Perhaps not; I must admit that the closest I've come to playing one is Baldur's Gate (which had fiends, but again, perhaps that's an innovation of BioWare's).
No, it isn't the rules I was commenting on, but the way the rulebooks are written. There were indeed fiends and celestials in 1e and 2e, but when the alignments were described in mortal terms, they were merely philosophical differences.
I think the out-of-print Complete Book of Villians is far superior to the BoVD, because it is primarily about constructing memorable characters with motivations, histories, networks, and goals. It was a book about plotting and writing, basically, and I think that's something every RPG book needs to have. It explained how there could be a villain of any alignment, and there was maybe only one section in the back with a table for "villainous" methods. The BOVD, I feel, has none of this subtlety and is simply about new rules to exploit, and how to make your villains as reprehensible as possible so as to manipulate your players into killing them--and if that's what alignment has been reduced to in 3e then I think that's shallow. Not because the rulebooks acknowledge that this is the path many players will take, but because they don't seem to think that you should have any higher aspirations. They don't really encourage creativity.
I agree with you completely. I think I speak for everybody when I say so. Introducing a moral framework is what my original post was intended to do, or at least to begin to do.
I'm glad this angle of the game hasn't been lost, but I fear that with it's current representation, less will understand the alignment system in it's full richness and more will see it as unrealistic and black and white.
That's all it boils down to. Right now I'm looking for a satisfactory way to break down the law/chaos axis along similar lines; it always gets a little wonky in the middle. But that's neither here nor there, as this thread is about good and evil.
It becomes a little sticky, but the lawful end might be something like "values the group" versus "values the individual". The game Planescape: Torment had a very interesting alignment system. You started off as True Neutral instead of selecting and alignment from the start and the game keeps track of your actions, whether lawful, chaotic, good or evil, and eventually, if you are consistent to any degree, your alignment will change to something else, usually two or three times in the game.
Perhaps, to eliminate all possible ambiguity, we should reword the question slightly to "Do you serve the moral force that in English is called 'Evil?'" In the D&D cosmology, this is not an ambiguous use of the word "evil;" it is akin to asking in real life "Do you serve the nation that in English is called 'Australia?'"
That question can’t calibrate your “detect evil” since that question is exactly what the detect evil spell does. You’re very close to grasping the deep problem here. Detect Evil in D&D is just like asking if you work for the Australian government, it tells you what sides everyone is on, it doesn’t tell you which side is right. The capital ‘E’ Evil folks think they’re right about moral matters, the capital ‘G’ Good folks think they’re right. Detect Evil just tells you which team each being is on, not which is the right team.
On a side note, even if your second definition of evil held in the D&D cosmology, I don't see it as impossible for a creature with Int 20 and Wis 20 to believe that "I should do things that shouldn't be done." Psychopaths are often quite intelligent; if I recall correctly, even disproportionately so.
Formal logic is about not believing contradictory claims. The truth of some claims guarantees the falsehood of others. For instance if ‘bachelor’ just means “unmarried man” then I can’t simultaneously believe “John Smith is a bachelor” and “John Smith is married”. If I catch myself believing both I have to give up one. If I’m Int:20 and Wis:20 I will catch myself. It's not about being 'logical' in the dopey Hollywood 'not emotional' sense. It's about being 'logical' in the 'could these sentences both possibly be true' sense.
Now let’s look at the Balor and ‘peasant tossing’. Suppose peasant tossing is a popular Balor game of tossing randomly selected peasants off cliffs and watching them splatter. Peasant tossing detects as evil (or rather people who do much of it detect as evil).
If the Balor believes that peasant tossing is wrong he has to believe something like
(a) No one should toss peasants off cliffs for fun. and
(b) I should toss peasants off cliffs.
That’s contradictory. One of those two has to be false. That’s the error a supergenious can’t miss. No one sensible can claim he should do things that shouldn't be done. If he thinks peasant tossing "shouldn't be done" then he can't simultaneously think "he should go do some peasant tossing".
Compare with Hannibal Lector, who believes (for example).
(c) If someone is annoying, they should be killed and eaten.
(d) Frank is annoying.
(e) I should kill and eat Frank.
There is nothing contradictory there. ‘c’ is immoral, but it’s not stupid. The Balor who believes ‘a’ and ‘b’ though is being stupid though. Stupid in a way that a 20 Wis creature can’t help noticing and a 20 Int creature can’t help correcting. The Balor has to believe something like
(f) Peasant tossing, while classed with the ‘Evil’ label, is the sort of thing people should do if they can get away with it.
If he believes that he has no moral problem with saying “I’m Evil” and meaning it. But he still doesn’t think there is anything wrong with his behavior. The claim that (insert booming voice)COSMIC EVIL!!(end booming voice) is actually evil, actually stuff we shouldn’t do, takes an extra step that ‘Detect Evil’ spells can’t provide.
-Stephen
That question can’t calibrate your “detect evil” since that question is exactly what the detect evil spell does. You’re very close to grasping the deep problem here. Detect Evil in D&D is just like asking if you work for the Australian government, it tells you what sides everyone is on, it doesn’t tell you which side is right. The capital ‘E’ Evil folks think they’re right about moral matters, the capital ‘G’ Good folks think they’re right. Detect Evil just tells you which team each being is on, not which is the right team.
I beg to differ. A character in-game doesn't know for a fact his spell is called detect evil the way the player does; the character only thinks so. But by using the demon-summoning test (actually, for best accuracy it should be a yugoloth-summoning test, and also require negative answers to the questions "Do you serve Law?" and "Do you serve Chaos?" And I'm assuming that you do know it's some sort of detect alignment spell), the character then knows for certain that this spell, which up 'til now he'd only thought detected evil, is actually detect evil.
Now we've drawn the line between the sides, determined who is generally inclined to act according to my or someone else's formal, objective definition of Good and who acts Evil. What about right and wrong? See below.
Formal logic is about not believing contradictory claims. The truth of some claims guarantees the falsehood of others. For instance if ‘bachelor’ just means “unmarried man” then I can’t simultaneously believe “John Smith is a bachelor” and “John Smith is married”. If I catch myself believing both I have to give up one. If I’m Int:20 and Wis:20 I will catch myself. It's not about being 'logical' in the dopey Hollywood 'not emotional' sense. It's about being 'logical' in the 'could these sentences both possibly be true' sense.
I'm quite fond of Spock, but you're right; he's no more "logical" than Kirk. But never mind that...
Now let’s look at the Balor and ‘peasant tossing’. Suppose peasant tossing is a popular Balor game of tossing randomly selected peasants off cliffs and watching them splatter. Peasant tossing detects as evil (or rather people who do much of it detect as evil).
If the Balor believes that peasant tossing is wrong he has to believe something like
(a) No one should toss peasants off cliffs for fun. and
(b) I should toss peasants off cliffs.
That’s contradictory. One of those two has to be false. That’s the error a supergenious can’t miss. No one sensible can claim he should do things that shouldn't be done. If he thinks peasant tossing "shouldn't be done" then he can't simultaneously think "he should go do some peasant tossing".
If right and wrong are simply "what I should/shouldn't do," then we face a problem, as moralizers often criticize others' behavior as wrong (and rather less often praise behavior as right). By the personal definition of right and wrong, this simply doesn't make any sense, as "what I should do" has no bearing on what others should do.
Let us consider next right and wrong as "what everyone should/shouldn't do." Now let us consider someone who thinks he should murder people. He does not, however, think others should murder people; in particular, he would be unhappy if someone murdered him. Is murder right or wrong in this person's eyes? He thinks he should do it, but that not everyone should. It's a bit ambiguous.
A third problem is still more basic. We must consider where the imperatives of right and wrong came from. In other words, "You should do x." "Why?"
These are deep and difficult philosophical issues in real life. In the D&D universe, however, the issue of moral imperatives' source is easily enough solved: right and wrong are Good and Evil; or, perhaps more accurately, Good and Evil are right and wrong. Good is defined as following a code of righteousness; Evil is defined as doing that which shouldn't be done. Good and Evil are not simply two sides in a conflict, as would be the case if, say, Australia and Japan fought a war. By making this assumption, you are applying our universe's moral ambiguities to the D&D universe, which, of course, is not morally ambiguous at all. Good is good because it is right; Evil is evil because it is wrong. Those who know they are Evil, such as fiends, do so because they know they have no regard for the code of right and wrong. Therefore, I see a balor's logic as running something like this:
(a). It is wrong to toss peasants off cliffs.
(b). I am not subject to the rules of right and wrong.
(c). (a) and (b); therefore, I may toss peasants off cliffs.
(d). Tossing peasants off cliffs is fun.
(e). I should do what is fun.
(f). (c), (d), and (e); therefore, I should toss peasants off cliffs.
On the other hand, you could get a character who follows a code (maybe a misreading of Nietsche or perhaps Ayn Rand) that makes the paladin go "ding!"; i.e. one who thinks that behavior defined as Evil is right. But why does he think it is right? Because he thinks that he is helping others by doing so. For instance, a corrupt CEO might point to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations as evidence that by pursuing his own interests he's helping others. Now, as an intelligent person, when confronted by evidence that he is indeed hurting others (i.e. being evil, or doing wrong), he cannot hold the incompatible beliefs that he is good while he does wrong, or that he is right while he does evil; he must either change his behavior or admit to himself that what he does is evil and wrong.
Compare with Hannibal Lector, who believes (for example).
(c) If someone is annoying, they should be killed and eaten.
(d) Frank is annoying.
(e) I should kill and eat Frank.
There is nothing contradictory there. ‘c’ is immoral, but it’s not stupid. The Balor who believes ‘a’ and ‘b’ though is being stupid though. Stupid in a way that a 20 Wis creature can’t help noticing and a 20 Int creature can’t help correcting.
Do you think Hannibal doesn't know that it is wrong to kill and eat people? I rather think Hannibal's logic resembles the balor's, particularly in regard to my premise (b). The difference is that Hannibal, being in our universe, sees the code of right and wrong as something other than cosmic forces woven into the very fabric of the universe, as I doubt he's religious.
The Balor has to believe something like
(f) Peasant tossing, while classed with the ‘Evil’ label, is the sort of thing people should do if they can get away with it.
If he believes that he has no moral problem with saying “I’m Evil” and meaning it. But he still doesn’t think there is anything wrong with his behavior. The claim that (insert booming voice)COSMIC EVIL!!(end booming voice) is actually evil, actually stuff we shouldn’t do, takes an extra step that ‘Detect Evil’ spells can’t provide.
See above, particularly my paragraph beginning "These are deep and difficult philosophical issues..."
The main reason for my contesting you on this point is simply that I find the idea uncomfortable that fiends think of what they do as right. In my mind, fiends don't act righteous; if you asked a fiend (in a zone of truth if necessary) what it thought of its actions, it would not say they are right; it would say they are wrong, but it doesn't care. By your definition of right and wrong, this statement is simply unintelligible. My intuition balks at such an assertion.
The main reason for my contesting you on this point is simply that I find the idea uncomfortable that fiends think of what they do as right. In my mind, fiends don't act righteous; if you asked a fiend (in a zone of truth if necessary) what it thought of its actions, it would not say they are right; it would say they are wrong, but it doesn't care. By your definition of right and wrong, this statement is simply unintelligible. My intuition balks at such an assertion.
This is a well put paragraph which I think gets at the heart of our disagreement. "X is wrong, but I don't care, I'm doing it." does seem unintelligible to me. I think the best you can hope for are nihilist Balor who say "Nothing is wrong, so I'm off peasant tossing"
Regardless, I think any formulation of a moral claim has to have an actor attached to it. "It is wrong to do X" doesn't make any sense to me unless it is just shorthand for "It is wrong for person Y to do X". Y might be me, it might be everyone, it might be everyone except me, it might be 'kids under 7', but its got to be *someone*. For a moral requirement to make any sense it has to be a moral requirement for somebody. A moral rule that doesn't obligate anyone doesn't make sense.
Maybe the Balor only thinks peasant tossing is wrong for others, but right for him. Rules of that form are logically fine. For instance, I think taking money out of my bank account is permissible for me but impermissible for others. There isn't a general logical problem with rules that only apply to me. Still, that won't get the Balor thinking he has done anything wrong. What you seem to have in mind is something like Bob the Balor (i.e. a specific Balor) thinking "It would be evil for Bob the Balor to toss peasants." but doing it anyway. I'm arguing that it's that pair which is unintelligible and not the sort of irrational thought a Wis:20 creature could have.
So back to your proposed Balor psychology:
(a). It is wrong to toss peasants off cliffs.
(b). I am not subject to the rules of right and wrong.
(c). (a) and (b); therefore, I may toss peasants off cliffs.
(d). Tossing peasants off cliffs is fun.
(e). I should do what is fun.
(f). (c), (d), and (e); therefore, I should toss peasants off cliffs.
From (c),(d), and (e), (f) does follow, but I don't think anyone could hold (b). Everyone is subject to moral laws, that's the whole point, that's what makes them objective laws. Even if I think the only moral law is "I should do whatever I want and everyone else should help me" I'm still subject to morality. (b) strikes me as incoherent, how could particular sentences be objective true "rules" if they don't apply to anyone? I can think there are no moral laws, but I can't think there really are moral laws and they don't require anything of me.
It can't be true that "Bob the Balor shouldn't peasant toss" is deeply, objectively, divinely true if that sentence doesn't apply to Bob the Balor. If it doesn't apply to Bob, it doesn't apply to anyone (since it only mentions Bob), so it's not actually a moral law. If it doesn't apply to Bob it doesn't require anything of Bob. If it doesn't require anything of anyone it's not a moral law.
Put another way, does Bob the Balor's think the sentence
"Bob the Balor shouldn't peasant toss, it's wrong!"
applies to him? If he does then he can't think he should peasant toss. If he doesn't then he can't think peasant tossing is wrong. It's not wrong to ignore rules that don't apply to you.
If he thinks it doesn't apply to him then he can't simultaneously think it is an objective moral law that truthfully describes some feature of what is and isn't ok for him to do. Either the claim is true (in which case it has to apply to him) or it is false (in which case he doesn't think he's done anything wrong). That’s the incoherence in the "I'm evil and lovin' it!" view. Campy 70's sci-fi villains might take that position, but a Wis:20 Balor can't.
I want to describe Bob as having sincere (but wrong) moral beliefs. There is an alternative though. Evil outsiders could be nihilists, believe there are no genuine ethical obligations on anyone and go about all sorts of evil. They won't give you a nice "Yes, I'm on the wrong side" response to calibrate your detection spells in that case though. If you ask a nihilist "Are you evil." they'll just say, "No, no one is or could be."
-Stephen
This is a well put paragraph which I think gets at the heart of our disagreement. "X is wrong, but I don't care, I'm doing it." does seem unintelligible to me. I think the best you can hope for are nihilist Balor who say "Nothing is wrong, so I'm off peasant tossing"
Coming down off the philosophical high horse a bit, I can think of several simple real-life situations in which the statement "x is wrong, but I don't care; I'm doing it" is quite coherent, at least to common intuition. x could be:
"Taking the last slice of pie..."
"Swearing at this irritating telemarketer..."
"Beating up that first-grader and taking his lunch money..."
"Robbing the bank..."
"Killing my boss..."
Ordinary people engage in behavior that they know to be wrong all the time. If plain old mortals can do this, is it so difficult to conceive of fiends, the very embodiments of evil and perversity, can do this as well?
Regardless, I think any formulation of a moral claim has to have an actor attached to it. "It is wrong to do X" doesn't make any sense to me unless it is just shorthand for "It is wrong for person Y to do X". Y might be me, it might be everyone, it might be everyone except me, it might be 'kids under 7', but its got to be *someone*. For a moral requirement to make any sense it has to be a moral requirement for somebody. A moral rule that doesn't obligate anyone doesn't make sense.
Maybe the Balor only thinks peasant tossing is wrong for others, but right for him. Rules of that form are logically fine. For instance, I think taking money out of my bank account is permissible for me but impermissible for others. There isn't a general logical problem with rules that only apply to me. Still, that won't get the Balor thinking he has done anything wrong. What you seem to have in mind is something like Bob the Balor (i.e. a specific Balor) thinking "It would be evil for Bob the Balor to toss peasants." but doing it anyway. I'm arguing that it's that pair which is unintelligible and not the sort of irrational thought a Wis:20 creature could have.
At first, I was nodding my head in agreement with you here, but then I thought about the various demons and devils whose occupation it is to corrupt mortals to the ways of evil in some form or another. If Bob the Balor still thinks it is wrong for non-Bob-the-Balor people to toss peasants, shouldn't he feel some modicum, at least, of disapproval when he sees others doing it? That seems very un-demonlike to me.
[/quote=sgingell]So back to your proposed Balor psychology:
From (c),(d), and (e), (f) does follow, but I don't think anyone could hold (b). Everyone is subject to moral laws, that's the whole point, that's what makes them objective laws. Even if I think the only moral law is "I should do whatever I want and everyone else should help me" I'm still subject to morality.
Ah-ah-ah! You're applying subjective reasoning. "Objective" in this case doesn't mean everyone is subject to them; it means they're the same for everyone. If the only law is "I should do whatever I want and everyone else should help me," then it's that way for both devils and angels.
Since, in the D&D universe, the laws of morality are universal cosmic forces, rules that apply equally to everyone, but actual behavior varies so much from outsider to outsider, it follows that the rules must not always be obeyed. Right and wrong, at least in the D&D universe, are not individual standards, but the very precepts of Good and Evil. Celestials, paragons of Good, are devoted to doing what is right, and encouraging others to do the same. Fiends, incarnations of Evil, are equally devoted to doing wrong, and spreading wrongdoing among mortals. Nor, since the forces are tangible and definitively named, do they have any chance of mixing up the labels, though befuddled mortals might.
(b) strikes me as incoherent, how could particular sentences be objective true "rules" if they don't apply to anyone? I can think there are no moral laws, but I can't think there really are moral laws and they don't require anything of me. It can't be true that "Bob the Balor shouldn't peasant toss" is deeply, objectively, divinely true if that sentence doesn't apply to Bob the Balor.
Why not? After all, the demons are opposed to everything the sentence represents. Just consider them the hideously perverse, Abyssal versions of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King. ;)
Furthermore, it's not so much that the law truly doesn't apply to him (if this was truly so, after all, the paladin would have no justification to slay him), but that he believes it doesn't. Not really so different from what you're proposing; I just balk at the idea that such unashamedly evil creatures as demons would describe what they do as "right." Furthermore, in the D&D universe, we can definitively say that it isn't right, because it isn't in accordance with the precepts of Good. By definition, Good is the "good guys," the "white hats," the right side to be on. But fiends are with every fiber of their beings opposed to the force of Good, driven by their very nature to flaunt its precepts as vigorously as the celestials uphold them.
So you could say that celestials and fiends share the same precepts of right and wrong, but differ in their definitions of "wrong." Celestials see "wrong" as we do, as "things that shouldn't be done." But fiends see "wrong" as "things the precepts of Good say shouldn't be done," which means, due to their total opposition to the power of Good, that they do these things all the time. Again, not so very different from what you were saying about differing definitions of right. But the key difference is that if a balor for some reason wanted to imitate an angel, he would know to preach that the actions he truly espouses are "wrong," and shouldn't be done.
If it doesn't apply to Bob, it doesn't apply to anyone (since it only mentions Bob), so it's not actually a moral law. If it doesn't apply to Bob it doesn't require anything of Bob. If it doesn't require anything of anyone it's not a moral law.
Put another way, does Bob the Balor's think the sentence
"Bob the Balor shouldn't peasant toss, it's wrong!"
applies to him? If he does then he can't think he should peasant toss. If he doesn't then he can't think peasant tossing is wrong. It's not wrong to ignore rules that don't apply to you.
Basically, you're saying that if a universe has objective, absolute moral laws, everyone is compelled to follow them; otherwise they're not objective, absolute moral laws. Obviously, this is not the case. Demons live in a universe with objective, absolute moral laws (I take this fact as given), and dedicate their lives to breaking as many of them as possible, as often as possible, because that's what they're there for.
In other words, "should" is not an absolute guarantor of the stated behavior. How many times have you heard people say, "Oh, I really shouldn't..." then do it anyway? "Should," in the end, really means nothing more than "the moral law says so," which of course means our definitions are quite circular.
If he thinks it doesn't apply to him then he can't simultaneously think it is an objective moral law that truthfully describes some feature of what is and isn't ok for him to do. Either the claim is true (in which case it has to apply to him) or it is false (in which case he doesn't think he's done anything wrong). That’s the incoherence in the "I'm evil and lovin' it!" view. Campy 70's sci-fi villains might take that position, but a Wis:20 Balor can't.
Except that they do. A demon has to admit that objective morality exists, being a very embodiment of the bad side of said morality. But objective morality is not the same as, say, objective physical law; even though it is equally valid in all people and places, it is possible to act against its dictates. With that in mind, how difficult is it to conceive a person or creature whose tastes are such that acting against objective morality's dictates is fun? "Fun" is no more than the pleasure evoked by a certain set of behaviors; since it is possible to behave in such a way, it is conceivable that such a behavior could be fun. In short, demons and devils are like the campy sci-fi villains.
I want to describe Bob as having sincere (but wrong) moral beliefs.
"Sincere moral beliefs" is not a phrase often applied to demons, even with the parenthetical qualification you inserted. This is exactly how I don't want to describe Bob.
There is an alternative though. Evil outsiders could be nihilists, believe there are no genuine ethical obligations on anyone and go about all sorts of evil. They won't give you a nice "Yes, I'm on the wrong side" response to calibrate your detection spells in that case though. If you ask a nihilist "Are you evil." they'll just say, "No, no one is or could be."
While not a terribly uncommon view on these boards, this also strikes me as an improper attitude for real demons. Setting aside for the moment the simple fact that I damn well want my fiends to say "I'm evil and I'm lovin' it!" on occasion, this nihilistic attitude would not cause its adherents to spread behavior that non-nihilists would describe as "evil" or "wrong." In short, the whole point of fiends (tempt mortals to evil) would be lost.
A campaign setting with nihilistic demons would seem to me rather removed from the black-and-white fantasy of the D&D universe and closer to the more philosophically and ethically complex world of real life. Paradoxically, it seems that these grayer fiends make the whole world darker than the absolute blackness of "Evil and lovin' it!" ones. Possibly because in this world there's the darkly tantalizing possibility, however much one tries not to consider it, that the demons could be right (as in correct).
Now that's something to consider: right and wrong vs. correct and incorrect... maybe later.
What I am trying to say is that alignments are not made to restrict the players, they are made to statistically measure which effects affect whom. Without alignments, the alignment based classes (paladins, clerics, druids, bards and barbarians) would break down into a chaotic mess. There would be no holy or unholy spells, and that would drain a huge amount of flavor from the game.
If you are not happy with the given alignments, chose the one closest to the way you wish to play your character. If you are happy with none, select neutral. And if you still are unhappy, then invent a house-rule for heavens sake.
Ordinary people engage in behavior that they know to be wrong all the time. If plain old mortals can do this, is it so difficult to conceive of fiends, the very embodiments of evil and perversity, can do this as well?
The difference is that I don't have a +19 Will save. If I did have such a supernaturally strong will I'd get out of bed right when my alarm went off, exercise every day, write to my grandmothers, clean the apartment and do all the other things I think I should. The guy who says "I shouldn't eat this cake" but then does is suffering from a weakness of will, were he more disciplined he'd do what he thought was best. I just don't buy that Balor and weak willed, they do what they want. If they thought they shouldn't do CE acts they wouldn't, they're too wise to be jerked around by thier vices.
Fiends, incarnations of Evil, are equally devoted to doing wrong, and spreading wrongdoing among mortals.
It is this kind of talk I find baffling. How could I both be "devoted" to a cause and also think advancing that cause was "evil"? The term "evil" means something, and part of the basic meaning of the term precludes knowingly devoting yourself to it. Thinking "X is evil" is exactly the same thought as thinking "One shouldn't do X". You can't think you should do what you think you shouldn't do, that's just loopy.
"Sincere moral beliefs" is not a phrase often applied to demons, even with the parenthetical qualification you inserted. This is exactly how I don't want to describe Bob.
This is an important point, ultimately you need to describe your demons in whatever way makes you happiest as a storyteller. Personally I find evil much more sinister and much scarier if the demons are sincere in their convictions. That it also satisfies my philosophical ideas about how these terms work is just an added bonus.
-Stephen
Ultimately I think we will have to agree to disagree lest we just start going round in circles, but there are a few parting comments I'd like to offer.
Agreement to disagree fine with me, but I get some parting shots too.
The difference is that I don't have a +19 Will save. If I did have such a supernaturally strong will I'd get out of bed right when my alarm went off, exercise every day, write to my grandmothers, clean the apartment and do all the other things I think I should. The guy who says "I shouldn't eat this cake" but then does is suffering from a weakness of will, were he more disciplined he'd do what he thought was best. I just don't buy that Balor and weak willed, they do what they want. If they thought they shouldn't do CE acts they wouldn't, they're too wise to be jerked around by their vices.
Again, I don't buy that high scores necessarily make you a person more devoted to the ideas you espouse. Wizards have great Will saves, yet the immortality of lichdom is usually described as a temptation or seduction. And furthermore, your Will save doesn't matter if you have nothing to save against; a demon is only too happy to be jerked around by its vices because it doesn't have anything better to do. They know intellectually that they shouldn't do something, by which I mean they know that their act is against the moral code stamped on the very fabric of the D&D universe, but they don't care. They're fiends, formed wholly of the power of evil, and thus opposed by their very nature to that moral code.
Your view seems to be that demons and devils simply have a different set of convictions than celestials. This seems to me okay for misguided-evil mortals, but far to relativist for outsiders, who deal in, and indeed are incarnations of, absolutes. Fiends are the most absolutely evil it is possible to be. Hypocrisy and depravity seem more evil than conviction. Therefore, fiends are hypocritical and depraved rather than convicted.
It is this kind of talk I find baffling. How could I both be "devoted" to a cause and also think advancing that cause was "evil"? The term "evil" means something, and part of the basic meaning of the term precludes knowingly devoting yourself to it. Thinking "X is evil" is exactly the same thought as thinking "One shouldn't do X". You can't think you should do what you think you shouldn't do, that's just loopy.
The term "evil" means something in our relativistic modern real-life worldview, and something entirely different in the black-and-white universe of D&D. To us, evil means something one thinks one shouldn't do. To D&D folk, Evil means something the universe thinks no one should do (not that the universe is necessarily sentient; perhaps I should say "the universe says...").
This is an important point, ultimately you need to describe your demons in whatever way makes you happiest as a storyteller. Personally I find evil much more sinister and much scarier if the demons are sincere in their convictions. That it also satisfies my philosophical ideas about how these terms work is just an added bonus.
I'm going to contradict my earlier statement a bit and say that it is possible for a fiend, especially a devil, to be convicted to evil. Conviction is (at least in my view) lawful, not good, so the incarnation of lawful evilness is bound to have conviction in him as well as the evil traits of hypocrisy and depravity I mentioned above. Now, it may seem like an oxymoron to be devoted to hypocrisy; but remember that the moral code is absolute in the D&D universe, and fiends are by nature opposed to everything about it. For devils, it makes sense that their opposition to this code take on the form of conviction; i.e. they obey the rule (lawful concept) that they should (using your definition for the word now) do whatever they shouldn't (my definition again) do. They follow the anti-code.
Demons, on the other hand, as suits their chaotic nature, are going to be opposed to the code on the grounds that it restricts their freedom to do whatever the hell they want (which, being evil creatures, is generally not in line with the code). Their not going to be convicted to this opposition so much as laugh in the face of anyone who tries to hold them to it (then eat that face).
So you may have fiends with conviction, but I have the best of both worlds. As to my own personal views on which is scarier, let it be known that I use devils a lot more than demons in my campaigns. But sometimes it's good (er...) for evil to let its hair down, to revel in its own depravity and throw all convictions out the window. That's when I let out the balors.
It is this kind of talk I find baffling. How could I both be "devoted" to a cause and also think advancing that cause was "evil"? The term "evil" means something, and part of the basic meaning of the term precludes knowingly devoting yourself to it. Thinking "X is evil" is exactly the same thought as thinking "One shouldn't do X". You can't think you should do what you think you shouldn't do, that's just loopy.
I think that your first lines here do point out the difference between your beliefs and Wyrm's, but it becomes absolutely transparent in the line I bolded. While I was willing to grant the first line and perhaps let it slide, the bolded line I simply could not pass over. Thinking that X is "evil" only equates to thinking "I shouldn't do X" under certain circumstances... for example, if you think of yourself as "good" and someone who combats "evil". However, if you consider yourself evil then why shouldn't you do something that is, also, evil?
Now obviously this brings up the question of, "What kind of being considers themselves evil?" My answer would be someone intelligent, or wise, enough to know that their actions say that they are. This is where the high Wis or Int would factor in. Demons and devils are supposed to be the incarnations of Evil. Wouldn't they know that, and wouldn't they also, more than likely, revel in causing pain and suffering? Aren't they supposed to? But this gets into Ancient Wyrm's points, so...
The term "evil" means something in our relativistic modern real-life worldview, and something entirely different in the black-and-white universe of D&D. To us, evil means something one thinks one shouldn't do. To D&D folk, Evil means something the universe thinks no one should do (not that the universe is necessarily sentient; perhaps I should say "the universe says...").
Now I feel like playing Devil's Advocate...
I'm not even sure that in our world "evil" is something one shouldn't do. It is merely something that most judge as unworthy. We consider Good on one side of the spectrum and Evil on the other, but who are we to say that Good is the preferred side? Our society seems to value it, but does that mean it is right? Is there even such a thing? This seems to be pushing toward your point as well, but in a different way. Maybe demons would just take the view that Evil is the "right" path. If so, they could most assuredly have a conviction that said so. But then, this would be the more Lawful version of a demon, which would be strange in some aspects. Is this similar to how you described devils? I'm not quite sure if I'm retreading the same ground.
Demons, on the other hand, as suits their chaotic nature, are going to be opposed to the code on the grounds that it restricts their freedom to do whatever the hell they want (which, being evil creatures, is generally not in line with the code). Their not going to be convicted to this opposition so much as laugh in the face of anyone who tries to hold them to it (then eat that face).
This I agree with whole-heartedly. I think you've done an excellent job explaining how I view those beings as well.
So now, hopefully I haven't restated too much. I also hope I haven't come off sounding too one-sided. I simply found that I tended to agree somewhat more frequently with Ancient Wyrm on this issue. Oh well.
The term "evil" means something in our relativistic modern real-life worldview, and something entirely different in the black-and-white universe of D&D. To us, evil means something one thinks one shouldn't do. To D&D folk, Evil means something the universe thinks no one should do (not that the universe is necessarily sentient; perhaps I should say "the universe says...").
No, that's not what an absolute moral compass means any more than an absolute magnetic compass means north is a better direction to move than south. D&D Good isn't more right or wrong than Evil, any more than it is more right or wrong than Law or Chaos. It's just plain nicer, that's all.
Celestials may well hear the universe say, "life is precious and rare, it should be nurtured and cherished and protected and wubbed." Fiends, on the other claw, hear the universe say, "ewww, what is this life stuff growing on me? Crush it, kill it, drown it, parch it, fry it, freeze it, why won't it just die!?"
Life is harsh, survival is a struggle, and growth comes through conflict. Only those strong enough to survive oppression deserve to survive, so say the fiends, and the celestial's namby pamby mollycoddling ways simply make those they protect weak and ultimately do nobody any favour. That's why the fiends see Evil as the righteous thing to be.
Of course, the devils believe that they have to all hang together, or they'll be hung separately, while for demons it's is every fiend for herself. But that's just a difference in ethical opinion.
Celestials just shake their heads sadly at their wicked, wicked ways.
Alignment should be junked altogether. It adds nothing to the game and has been the cause of endless, and ultimately pointless, arguments.
What alignment adds to the game is whatever you bring to it. Ultimately, it's all just a game. The important thing is to have fun.
The point of the arguments are that they are fun, and they make you think. They have plenty of edutainment value. People have been arguing endlessly about moral and ethical philosophy for eons for that very reason.
Agreement to disagree fine with me, but I get some parting shots too.
But of course. I wouldn't have wanted you to think I was trying to get the last word with that previous post. I've really enjoyed this thread and the interesting arguments you've raised, so as far as last words go, I'd just have:
Thanks.
;)
-Stephen
... they obey the rule (lawful concept) that they should (using your definition for the word now) do whatever they shouldn't (my definition again) do.
The unclarity of language pains me. Please, choose a synonym for should and assign it either your or his definition to it. This will allow you to Omit Unnecessary Words.
They follow the anti-code.
Excellent sentence.
Where do Yugoloths fit in this? From the flavor I understand of them, they see themselves as being pure.
I owe you a triple thanks, for creating this thread, for resurrecting this thread, and finally, in conjunction with others, for making this the best D&D morals thread I've ever read.
Now I feel like playing Devil's Advocate...
I'm not even sure that in our world "evil" is something one shouldn't do. It is merely something that most judge as unworthy. We consider Good on one side of the spectrum and Evil on the other, but who are we to say that Good is the preferred side? Our society seems to value it, but does that mean it is right? Is there even such a thing?
You're treading on dangerous philosophical ground, b6. Should we condemn the Holocaust? Our society values life and the preservation thereof, and holds the systematic humiliation, imprisonment, torture, and eventual slaughter of millions of innocents in rather low regard. But are we right? Is there even such a thing?
Call me an intellectual coward, but I'm afraid to look in that direction, for fear of what I might see. But this is all off-topic, so onward...
This seems to be pushing toward your point as well, but in a different way. Maybe demons would just take the view that Evil is the "right" path. If so, they could most assuredly have a conviction that said so. But then, this would be the more Lawful version of a demon, which would be strange in some aspects. Is this similar to how you described devils? I'm not quite sure if I'm retreading the same ground.
You are, in fact, restating sgingell's point that fiends think of evil as "right," based on his definition of "right" as "something I think should be done." My definition of "right," on the other hand, is "an act in line with the universal code;" i.e. a good act. I believe that sgingell is applying too much of real-life's moral relativism to D&D, which is not in the least morally relative. He may be correct about a definition of "right" in real life, but that's because we don't have anything better to go by. But in D&D, good and evil are quite tangible; thus, in my view, it makes sense for the labels of "right" and "wrong" to be connected definitively to these forces, making devils doing absolute wrong, and (because of their nature) knowing that they're doing it. But sgingell holds, again based on his definition of "right," that it is nonsensical for a fiend to think "This is wrong, so I should do it." [/summary of the disagreement]
C.S Lewis stated (warning! I am paraphrasing!) that the fundamental difference between Good and evil was that Good does not need evil to exist; and that there can be no evil in the absence of Good. Ergo Good can exist without evil, and is therefore more fundamental than evil.
In a role-playing context this means that creatures of the lower planes can be evil by their nature. But there needs to exist a Good for them to be opposed to. But there does not need to be evil for Good-aligned or Good-natured creatures/people to exist.
Innocent Neutrality, or Uncaring Neutrality (in order not to throw around the word "innocent") is that which comes from either not knowing the difference between good and evil (as an animal would commit an evil act without knowing it is so) or a farmer refusing to enlist in the military during times of war. The farmer, in this case, is innocent, not because he doesn't know his failure to enlist is going to hurt some one or something (indeed, perhaps his enlistment in the army could lead to his country's victory), but because he's just a farmer who doesn't want to get hurt. This example is self-preserving, but inasmuch as there is no direct harm from enlisting in the military, the self-preservation defense can only take you so far. The real motivation is an uncaring sense of self-devotion: the farmer doesn't care who he pays taxes to as long as the taxes aren't raised. Thus it makes no difference to him which side of a battle he joins, as long as he's not hurt by the process.
This act isn't evil per se; chaotic, perhaps, but certainly not evil. Even if failure to stand in this moment allows some great evil to occur, since there is no clear and present threat of evil at the immediate moment then the act cannot be considered evil.
What the farmer is actually doing is practicing moral cowardice. He decides not to join a war because the war is not affecting his livelihood. "Why should I risk my life when my land is safe? Why should I have to sacrifice my livelihood to fight for others I don't know? Let others fight in the war. I'm comfortable and happy" is what he may say. He may not be evil in the strictest sense, but he is being selfish not self-preserving. A self-preserving individual would realize the war might indeed reach his lands if not enough individuals join the army to fight and everybody thought as he did.
In my opinion pure neutrality in any form is moral cowardice. The individual is afraid to go one way or the other because he is comfortable where he is and refuses to sacrifice anything he has to benefit one side or the other. They play both sides of the fence in the hopes of appeasing all parties while letting those on both sides suffer to maintain some sick balance. To me that is simply disgusting.
The big misconception that the druid (strict neutral) concept has on life is that humanoid life should or always mirrors nature and thus a balance must be maintained. This is false. Almost all humanoids have the ability of rational thought, something nothing in nature can ever obtain. Whether they choose to do good or evil they make conscious decisions on what they do. Even neutrality is a conscious decision, except they choose to do nothing in this case. Nature, and thus animals, are not neutral. They act and react always on instinct. A dog will take food offered by an evil warrior simply because it knows hunger. It doesn't know the warriors' outlook nor can it even comprehend it. It simply sees the food. By the same token, a dog will defend its master if its master is attacked. This person is the dog's protector. He feeds it, cleans it, plays with it, and shows it attention. The dog doesn't do this out of kindness. It simply sees a being it needs to be with to survive.
If you ever decide to tackle on the Law/Chaos axis, you may want to read on some recent threads. I've seen way too many people defending that being Chaotic is the same as being Anarchic, or random and undisciplined.
I used a Robin Hood example in this thread which pretty much covers my view of the Law/Chaos debate.
Anyway, once again, excellent work!
There are two important definitions we need to use when talking about D&D alignments. One is Good and Evil, obviously, but the other is Right and Wrong.
This is important because in our modern mindset Good and Right have gotten connected one with the other. This is mostly due, in my mind, to Judeo-Christian religions that have one god. Basically, this has led to having a single moral path considered socially acceptable. In other words, you either follow of the laws of God, or you're Wrong. And since the price of being Wrong is pretty unpleasant (eternal damnation and all that), obviously, no one in their right mind should want to do anything but toe the line.
Now, most Judeo-Christian religions see themselves as LG or LN, so most of our moral mindsets are that way. This means that LG is "Right" and everything else is "Wrong".
Simple example: "Children born with genetic diseases should be left to die from their illnesses before they can grow old enough to bear children."
Sounds horrible doesn't it? Most people would be horrified to have someone say that out loud in public. What alignment do you think that action is?
It's True Neutral. But most people would have said Evil. That's because, in our moral mindset, even True Neutral is "Wrong", and wrong has become a synonym for "Evil".
In D&D, things are different. There is no "Wrong" path. There are, instead 9 "Right" paths. The True Neutral druid could make a comment like the one above, and as far as he is concerned, it's quite right of him to say so. He doesn't have to pretend he's Good. He isn't. He knows he isn't. And he knows he has peers that would agree with him. He won't be going to some metaphorical torture chamber for all of eternity when he dies, because he's not Lawful Good. He'll be going to the plane that embodies his philosophy, and where he'll be able to contribute to its furthering after life. So, for him, being True Neutral is perfectly fine.
How does this bear with what other people said before?
Let's go back to that balor philosophy.
(a). It is wrong to toss peasants off cliffs.
(b). I am not subject to the rules of right and wrong.
(c). (a) and (b); therefore, I may toss peasants off cliffs.
(d). Tossing peasants off cliffs is fun.
(e). I should do what is fun.
(f). (c), (d), and (e); therefore, I should toss peasants off cliffs.
This is erroneous for a few things.
There is no a). A Balor does what it wants because it's Evil, and doing whatever you want no matter what the cost to others is a hallmark of Evil. As far as the Balor is concerned, that's Right. b) is also pointless, but not for the same reason. Balors do care about right and wrong. However, they happen to think CE is Right, and everything else is Wrong, not that Lawful Good is Right and that everything else, including themselves are Wrong.
The real Balor philosophy thus is:
a) It is right and proper for the strong to do whatever they want.
b) Tossing peasants off cliffs is fun
c) Therefore, let the peasant-tossing begin.
See? The balor should never, ever believe it is "Wrong" in doing what it's alignment dictates. For the balor, "Wrong" is thinking you shouldn't toss peasants off the cliff, even though it's fun. That's the aberrant thought.
Now, on the nature of Good and Evil.
The best loose definitions I've come up with for Morality involve three aspects: Cost, Benefit, and Motive.
Basically:
A Good act is an act that benefits others at your own expense.
A (morally) Neutral act is an act that does not benefit your at the expense of others, does not benefit others at your expense, or that does not benefit anyone.
An Evil act is an act that benefits yourself at the expense of others.
Examples:
I give money to charity.
I am benefiting the poor, by sacrificing my own wealth. Thus is it a Good act.
I give money to charity to look good in front of the Paladin of the party.
I am benefiting myself. But, it's only costing me. So it's a Neutral act.
I kill a dragon to save a village from destruction.
You do not benefit directly from the act. The dragon obviously looses from it. This is a Neutral act. No, it's not Good to kill the dragon, because Dragons could be swayed otherwise.
I kill a dragon for it's hoard.
You gain money. The dragon loses life. Evil act. Note that in the previous example, you very well might end up with the dragon's treasure too. But that wasn't your motivation.
I've found that, over time, this approach to alignment has served me pretty well, both as a DM and as a player.
In my estimation, a moral value can be assigned only within certain circumstances/situations. I think these circumstances require most (if not all) of the following concepts. I also think it may be helpful to agree on some nomenclature for this kind of discussion. Some of these points may be trivial, but I wanted to be complete. Ignore at will.
Agent - An entity to be assigned a moral value that possesses the following traits: Freedom, Domain, and Intelligence.
Subject - A separate entity that is effected by an action that possesses the following traits: Freedom, Domain, and Intelligence.
Freedom - The agent must be free to choose between more than one actions and must be free to determine its own will.
Knowledge - This is the ability to know information (sensory and mnemonic) about the environment, including the subject.
Intelligence - This is the ability to predict and compare the outcomes of actions based on knowledge.
Power - This is the ability to cause some change in the environment, including the subject.
Will - This is the desire to perform an action in order to cause a predicted effect.
Action - A specific action performed by the agent.
Domain - The subset of the environment that an agent can be reasonably assumed to be interested in.
Responsibility - The will to be held accountable for an action.
I wanted to create a framework for describing situations, identifying concepts, and defining whether it even makes sense to apply a moral tag. Can we add to this list, refine definitions, or poke holes in it. I just think in many situations, people are not understanding what others are saying.
The biggest problems I see with this framework is that so much depends on the specifics of the Freedom, Domain, and Intelligence of the Agent.
[INDENT]
Freedom: What if you are given a choice between 2 bad choices? How do we determine when inaction can be considered a separate choice?
Domain: How do we determine when inaction can be considered an action? How do we determine when the Domain is not sized appropriately?
Intelligence: What requirement exists between necessary and sufficient knowledge? When would you be required to be smarter? What about risk management and game theory?
[/INDENT]
A second concern is how we decide which traits are necessary to qualify an entity as a potential subject of a morally valued action.
[INDENT]
Freedom: Potential Freedoms? Is a freedom that limits other freedoms sound? When do freedoms conflict? Which freedoms take precedence? This gets into a particular issue that is inflammatory (I will not mention it here).
Domain: Potential Domain? What level of intelligence is required to acquire a Domain? This would deal with issues like AI and Animal Rights.
Intelligence: Potential Intelligence? What requirement exists for continuity of capability? How does will fit in? This would deal with issues like Living Wills, Non-responsive States, etc...?
What other traits are required: I think most would agree I cannot commit an evil act upon a rock. Slightly less would agree if it were a plant. Less again if it were a worm. Less again if it were a cow. Less again if it were a Monkey or Dolphin. The vast majority would agree that I can commit evil acts on humans, but there again, a few might qualify it. How about a dead human body? What other factors are pertinent? Why do we draw these distinctions?
[/INDENT]
I do not wish to turn the discussion to some of these hotly debated topics.
I only mention them as examples and to point to groups of similar problems within my suggested framework.
I will gladly offer clarifications if my ideas above are too abstract.
My intent is to help answer questions like:
If I am capable of doing evil, want to do evil, know how I might do evil, have a choice to do evil, have someone I could do evil to, have an interest in doing that evil, and yet do not perform the action, am I evil.
In D&D, I think the answer is definitely yes, as Evil is a Force. In reality, I am not sure.
In my opinion pure neutrality in any form is moral cowardice. The individual is afraid to go one way or the other because he is comfortable where he is and refuses to sacrifice anything he has to benefit one side or the other. They play both sides of the fence in the hopes of appeasing all parties while letting those on both sides suffer to maintain some sick balance. To me that is simply disgusting.
There are two paths: neutral and balance. The first one is uncaring who has some moral sense, one who helps others if the cost isn't greater than benefits.
The big misconception that the druid (strict neutral) concept has on life is that humanoid life should or always mirrors nature and thus a balance must be maintained. This is false. Almost all humanoids have the ability of rational thought, something nothing in nature can ever obtain. Whether they choose to do good or evil they make conscious decisions on what they do. Even neutrality is a conscious decision, except they choose to do nothing in this case.
The big misconception among do-gooders is that balance mustn't be maintained. This is false. Almost all humanoids have the ability of rational thought, something things in nature can obtain, too. Even if D&D doesn't use evolution, mechanics support me. Animals gain ability increases once every 4 levels, and can increase their intelligence to 3, which means rational thought.
Neutrality isn't always conscious choice. Neither is good, evil, law or chaos. They can just as well be ways of thinking. Someone who feels bad about killing or harming others and is very empathic is good, without any conscious choice. Likewise, psychopaths are evil without choice. They just can't feel empathy. Chaotic characters merely feel uncomfortable in organizations and tend to think more emotionally and impulsively. Lawful characters think logically, like traditions and rules, and so on. No need for choice. Everyone isn't crusading for h(is/er) alignment, and that is very good thing.
Nature, and thus animals, are not neutral. They act and react always on instinct. A dog will take food offered by an evil warrior simply because it knows hunger. It doesn't know the warriors' outlook nor can it even comprehend it. It simply sees the food. By the same token, a dog will defend its master if its master is attacked. This person is the dog's protector. He feeds it, cleans it, plays with it, and shows it attention. The dog doesn't do this out of kindness. It simply sees a being it needs to be with to survive.
And that is one form of neutrality. See your monster manual and PHB for details. In D&D, animals don't act on mere instinct. They can learn. They gain skill points and feats. Vermin act on pure instinct, and gain none of these.
Kyuketsukiouji, I mostly agree but will pick few points.
A Good act is an act that benefits others at your own expense.
A (morally) Neutral act is an act that does not benefit your at the expense of others, does not benefit others at your expense, or that does not benefit anyone.
An Evil act is an act that benefits yourself at the expense of others.
A good act is something that has greater or equal cost to you than the benefit others gain. A millionaire giving few coins to beggar isn't good but nice. A beggar giving the coin to someone else is, OTOH, good. The sacrifice is greater than the benefit.
A neutral act benefits you more or inconveniences you less than the other guy. When things are equal, neutrals go for themselves or their family. For starving character it is neutral to kill and eat another creature. It is good to starve away and let other live. Torturing other before killing is evil path.
Evil actions cause more pain to others than they benefit you. For rich human it is evil to rob poor. For the poor it is neutral to rob the rich.
I give money to charity.
I am benefiting the poor, by sacrificing my own wealth. Thus is it a Good act.
Possibly neutral, depending on the money given (if it is relevant sum).
schultz: I'm not a terribly huge fan of the strict neutral view myself. I'm playing a true neutral druid right now, and his is the neutrality of an animal, not that of the Great Balance, whatever that is. To believe that some evil must be allowed for the greater good is contradictory, in my view, as by definition evil seeks its own gain at the greater good's expense. Furthermore, the idea of a balance of power between the sides, constantly in conflict but with one side never gaining the upper hand, is horrendous. There can be little more potentially atrocious than an evenly-matched war. To espouse the rational and conscious view, therefore, that evil and suffering have a necessary place in the universe, and should be evenly matched with good, is itself evil, not neutral. As you can see in my original post, I've defined neutrality as acting in its own self-interest, but while respecting the lives and livelihoods of others.
Perhaps I should explore this further, as for me to say that someone who believes the Balance is for the greater good is actually evil may seem contradictory with my definition of evil as acting in one's own self-interest at the expense of others. A character who gives their whole being, "altruistically," to the preservation of the Balance is certainly not acting in their own self-interest. But, by allowing evil to endure and even giving it help when necessary, by promoting the eternal conflict that can easily become a horrendous meat-grinder with no hope of eventual victory for either side, he also cannot be acting for the good of others, though he may think he is. As a mortal, he can be deceived in this way, though fiends must by their essential nature know their true purpose. We could say that he is subconsciously acting in self-interest, by deriving spiritual satisfaction from "knowing" that he is doing good, but this is a deeply unsatisfying analysis, as it can also be applied to all good characters, thus making them all neutral. Nor can we simply say that he is a neutral of a different kind, as then we must again consider the serial killer - if he thinks he is acting in the greater good, if he does not loot the bodies, is he still evil? The follower of the Balance kills far more innocents than the serial killer, albeit less personally.
He cannot be said, however, to be completely an unwitting pawn of Evil, the cosmic force, for, though he aids it on occasion, he frustrates it just as often in his maintenance of the Balance. On the other hand, the suffering brought about by the conflict suits Evil's ends far more than it does Good's; the continuance of the war reflects a fundamental asymmetry between Evil and Good, a different and more positive side of which was expressed in James Wildspell's paraphrase of Lewis. Evil does not really care if some Good exists in the universe; it is content with surviving, due to its own egotistical nature. Naturally, it does want to expand its power and influence into areas controlled by Good, but that's out of greed, not necessity. Good, on the other hand, cannot suffer Evil to exist anywhere. Being by nature devoted to the common good, any suffering, any wrongdoing, anywhere hurts it, threatens its very existence. But to return to the point, the follower of the Balance thus ultimately serves Evil more than Good, though he may frustrate it from time to time and thus be less preferable to a devoted servant. His goal of the preservation of the sides, even beyond considerations of the cost of the struggle itself, suits Evil; Good must wipe out Evil, but Evil can abide Good.
We see this in the behavior of paladins and blackguards. It is easier to fall from grace than to return to it; DMs are mostly in agreement that even a single atrocity from a paladin will drop him from grace, but a good act by a blackguard will not even come close to redemption. Evil can do quite a bit of good and remain evil; but good cannot do evil and remain good. This is an asymmetry which good cannot overcome, as it is essential to the philosophical natures of the sides; it must simply struggle under the additional weight. But good does have an edge or two.
Consider a kingdom with a mostly-neutral peasantry. Which king would they prefer: a lawful good one, or a lawful evil one? Balance-freaks aside, neutral characters much prefer to have good around them than evil; they are far more likely to espouse a good moral code than an evil one themselves, even if they lack the strength and conviction to fully act upon their professed beliefs. Even evil characters probably prefer to have mostly good characters around them over evil ones, as long as those good characters are not trying to thwart their own evil ways. The self-interest of evil that allows it to survive in the face of good is also a great flaw: good characters by definition of their alignment hold a common goal, the common good, but for evil, each individual is his or her own cause. Of course, evil is not prohibited from acting in groups, putting the group's benefit ahead of others instead of the individual's, but even then, what happens when the evil group encounters another evil group? They still work against each other. Good groups meeting each other may have their differences - they're only mortal - but they at least espouse the same goal.
Habronicus: Thanks! I'm not used to getting any praise, much less that of such a glowing variety. Rest assured that I've not forgotten Law and Chaos, but I haven't satisfied myself on my definitions, and thus would have a difficult time satisfying anyone else. Suffice it to say that I too believe Chaos is the most widely and grossly misinterpreted alignment, and that I have some inklings that they key to this axis of alignment has to do with the method rather than the motive.
Lots of interesting stuff in here. Allow me to toss in the two coppers.
There are two important definitions we need to use when talking about D&D alignments. One is Good and Evil, obviously, but the other is Right and Wrong.
This is important because in our modern mindset Good and Right have gotten connected one with the other. This is mostly due, in my mind, to Judeo-Christian religions that have one god. Basically, this has led to having a single moral path considered socially acceptable. In other words, you either follow of the laws of God, or you're Wrong. And since the price of being Wrong is pretty unpleasant (eternal damnation and all that), obviously, no one in their right mind should want to do anything but toe the line.
Now, most Judeo-Christian religions see themselves as LG or LN, so most of our moral mindsets are that way. This means that LG is "Right" and everything else is "Wrong".
Simple example: "Children born with genetic diseases should be left to die from their illnesses before they can grow old enough to bear children."
Sounds horrible doesn't it? Most people would be horrified to have someone say that out loud in public. What alignment do you think that action is?
It's True Neutral. But most people would have said Evil. That's because, in our moral mindset, even True Neutral is "Wrong", and wrong has become a synonym for "Evil".
In D&D, things are different. There is no "Wrong" path. There are, instead 9 "Right" paths. The True Neutral druid could make a comment like the one above, and as far as he is concerned, it's quite right of him to say so. He doesn't have to pretend he's Good. He isn't. He knows he isn't. And he knows he has peers that would agree with him. He won't be going to some metaphorical torture chamber for all of eternity when he dies, because he's not Lawful Good. He'll be going to the plane that embodies his philosophy, and where he'll be able to contribute to its furthering after life. So, for him, being True Neutral is perfectly fine.
How does this bear with what other people said before?
Let's go back to that balor philosophy.
This is erroneous for a few things.
There is no a). A Balor does what it wants because it's Evil, and doing whatever you want no matter what the cost to others is a hallmark of Evil. As far as the Balor is concerned, that's Right. b) is also pointless, but not for the same reason. Balors do care about right and wrong. However, they happen to think CE is Right, and everything else is Wrong, not that Lawful Good is Right and that everything else, including themselves are Wrong.
The real Balor philosophy thus is:
a) It is right and proper for the strong to do whatever they want.
b) Tossing peasants off cliffs is fun
c) Therefore, let the peasant-tossing begin.
See? The balor should never, ever believe it is "Wrong" in doing what it's alignment dictates. For the balor, "Wrong" is thinking you shouldn't toss peasants off the cliff, even though it's fun. That's the aberrant thought.
I'm not sure whether or not it was intentional, but you have parroted almost precisely sgingell's arguments, except without giving any reasons why I am wrong. Why am I wrong about balors' beliefs? Why can Right not be linked with Good in a universe that actually does have a tangible force of Good?
To summarize my argument (again):
The creation of this distinction of good-evil versus right-wrong, and the subsequent introduction of a subjective right and wrong to an objective universe, is just the introduction of subjective good and evil to said universe in disguise. What is it that makes Evil Evil if its servants think it is right? How different is this from its servants thinking it is good, and thus making morality just as subjective as if the absolute labels Good and Evil didn't exist?
There are other considerations, as well, concerning the view that fiends think they're right. First of all, what makes it right in their eyes? What justifies their behavior? Good creatures believe what they do is right because it benefits the common good; why do evil creatures believe as such? If we could get a demon and an angel to sit down and have a debate, I believe we all know what the angel would say: "Look how many lead happier lives because of the actions of my people." But how would your dmon argue that its way is right and the angel's is wrong? As I have stated before, I find it rather more likely that the demon would just laugh at the angel's attempts.
Second, consider this: You say that the balor follows the belief that the strong should do whatever they want; well then, he must not mind if someone stronger than he comes along and plays Quidditch with the contents of his chest cavity. You have phrased the balor's belief in the format of a rule, a code of right and wrong. But balors are not well-known for following any rules. You would perhaps have a better case if it were a pit fiend instead of a balor, and indeed in an earlier post I admitted that devils could have a devotion to this sort of authority, but the existence of the demon still serves as a counter-example; obviously it is not necessary for a creature to have a set of rules that dictate its subjective right and wrong. And if right and wrong are not determined by some sort of rule, what are they determined by? Individual, case-by-case determination? Then "right" and "wrong" are no different than "what I like" and "what I don't like," and while a fiend may get some rhetorical weight out of using the former set of terms rather than the latter, personal taste is not the same thing as right and wrong; even if they are subjective, the terms do imply some sort of standard.
Now, I put forward that right and wrong are not subjective in D&D, but rather are synonymous with Good and Evil. As I said before, subjective right and wrong are simply subjective good and evil in disguise; objective good and evil without objective right and wrong is a toothless system, empty labels devoid of meaning. Good and Evil are not just two sides of a debate, neither of which is inherently more right than the other; that way of thinking is a product of our universe, our culture's subjectivity. Do you think such a way of thinking would ever arise in a universe where Good and Evil are tangible forces? No! Good is right, and evil is wrong; that's the whole point.
Now, on the nature of Good and Evil.
The best loose definitions I've come up with for Morality involve three aspects: Cost, Benefit, and Motive.
Basically:
A Good act is an act that benefits others at your own expense.
So if you perform an action that benefits everyone, yourself included, it's not good? Or if it benefits everyone else but at neither any benefit or expense to you?
A (morally) Neutral act is an act that does not benefit your at the expense of others, does not benefit others at your expense, or that does not benefit anyone.
You're grammatically ambiguous here; could you rephrase?
An Evil act is an act that benefits yourself at the expense of others.
No argument here.
Examples:
I give money to charity.
I am benefiting the poor, by sacrificing my own wealth. Thus is it a Good act.
Imagine you were King Midas (but had perhaps more control over your power). You thus have unlimited wealth, and giving some to charity is thus no sacrifice at all. Is it still a good act?
Due to the fact of inflation, that may actually be a bad example. Forget about the Midas touch. What if, instead of simply handing money over, you had a new city wall built that will benefit you with its protection as much as everyone else. This is thus not a sacrifice; is it still good?
I give money to charity to look good in front of the Paladin of the party.
I am benefiting myself. But, it's only costing me. So it's a Neutral act.
This would seem to answer my above questions. Yes, others benefit, but I benefit as well, therefore it is not good. This seems to me deeply unsatisfying; it makes the criterion for good not whether others benefit, but whether you suffer.
I kill a dragon to save a village from destruction.
You do not benefit directly from the act. The dragon obviously looses from it. This is a Neutral act. No, it's not Good to kill the dragon, because Dragons could be swayed otherwise.
Once again we must consider the case, brought up by Ehelonna, of the serial killer who does not loot his victims' bodies (but this time he forms an objection from the opposite direction to Duloth's). He does not benefit, while the murderee loses; thus, by your definition, the killing is neutral. The situation you describe here is completely different from this, as the fact that the dragon would destroy the village and thus killing him benefits the villagers adds a whole other set of circumstances that you've failed to even mention. In isolation, what you're describing is the non-looting killer, not the dragonslayer.
How can a dragon be swayed otherwise? More to the point, how to the characters know the dragon can be swayed otherwise, and can they do this swaying before the dragon accomplishes what it's trying to do?
I kill a dragon for it's hoard.
You gain money. The dragon loses life. Evil act. Note that in the previous example, you very well might end up with the dragon's treasure too. But that wasn't your motivation.
And here you still more obviously beg the example of Ehelonna's murderer. If I go off, track down some innocent dragon, and kill it, but do not touch its hoard, your definition puts me at neutral; more to the point, I am defined as neutral by the act of not touching the hoard, which seems to me the least consequential of the things I did. This screams against all intuition of mine.
I've found that, over time, this approach to alignment has served me pretty well, both as a DM and as a player.
Well, whatever works for your games, I guess, but I would ponder very deeply the examples I raised.
I find that my players end up defining their characters' alignments unconsciously, based mostly on their own personalities and a general character concept. Though that might not work with some groups, or characters (Paladins) it does for my group.
The one exception is my friend who is playing a half-devil monk, trying to defy his nature. For him, I keep a sheet with two columns; a check goes on the left if an action he takes is good, on the right if it's evil. Most things don't get checks. Whether an action is good or evil depends on what it is, and why it's being done; the answer is usually pretty obvious; if it isn't, no check; plenty of the clear cut actions will define his overall attitude. At each level I compare the two columns: if one is higher than the other by a decent margin, his alignment slips one step closer to that (he's currently neutral).
In my opinion pure neutrality in any form is moral cowardice. The individual is afraid to go one way or the other because he is comfortable where he is and refuses to sacrifice anything he has to benefit one side or the other. They play both sides of the fence in the hopes of appeasing all parties while letting those on both sides suffer to maintain some sick balance. To me that is simply disgusting.
See, but I think you also have to account for the moral neutrality that does NOT stem from cowardice. Just because an act is wrong, that does not make it moral cowardice (which is actually a term I had not thought of before). Take for example the same farmer. He decides not to fight in the war. However, he does not do it to protect some status quo or because he is afraid to but because he believes that the current war does not involve him and it would be wrong for him to interfere. The two conflicting parties should be allowed to settle thing by themselves, lest one ask for his aid specifically.
On the other hand, what if he simply believes that fighting the war at all is wrong? I almost see that as a neutral act, because he would be not acting, which might cause harm to others, so as not to upset his own moral scale. I just believe that the issue of moral neutrality is slightly more complicated than shultz made it out to seem.
Kyuketsukiouji,
I really like your examples, but I have an even more specific way that you might show something with a single act. It was an example I heard about a week ago, in fact, and I thought it was very enlightening.
Let us go back to giving to charity, except let’s say that the character is doing this by tossing a handful of coins to a peasant (or a few) on a street. In this case, the action looks to be a very good thing. However, it’s very important to consider the mindset of the character as he performs this action.
He tosses the money to the people so that they might buy food and perhaps survive a bit easier for one night.
The character seems pretty benevolent here, so it’s easy to classify the act as good.
He tosses the money to the people so that they might crowd the street and allow him to escape from a pursuer.
Also take your example of “to impress the paladin” here.
While this is again charitable, it also has another effect that is of equal (or perhaps higher) benefit to the character. I would almost say this is a neutral act, since it isn’t done solely for the people he is apparently benefiting.
He tosses the money to the people so that they will fight over every last coin, hopefully leading to a brutal brawl that he can watch and perhaps even laugh at.
The character, while providing a seemingly good act, is obviously not doing so with good intentions. I could easily label this act as evil, despite its benefits to the peasants (that survive).
I hope you see my point. I am agreeing with you, but I think that by incorporating all three types of actions within the same scenario, you actually get a somewhat stronger argument… much like you did with the dragon slaying.
Now, back on that Balor mentality, I think it is interesting, but you brought up another good point. Perhaps the Balor doesn’t even consider morality it all. It isn’t that it doesn’t think its actions are wrong -- it doesn’t really think its actions are anything, except fun. Maybe that is just how it should be... though with such high mental scores, I think it might consider the morality of certain actions. Anyway, that concludes my input for now.
I would argue that alignment comes from motivation, which is why creatures not capable of higher thought can't really be said to have any alignment. Consider the following scenario:
A wealthy man is riding through a poor slum whose streets are thick with the destitute and starving. The man reaches into his purse and pulls out a handful of coins, scattering them through the crowd. The poor immediately scrabble for the coins, some coming to blows over the sudden windfall.
What is the alignment of this act?
If the man was motivated by a genuine desire to help these poor, starving people get food, is it good?
If the man felt threatened by the crowding poor and tossed the coins to get some breathing room, is it neutral?
If the man enjoys seeing wretches scrabble in the dirt and hurt each other fighting and loves knowing he can cause this with the flick of a wrist, is it evil?
I would argue that alignment in D&D is determined by genuine motivation, and that the empathy/apathy (or compassion/disregard, or compassionate/psychopath) dichotomy informs much of the good/evil axis.
Great minds think alike, eh?
Now, back on that Balor mentality, I think it is interesting, but you brought up another good point. Perhaps the Balor doesn’t even consider morality it all. It isn’t that it doesn’t think its actions are wrong -- it doesn’t really think its actions are anything, except fun. Maybe that is just how it should be... though with such high mental scores, I think it might consider the morality of certain actions. Anyway, that concludes my input for now.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: scores don't matter here. Consider Arthur C. Clarke. I don't think anyone can deny that he is a profoundly intelligent and insightful man (though age tragically seems to be taking its toll). He is also deeply atheistic, and one can assume he seldom considers God except in an intellectual fashion. I propose that morality is to the balor what God is to Clarke. Though the balor's high mental scores might make the balor more aware of its existence and possibly the various theories surrounding it, they have no bearing on its effect on his decision-making; that's what alignment (and roleplaying) is used to determine. Or to put it more succinctly: Morality, to the balor, is like unicycling - something silly and pointless that other people do (no offense to any unicyclers out there).
I'm not sure whether or not it was intentional, but you have parroted almost precisely sgingell's arguments, except without giving any reasons why I am wrong. Why am I wrong about balors' beliefs? Why can Right not be linked with Good in a universe that actually does have a tangible force of Good?
Because it also has tangible forces of Evil. And of Law. And of Chaos. And all of those forces are in balance. Therefore, one cannot be considered more "right" than any others, since they are all equal. Thus, they are all "right". If one was "right" and the others weren't, eventually, it would "win", since even balors would be thinking they're wrong. Balors think their alignment is right, and everyone else is wrong. Just as a Solar think they're right, and everyone is wrong. The balor doesn't need to think "Good = right, therefore Me = Wrong". It thinks "Evil = Right, therefore Me = Right". Doesn't make it any less evil, though. On the contrary. Since, for him, Evil is the proper path, it wants to be more Evil.
The creation of this distinction of good-evil versus right-wrong, and the subsequent introduction of a subjective right and wrong to an objective universe, is just the introduction of subjective good and evil to said universe in disguise. What is it that makes Evil Evil if its servants think it is right? How different is this from its servants thinking it is good, and thus making morality just as subjective as if the absolute labels Good and Evil didn't exist?
Evil is evil by the acts it promotes. Telling someone that, "Yes, it's quite all right for you to tear out the hearts of innocent elven children and use them as spell components" doesn't make the act any less evil, or any less acceptable for the party Paladin. Remember, it's only "right" to do that if you're Evil. Every alignment things they're right. But doing it your way, the Balor who goes around killing innocents is thinking to himself "Yeah, I know I shouldn't be doing this, but I can't stop myself" or somesuch other claptrap. The way I play it, the Balor can fully embrace his evil nature, supremely confident that his way is the right way.
There are other considerations, as well, concerning the view that fiends think they're right. First of all, what makes it right in their eyes? What justifies their behavior? Good creatures believe what they do is right because it benefits the common good; why do evil creatures believe as such? If we could get a demon and an angel to sit down and have a debate, I believe we all know what the angel would say: "Look how many lead happier lives because of the actions of my people." But how would your demon argue that its way is right and the angel's is wrong? As I have stated before, I find it rather more likely that the demon would just laugh at the angel's attempts.
You're getting it wrong. The demon doesn't care about benefiting others. The demon believes the idea of thinking of others above yourself is aberrant, and the sign that the angel is retarded. The demon believes that doing whatever you want to advance yourself is the "right" way to do things, and that wasting your time feeding the poor and helping the weak is the pinnacle of stupidity. Weakening yourself to help some whimpering weakling? Nonsense! What kind of a fool does that in a universe where everyone and everything is just waiting for you to let your guard down before devouring you to add to their power! Eat the poor, and make your happiness trampling down on the weak on your way to power. That's the right way of things.
Second, consider this: You say that the balor follows the belief that the strong should do whatever they want; well then, he must not mind if someone stronger than he comes along and plays Quidditch with the contents of his chest cavity.
Of course he minds. But he doesn't think it's "wrong". He'd rather be the one doing it, than the one receiving it, but as far as he's concerned, what's going on isn't abnormal. Him being on the loosing end of it is pretty crappy, though. Now, some other demon giving him a chest full of gold for no reason, that would be the aberrant behavior. Which would you think wierder? A demon that kills things, or a demon that holds a bake sale for the local church of Pelor?
So if you perform an action that benefits everyone, yourself included, it's not good? Or if it benefits everyone else but at neither any benefit or expense to you?
That depends. If your benefit is incidental, then it's still a good act. If benefits to others is incidental, then it's neutral. If it doesn't cost you anything, then it's neutral.
You're grammatically ambiguous here; could you rephrase?
Basically, there are 3 neutrals.
1- You do something for others, but there's no cost to yourself.
2- You do something for yourself, but there's no cost to others.
3- You do something that doesn't benefit anyone.
Examples:
1- I'm deliver a letter on my way to town b.
2- I farm crops. Helps me, doesn't hurt anyone else.
3- I buy bread. You loose bread, but gain money, I lose money, gain bread.
Imagine you were King Midas (but had perhaps more control over your power). You thus have unlimited wealth, and giving some to charity is thus no sacrifice at all. Is it still a good act?
Yes. The magnitude of an act doesn't lessen it's alignment. Yes, giving 1 gp to someone when you have a million isn't much of a sacrifice, but it's still a good act.
Due to the fact of inflation, that may actually be a bad example. Forget about the Midas touch. What if, instead of simply handing money over, you had a new city wall built that will benefit you with its protection as much as everyone else. This is thus not a sacrifice; is it still good?
That's where intent comes in. Did you build the wall to protect yourself and it just happens it helps everyone else? Or did you build the wall to protect others and it just happens to help you?
This would seem to answer my above questions. Yes, others benefit, but I benefit as well, therefore it is not good. This seems to me deeply unsatisfying; it makes the criterion for good not whether others benefit, but whether you suffer.
It's both. If you don't "lose" somehow (and mind you, it doesn't need to be any great loss), then it's not Good. Good is attaching as much or more importance to others as to yourself.
Once again we must consider the case, brought up by Ehelonna, of the serial killer who does not loot his victims' bodies (but this time he forms an objection from the opposite direction to Duloth's). He does not benefit, while the murderee loses; thus, by your definition, the killing is neutral. The situation you describe here is completely different from this, as the fact that the dragon would destroy the village and thus killing him benefits the villagers adds a whole other set of circumstances that you've failed to even mention. In isolation, what you're describing is the non-looting killer, not the dragonslayer.
Why is the serial killer killing? For fun? Then it's Evil. Benefits don't have to be material ones.
How can a dragon be swayed otherwise? More to the point, how to the characters know the dragon can be swayed otherwise, and can they do this swaying before the dragon accomplishes what it's trying to do?
Diplomacy, maybe? The PCs don't know it'll work, but they could try. If that fails, then they'll regretfully have to take the life of a known agent of evil.
And here you still more obviously beg the example of Ehelonna's murderer. If I go off, track down some innocent dragon, and kill it, but do not touch its hoard, your definition puts me at neutral; more to the point, I am defined as neutral by the act of not touching the hoard, which seems to me the least consequential of the things I did. This screams against all intuition of mine.
That's because you're not providing all the information. Why are you killing dragons? Why that dragon? What's your motive behind the killing? The act you're listing could be any alignment, depending on the motives and circumstances you're leaving out.
And characters who work for balance rarely are (true) neutral themselves. Not every character with alignment champions it.
For example, let us take a look at orcish shaman, mainly healer among his folk. The orc is very altruistic, heals others orcs just for the sake of removing their pain, and so on. The orc does accept raids against other folk, such as humans, for they have also made raids. The orc may not feel comfortable with torturing prisoners, and may, in fact, try to talk others out of it. This orc is either adept or druid, to make matters more clear. See: no smiting around or proclaiming one's method of thinking better than all others.
Evil characters fighting for balance are likely to slay whoever is "leading", to maintain balance. Good probably aids the losing side.
As to good being more difficult, and so on, it can be handled like this: If character acts and thinks differently, determine alignment with teh more evil one. So, a paladin who fights evil with evil falls. Blackguard only falls if goals stop being evil, but alignment changes only when both acts and intentions are nonevil.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: scores don't matter here. Consider Arthur C. Clarke. I don't think anyone can deny that he is a profoundly intelligent and insightful man (though age tragically seems to be taking its toll). He is also deeply atheistic, and one can assume he seldom considers God except in an intellectual fashion. I propose that morality is to the balor what God is to Clarke. Though the balor's high mental scores might make the balor more aware of its existence and possibly the various theories surrounding it, they have no bearing on its effect on his decision-making; that's what alignment (and roleplaying) is used to determine. Or to put it more succinctly: Morality, to the balor, is like unicycling - something silly and pointless that other people do (no offense to any unicyclers out there).
Balor probably just does what is fun, and thinks that doing evil and chaos are fun. As is thwarting good (or law) for the sake of it. Probably the balor enjoys seeing do-gooders lose faith on their mission, and so on. Also, balors can teleport without error (was it changed into greater teleport?) and catching one is quite hard, let alone terrorizing one.
Because it also has tangible forces of Evil. And of Law. And of Chaos. And all of those forces are in balance. Therefore, one cannot be considered more "right" than any others, since they are all equal.
This does not follow at all. What does the relative strength of the forces have to do with their rightness? The laws of the universe are absolute. The entire point of goodness is that it is right; the entire point of evil is that it is wrong.
Thus, they are all "right". If one was "right" and the others weren't, eventually, it would "win", since even balors would be thinking they're wrong.
Again, this doesn't follow. Balors know intellectually that they're wrong by the definitions of the universe, yes, but the absoluteness of their lack of caring for this fact can't be expressed in mere words.
Balors think their alignment is right, and everyone else is wrong. Just as a Solar think they're right, and everyone is wrong. The balor doesn't need to think "Good = right, therefore Me = Wrong". It thinks "Evil = Right, therefore Me = Right". Doesn't make it any less evil, though. On the contrary. Since, for him, Evil is the proper path, it wants to be more Evil.
Evil is evil by the acts it promotes. Telling someone that, "Yes, it's quite all right for you to tear out the hearts of innocent elven children and use them as spell components" doesn't make the act any less evil, or any less acceptable for the party Paladin.
It does, however, mean that the paladin is only condemning the action due to his own point of view; the blackguard cheering this on has an equally valid stance. This is moral relativism, which fundamentally does not exist in the D&D universe.
Remember, it's only "right" to do that if you're Evil. Every alignment things they're right. But doing it your way, the Balor who goes around killing innocents is thinking to himself "Yeah, I know I shouldn't be doing this, but I can't stop myself" or somesuch other claptrap. The way I play it, the Balor can fully embrace his evil nature, supremely confident that his way is the right way.
How can a balor fully embrace his evil nature if he's righteous about it? The way I play it, the balor can fully embrace his evil nature, reveling in the utter carnage, perversity, and rebellion against the laws of the very universe itself.
You're getting it wrong. The demon doesn't care about benefiting others. The demon believes the idea of thinking of others above yourself is aberrant, and the sign that the angel is retarded. The demon believes that doing whatever you want to advance yourself is the "right" way to do things, and that wasting your time feeding the poor and helping the weak is the pinnacle of stupidity. Weakening yourself to help some whimpering weakling? Nonsense! What kind of a fool does that in a universe where everyone and everything is just waiting for you to let your guard down before devouring you to add to their power! Eat the poor, and make your happiness trampling down on the weak on your way to power. That's the right way of things.
So you're saying that the demon does what he does not for the sheer perverse joy of causing suffering, but out of some Hobbesian fear of the state of nature? I'm sorry, but this does not seem demonic at all to me. Nor does it really explain why the demon goes out of his way to snuff out all good in the universe, unless it's just to punish its idiocy, which seems awfully weak a reason compared to "I seek to destroy all sources of light and happiness in this world that the huddled masses have nowhere to turn, no comfort, no shelter, nothing but permanent misery and darkness!" For demons, evil isn't a matter of principle, it is by its very nature the flouting of principle, the voluntary turning from the path of right for the sole reason that it's entertaining. Doesn't this seem more hideous and abominable to you than the righteous demon?
Of course he minds. But he doesn't think it's "wrong". He'd rather be the one doing it, than the one receiving it, but as far as he's concerned, what's going on isn't abnormal. Him being on the loosing end of it is pretty crappy, though. Now, some other demon giving him a chest full of gold for no reason, that would be the aberrant behavior. Which would you think wierder? A demon that kills things, or a demon that holds a bake sale for the local church of Pelor?
Again, this seems very un-demonic. How could the righteous demon put up a principled resistance to an act against him when he believes that act to be right? This would be like a paladin attacking the party cleric when she tries to give part of the party loot to charity. Or how could he accept the chest of gold when he believes the giving of it to be wrong? This would be like the paladin standing aside and letting the party rogue slit helpless captives' throats.
No, better that demons exist completely lacking in principle and righteousness.
That depends. If your benefit is incidental, then it's still a good act. If benefits to others is incidental, then it's neutral. If it doesn't cost you anything, then it's neutral.
Basically, there are 3 neutrals.
1- You do something for others, but there's no cost to yourself.
2- You do something for yourself, but there's no cost to others.
3- You do something that doesn't benefit anyone.
Examples:
1- I'm deliver a letter on my way to town b.
2- I farm crops. Helps me, doesn't hurt anyone else.
3- I buy bread. You loose bread, but gain money, I lose money, gain bread.
Yes. The magnitude of an act doesn't lessen it's alignment. Yes, giving 1 gp to someone when you have a million isn't much of a sacrifice, but it's still a good act.
You don't understand the mathematics. You don't have a million; you have infinite gold. It is not a sacrifice at all; an infinity minus anything is still an infinity.
That's where intent comes in. Did you build the wall to protect yourself and it just happens it helps everyone else? Or did you build the wall to protect others and it just happens to help you?
Why not both? You build the wall knowing full well its benefit to both yourself and others, of course. Why can these not have equal importance in your motive?
It's both. If you don't "lose" somehow (and mind you, it doesn't need to be any great loss), then it's not Good. Good is attaching as much or more importance to others as to yourself.
Earlier, you said "If your benefit is incidental, then it's still a good act," which seems to be in contradiction to this statement, and also seems more reasonable. Why should the determinant of whether or not an act is good be whether you suffer, not whether others benefit? While suffering for others is a sign of great and definite good, I don't see the suffering as the key to the alignment, but rather the "for others." Consider this situation: You are riding along with a sack of grain, and come across a starving man. You can (a) give him the grain or (b) hack off your own arm and give him that. If suffering is the most important aspect of good, then option (b) is better than option (a), instead of simply sheer lunacy. And because you seem to have a fondness for nitpicking details of the particular circumstance (and perhaps I'm less than skilled at picking perfect examples), consider just the basic theoretical setup, and ignore the particulars: you have two options, both of equal benefit to others but one of greater pain to you.
Why is the serial killer killing? For fun? Then it's Evil. Benefits don't have to be material ones.
You're evading the point. What if it's not for fun? What if it truly is a random killing? What if he gains no more benefit from it than I get for absentmindedly tapping my fingers? This seems unlikely, perhaps, but it is philosophically conceivable. Again, consider just the theoretical setup: an act hurts another, and the actor has the option of either benefiting from it or not. What you seem to be saying is that he makes his killing evil only by deriving benefit from it, which seems bass-ackwards. If he laughs, it's evil. If he loots the corpse, it's evil. But if he just walks away, it's neutral. Hunh?
Diplomacy, maybe? The PCs don't know it'll work, but they could try. If that fails, then they'll regretfully have to take the life of a known agent of evil.
DM: "The dragon swoops out of the sky, and appears to be getting ready to use its breath weapon."
PC: "I make a Diplomacy check!"
No. Saving the village from the rampaging dragon is the quintessential act of selfless good. Even by your definitions, the PCs lose (by risking serious injury or death), while the village gains (by surviving relatively intact).
That's because you're not providing all the information. Why are you killing dragons? Why that dragon? What's your motive behind the killing? The act you're listing could be any alignment, depending on the motives and circumstances you're leaving out.
You were defining evil in terms of material gain (and good in terms of material loss), so I didn't see a reason to provide a motive. But if you wish: I'm killing dragons out of the belief that dragonkind must be wiped off the face of the earth. This, I believe, answers all three of your questions (which are actually one question). If you say that I gain benefit from the satisfaction of doing what I believe to be "right," then I submit that the paladin gains the same benefit whenever he smites down an actual evildoer, and thus is doing evil. The basic setup of my theoretical situation is actually identical to the one above: an act hurts another, and the actor has the option of either benefiting from it or not.
This does not follow at all. What does the relative strength of the forces have to do with their rightness? The laws of the universe are absolute. The entire point of goodness is that it is right; the entire point of evil is that it is wrong.
No. The entire point of goodness is that it is Good and does good things. The entire point of evil is that it is Evil and does evil. Nothing more, nothing less.
The universe does not care which path you choose. It does not indicate which way is right or wrong. It does not punish or reward the choice you make, except in an entirely karmic sort of way.
The decision as to which path is right or wrong is entirely a personal conclusion and that choice is a demonstration of that character's alignment relative to the absolute framework.
This does not follow at all. What does the relative strength of the forces have to do with their rightness? The laws of the universe are absolute. The entire point of goodness is that it is right; the entire point of evil is that it is wrong.
The laws are absolute. The entire point of goodness can be found in PHB. I don't recall the portion saying it is right.
It does, however, mean that the paladin is only condemning the action due to his own point of view; the blackguard cheering this on has an equally valid stance. This is moral relativism, which fundamentally does not exist in the D&D universe.
The paladin is condemning act because he supports good, and the act is evil. The blackguard is cheering because he supports evil, and the act is evil.
How can a balor fully embrace his evil nature if he's righteous about it? The way I play it, the balor can fully embrace his evil nature, reveling in the utter carnage, perversity, and rebellion against the laws of the very universe itself.
As said before, paladin does it to do evil and oppose good. Being as mentally capable as they are, he wouldn't think: This is wrong, but I'll do it anyway! If good is right, it will "win" in the end (if there ever will be one, but balors have the time to wait), and balor will suffer.
So you're saying that the demon does what he does not for the sheer perverse joy of causing suffering, but out of some Hobbesian fear of the state of nature? I'm sorry, but this does not seem demonic at all to me. Nor does it really explain why the demon goes out of his way to snuff out all good in the universe, unless it's just to punish its idiocy, which seems awfully weak a reason compared to "I seek to destroy all sources of light and happiness in this world that the huddled masses have nowhere to turn, no comfort, no shelter, nothing but permanent misery and darkness!" For demons, evil isn't a matter of principle, it is by its very nature the flouting of principle, the voluntary turning from the path of right for the sole reason that it's entertaining. Doesn't this seem more hideous and abominable to you than the righteous demon?
Demon fears no state of nature. Demon does what it does because it grants the demon some feelings they consider positive. But I see no reason them doing it for it being wrong. They do it because it is fun, and why should they not? For Evil says: Do anything you are strong (or clever, whatever) enough to do.
You don't understand the mathematics. You don't have a million; you have infinite gold. It is not a sacrifice at all; an infinity minus anything is still an infinity.
How about this: Doing minor good acts, such as sacrificing nothing at all but helping someone else is enough to keep one good-aligned, but not enough to convert, for example?
Why not both? You build the wall knowing full well its benefit to both yourself and others, of course. Why can these not have equal importance in your motive?
Morally neutral, I say. Probably LN, to clarify, but this is debatable.
Consider this situation: You are riding along with a sack of grain, and come across a starving man. You can (a) give him the grain or (b) hack off your own arm and give him that. If suffering is the most important aspect of good, then option (b) is better than option (a), instead of simply sheer lunacy. And because you seem to have a fondness for nitpicking details of the particular circumstance (and perhaps I'm less than skilled at picking perfect examples), consider just the basic theoretical setup, and ignore the particulars: you have two options, both of equal benefit to others but one of greater pain to you.
Of course (a). (b) is a separate act, as it is totally irrelevant to the situation. And maiming oneself for no benefit is neutral stupid.
You're evading the point. What if it's not for fun? What if it truly is a random killing? What if he gains no more benefit from it than I get for absentmindedly tapping my fingers? This seems unlikely, perhaps, but it is philosophically conceivable. Again, consider just the theoretical setup: an act hurts another, and the actor has the option of either benefiting from it or not. What you seem to be saying is that he makes his killing evil only by deriving benefit from it, which seems bass-ackwards. If he laughs, it's evil. If he loots the corpse, it's evil. But if he just walks away, it's neutral. Hunh?
Life is worth more to the target than the wealth gained to you. Thus it is evil. OTOH, if you were starving it would be neutral, "me or it"-situation.
You were defining evil in terms of material gain (and good in terms of material loss), so I didn't see a reason to provide a motive. But if you wish: I'm killing dragons out of the belief that dragonkind must be wiped off the face of the earth. This, I believe, answers all three of your questions (which are actually one question). If you say that I gain benefit from the satisfaction of doing what I believe to be "right," then I submit that the paladin gains the same benefit whenever he smites down an actual evildoer, and thus is doing evil. The basic setup of my theoretical situation is actually identical to the one above: an act hurts another, and the actor has the option of either benefiting from it or not.
It can, hopefully, be assumed that the entire dragonkind is evil for the purpose of this argument only. It takes lives, it saves lives. Saving innocent lives is good (by PHB). Thus the act is good or neutral, depending on GM. By my meter, it is good as a lot more lives are saved than taken. If my added assumption is untrue, it is EVIL.
Sorry, Kyu, for answering. Just couldn't resist.
Still, sacrificing the baby would be a right thing to do. Antiheroes, for example, who do the good thing with more or less evil methods, aren't good, but still do the right thing very often. When determining if an act was good, one can't count the good and evil points and let them negate each other. This can be done to determine if an act was right, however. If results are good, the action was right. This all, of course, assumes that right and wrong are absolute.