One thing I don't like found in a lot of adventures is evil's fascination with the undead. Zombies smell. Would you want them in your castle while you dream of power and glory? No, and neither should the majority of villains in your game. To me undeath represents a final line that the most evil of aligned beings don't cross. Would you really want to be an animated corpse even if you get to keep your sentience? I see no reason why most rational beings would go there when other more mundane options are available.
There's also a reason why half fiends should be rare. Mating with a succubus isn't much stretch of the imagination. However if you have any minis from the D&D line, compare the size of a human size mini to a Glabrezu. Mating with an elephant sized dog faced beast from the stuff of nightmares shouldn't be something even evil doers would consider. True, a good villain can be insane but the ol' "I'm CE and insane" villain gets repetitive quite fast.
In 2nd ed one of my players had a priest that more or less had to follow the Paladin's code and worshiped a LG sun god. On one of his forays around town he came across an attractive noblewomen. One conversation and a detect evil spell later with her she admitted to following a CE god opposed to his own god. He was ready to unleash holy wrath right there and then on her but she refused to fight! The player even tracked down where she lived and went and visited her occasionally. The priestess invited him in and made him feel welcome and supplied food and drink (after a detect poison spell). The rogue snuck in and couldn't find any hidden alters or murals of demons eating human that usually adorn most fantasy villains lairs. Yes, she was CE, impulsive and selfish but she knew she couldn't defeat the LG cleric in a fair fight and had no incentive to look for trouble with him. She was sane and didn't sacrifice sentients to her god. She was much more effective as an infiltrator for her religion. If I recall they eventually had a battle when he found her in a temple but at that point they couldn't quite bring themselves to kill each other--by then they were familiar with each other and almost friends. Almost
Remember evil beings have feelings too and there's no reason why they can't have interests besides destroying the world or can't do good deeds. The concept of an anti hero is an old one and one of my favourites is Elric of Melinbone. This tragic figure of fantasy destroyed his kingdom, killed the women he loved, and more or less destroyed the world. Why would an evil aligned being do good deeds though? Because if they're not one-dimensional they have feelings, interests and loved ones. If a CE sorcerer came home and found out that orcs had killed his children odds are he won't be too happy with them even though they're both CE. Or goblins for a LE character. Perhaps they want to save the world so they can dominate it or because their homeland is under attack. Yes, evil can be patriotic as well. Love can motivate an evil character as can racism.
While most people believe love is reserved more good and neutral alignments there's no reason why evil can't love as well. Dragons, in particular, protect their young and while not true love several evil races defend their young. Racial pride and reproducing the species should motivate some beings, if nothing else. Even evil people often have friends and family they can care about. An evil family is probably more trustworthy than an evil stranger. Another aspect of fantasy literature involves an evil character falling in love with a good aligned being. Why mix fire and water? Using an assassin who falls in love with a Paladin for example could be interesting. The assassin might think the Paladin is a bit foolish but at least the Paladin is trustworthy. Of course the Paladin may or may not feel the same way in return. Evil/good beings may just plain old be attracted to each other.
I'll end my ramble here but evil is an interesting alignment. Give a villain a weakness or a virtue. Make them have a soft spot for children or have them donate money to a charity or something. Heck once a villain is defeated perhaps the heroes can deal with his distraught but innocent family or find their now orphaned children out back.
Zard
A few examples of "villains" I've used:
A paladin, a slayer of lycanthropes, hunts the party after they become infected (I ran a lycanthropy-rich world for a while.) The paladin was LAWFUL/good, meaning that his holy mission was to exterminate the were-beasts and he didn't care what they had to say. He was an extremist, to be sure, but he maintained his LG status by adhering to his code. He was fun because one of the infected party members wa a paladin as well.
A mage, obsessed with the relationship between time and space, undertakes dangerous experiments to unravel the secrets of the universe. She was sloppy and obsessed and her experiments spilled out into the countryside and caused mass chaos. She used orcs and bound devils, not because she was evil but because they could be paid to keep her secure and they could be reliably commanded. Eventually she needed to be taken down and naturally she fought for her own life, but she was never specifically evil (I don't think I ever determined her true alignment.)
A pair of half-elven twins, acrobats by day and thieves/murderers by night. They loved and trusted each other fully from growing up on the street. They would never betray one another and would die for the other without hesitation, but together they would wreak havok, kill, steal, light fires for fun, etc. Chaotic Evil, but allied for ever.
My main bad guy - starts as a noble with plans to overthrow the king politically (though assassination and other nasty things were his favorite tools.) Primarily a fighter, he was a manipulator and planner, smart and well mannered. The PC's encountered him or his minions several times and thwarted his plans, eventually exposing him completely. His wealth lost, his cover blown, he ran for his life. He tried to retire with a woman, one of his assassins he had kept as a lover for some years, but tragedy struck and she was afflicted with lycanthropy. eventually he had to put her down and that broke what little shell of civility he had left. He sought a demonic sire and became a Blackgaurd, a snarling bag of hate who thought of nothing but mayhem and destruction.
A PC, my favorite of all time, Tycho Vellifex the elven blademaster. He was dedicated to his craft, arrogant and domineering, but absolutely true to his word. He adventured for experience, wealth, and to prove himself superior in battle. He respected anyone who could best him or teach him something new. He put himself at risk to save his companions because he had pledged himself in service to the task and because he understood the value of teamwork. He though the paladin was a brainless boy scout but knew better than to cross him without reason. He would not backstab, nor fight without honor. He would, however, steal or kill for profit, often taking out contracts while staying in town. He was LE and I think I maintained his alignment even through many game-years of adventuring with mostly good characters.
One aspect of alignment we should keep in mind is the prevalence of the action(s) dictated by the alignment. We all understand that an evil person is a thief and murderer and is motivated solely for personal gain, right? What about a serial killer? He spends most of his time being an average citizen, following the rules and likely building a "normal" life for himself and perhaps a family. 99% of the time he "acts" LG. But on those rare occasions when the circumstances are right, he sneaks out of the house and does despicable things, fulfilling his need for bloodlust and mayhem. Clearly Evil, right?
An evil character need not consider evil in every aspect of his/her life. There need not be a constant thought of "how can I make today especially evil?"
Most of us act fairly alike, though our motivations might be a little different. I like to think that our true nature shows up in the extremes. When your compatriot is about to be pulled into the maw of some horrid beast and it's time to decide whether to risk your life to save his or just let him go - that's where alignment kicks in. When nobody is looking at the jewels and it would be so easy to pocket a few - that's when alignment comes in. When you catch a criminal in a back alley and nobody is there to see you take street justice - that's when alignment takes effect.
I once had a heated disagreement with a friend about paladins being "lawful stupid." He maintained that all paladins would make the same choices in every situation and that they were mindless beings with no opportunity for personality or role playing. I disagreed mightily and proceeded to give him a dozen or so different paladin types who might find themselves in opposition to each other. I've always had a thing for paladins.....
A paladin and a CE character could coexist in a party as long as the CE character was "reserved," not outwardly evil in action. The paladin would probably never trust the CE and would be watchful for treachery/evil, but if it were a latent or low-level CE then it could last for a while. The paladin might KNOW you are evil, but he doesn't necessarily KNOW what evil things you have done.
I always treated alignment as having a volume knob. A paladin is LG, LOUDLY, while your average every day Joe is probably LG quietly. Same thing with evil - the Blackgaurd is CE LOUDLY, while the serial killer is CE very very quietly.
Evil doesn't view itself as evil.
No one will ever call himself "Evil". Villains through out history have all believed what they were doing was the right thing. Evil will most often refer to itself as the pinnacle of goodness, and everyone else is corrupt and must be swept away.
Two examples:
Doth the Hierophant. This BBEG was once a cleric of a good deity. He began doing evil acts, based on an interpretation of a sacred text. Then when he stopped getting spells he was outraged. His deity was a traitor to his holy cause! He was manipulated into worshiping a dark deity, and stood to the last wearing his white holy vestments, cursing the wrongdoers, damning them for their sins. (I had to mess with some spell effects, but it was well worth it).
Order of the Black Rose. These paladins unearthed the skull of an Elder God. They took to worshiping it, and it granted them power. It let them Smite Evil on anyone, and rewarped the CoC. These Paladins then took to genocide, to exterminate all humans on the continent to revive their god. To the last, they were CERTAIN they were the paragons of goodness, and everyone else was a blasphemer.
Evil doesn't call itself evil. It's a matter of outlook. Yes, there is the Insane Evil, but the Smart Evil usually thinks it's good.
Sometimes the "villain" isn't evil at all, but misguided, and to the end is good aligned, even when his last actions are reprehensible.
For those of you who play World of Warcraft I can name an example, known as the Scarlet Crusade. It was an organization whose sole purpose was the elimination of the undead who plagued their lands. At first they were good, but by the end, they are a malicious group who attacks the innocent seeing them as impure, killing in the name of God . . . I mean "The light". In the end, you not only find out they are corrupted, but they are being manipulated by undead (which didn't cause, but ADDED to the corruption).
It's true what he said, Evil often doesn't see itself as evil, but the greatest evil hides behind false righteousness. Not only that, but often enough evil can be so alluring because the villain can sometimes have admirable qualities. Having recently read a synopsis of Paradise Lost, I read the speech that Lucifer gives, and he expresses admirable traits! He says he will not be ruled by force, showing a rebellious sense of justice. However, he is in the end, wrong. He was given free will by god and thusly given the freedom to fall if he made the wrong decisions, which he did.
Often enough, Evil can be a form of retribution against those who the villain believes has wronged him. Just as Lucifer hated God for making him this way, he dedicated his life to bringing vengeance upon him. In D&D you can apply the same type of villain, A cleric who lost his family and feels that his Pelor should have protected them might turn to another deity for power to seek vengeance for the deity who they feel wronged them. True depraved insanity is a sure bet for a good villain, and feel free to use them sometimes. Also those who desire great power will turn to dark means to get it.
Evil comes in more flavors than Kool Aid. Campaigns should have a variety of villains, and the heroes/adventurers should deal with them in an even greater variety of ways. Can you talk them out of it? Will you have to kill him? Will jail suffice? Can he be redeemed?
Vengeance.
Self Righteousness.
Insanity.
Power Lust.
Greed.
Hate.
The marks of a true villain.
I'm playing a NE rogue, about to take on the assassin prestige class (I'm currently in training). I'm traveling with the following.
A CG cleric with a hard-on for smiting evil (he's pretty much playing LG)
A CN 1/2 bronze 1/2 red dragon (who is probably the only party member playing alignment correctly)
A CN fighter whose selfless moral decisions would make a boy scout appear to be a pit fiend.
A LN monk who values honor above all other concerns.
Why am I traveling with this roving band of boy scouts? We share a common purpose. The basic plot is that some evil wizard of great power is trying to bond all the planes into one uber-plane under his rule. Yeah, it's a fairly stereotypical villain, but oh well. Anyway, I may not have much concern for human value or life, but I do have a great deal of concern for my own, and this guy definitely threatens my life. Additionally, in typical human format, I project my own morality onto others. I don't trust in people's goodness because I know I'm not worthy of trust. As such, as far as my character is concerned, she is the only one who will step up to do this task, and if she doesn't...rocks fall, everyone dies, but more importantly she dies.
Her evil comes in with her methods. She may be doing a good deed, but she is still amoral. She thinks nothing of torturing prisoners for information. In fact, I've actually managed to bring the cleric down a tad through roleplaying. We killed a wizard bandit, working for a powerful baron, and I suggested we remove his hands to prevent him casting much at us and "raise dead" him so we could interrogate him before killing him again. The cleric went for it. It's small things like these that can allow you to still roleplay an evil character, while serving the greater good.
It's funny that we talk about smart evil, and how it thinks it's good. That may be intelligent evil, but not wise evil. It's plain naive, in fact. Unfortunately, intelligence doesn't help someone contemplate moral issues. Math problems, yes. Right and wrong, no.
A character with a high Wisdom score will know the truth about good and evil, and that good is right and evil is wrong. I've personally house ruled that evil clerics function on Charisma. Evil requires no skill or talent, but sure does require a large love of self.
A comment was made about an evil character giving to charities. I could see this, as long as the evil character gave from his surplus and not his treasure. But basically, charity is the greatest form of love one can possess, and since the root of evil is selfishness, an evil character should only give money to those who he believes can benefit him at a later time.
But above that, evil can still be very complex. In fact, one of my players and I were having a talk about a character that did good things, but was CE because he constantly gave in to his compulsion to beat and torture small, cute animals to death.
Since good (one interpretation anyway) comes from overcoming morally deviant behaviors in oneself or others, the above character would be evil because, although he went out of his way to help others and do good things, whenever he got the urge, he'd steal a puppy and flense it to death, laughing manically and cursing any deity who opposes his actions.
That's my two cents.
Simply, there is no black and white. Its all shades of grey, and it is very difficult to see where an alignment crosses over. Owen Glendower may have been a heroic Welsh freedom fighter, but he also massacred defenseless English peasants. Of course, that may not have been seen as evil back then (it was common practice for anyone who didn't immediately surrender).
Just my thoughts.
The whole "might is right" mantra is not evil, only selfish and arrogant. Natural selection is also not evil, because it is not a decision as much as the consequences of circumstance and luck. Cold-blooded murder is evil.
If you want to murder, steal, etc. for the heck of it, you're evil. If you don't mind doing those things to accomplish a goal, you're evil. If you can't see a way out of doing those things to accomplish a goal, you might not be evil but need some serious moral guidance.
The whole "might is right" mantra is not evil, only selfish and arrogant. Natural selection is also not evil, because it is not a decision as much as the consequences of circumstance and luck. Cold-blooded murder is evil.
What it is is a viable logic for evil.
Evil is irrational, because it breaks the Natural Law. Not to murder, steal, etc.
Pray tell me, how can creatures who are well beyond mortal capacities, such as outsiders of great power, be evil if evil is irrational. For example, the pitfiend. They are LE and have great mental scores. And could you perhaps elaborate Natural Law as a concept, and why breaking it is evil? Stealing isn't always evil. Killing isn't evil, but murder often is. In D&D, murder isn't always evil (though some may define murder differently).
I'm not sure there's any grey area when it comes to good and evil. If you accomplish good things by doing evil, there's no grey, you've just done something evil and disguised it as good. In terms of no one being able to define logical reasons for being evil, I would suggest there aren't any. Evil is irrational, because it breaks the Natural Law. Not to murder, steal, etc.
If you want to murder, steal, etc. for the heck of it, you're evil. If you don't mind doing those things to accomplish a goal, you're evil. If you can't see a way out of doing those things to accomplish a goal, you might not be evil but need some serious moral guidance.
This begs the question, where does the line get drawn? A character steals a gem to line his own pockets. Most are going to agree that that's wrong, evil, unlawful, etc. What if the theft is being done to afford medical treatment for a dying sibling? What if it's stolen food for a starving child? What if it's theft from someone who's abusing the law to exploit others? Someone who's ignoring the law entirely (stealing from a thief)? Someone who's using their wealth to directly harm the innocent? If these later examples are situations that require "serious moral guidance", is someone who values human life over the abstract concept of law really in need of such? There is a reason that Dungeons & Dragons doesn't dictate to its players that Lawful Good is inherently more moral than Chaotic Good. I'll grant that my examples have more to do with law/chaos than with good/evil, but that's because I have trouble envisioning evil as one side of a spectrum of behavior.
You can't rightly say that the goblins who raid human cities are evil, because they're only looking out for themselves. Sure, they kill people, but the humans kill them back. It's all about your perspective.
Azzrael
And could you perhaps elaborate Natural Law as a concept, and why breaking it is evil?
In a later post. I'm short on time today.
Max of Mulligans, you've got a very good point. Note that I said in the second sentence of my first paragraph that if you accomplish good things by doing EVIL, you've basically just done evil. I never said that doing good means never doing harm.
I said earlier that selfishness can be defined as the root of evil. If you steal out of a sense of selfishness, that's evil. Stealing medicine for a sick person or bread for a hungry person are possibly justifiable, but still not entirely good. What about the others who could use the medicine that is being stolen? You are simultaneously causing someone suffering while trying to relieve another's.
Stealing bread for a starving child is the same matter. The child is most likely defenseless, but you can't steal from someone else, causing them to lose bread, to feed that child. Isn't it possible to feed the child without stealing? The only motivation for stealing food for someone else, from someone else would be the possibility that you yourself are poor and can't afford the bread otherwise.
Now, midway through the third book one of the heroes has a chance to assassinate him, while they sit there deciding if they should or not you get a description of the man, he's entering town in a parade in his honour, he smiles, waves, and thinks of how great the works of his god are, how he can now lessen the evil doing because the church is secure etc. It's after all the description and the Hero wondering that your realise, despite his actions, this is simply a rather chubby, old man. Deluded, yes, evil, yes, but still, simply an old man. I then felt a great hatred for the Demon. Finally, at the end of the book he dies and his last actions are to repent for all he has done, he finally sees the light.
My description takes a lot of the feeling out of it, but he was possibly the most evil villain I have ever read, yet he was regarded as good by the peasants, he believed he was doing right... It all made it seem more evil, I don't know why, but it did.
Now, the obvious question: Where am I going with that? I think it just helps prove the point that evil comes in many forms, and the more unique the better. If the demon had stayed the villain for all 3 books then I wouldn't have liked them as much, it's a rare thing to despise, hate, and pity the villain, all within moments of each other.
My current evil PC sacrificed his best friend and, while not insane, is at least severely traumatized. He now cares only for himself and his own survival and is falling faster and faster into the shadows (I'm aiming for CE by the end of this campaign).
Another justification for evil is plain old lust for power, the "real" CE, someone who cares about nothing and no one but himself and his own power, and follows the easiest path to his destination, which is usually the worship of a dark deity or a pact with a demon. He KNOWS that what he does is wrong, but doesn't much care as long as it makes him stronger.
If you do choose to foolishly lay claim to the realm or morality, the intent should definitely be the important part (as opposed to actual consequences; if you weigh only consequences, you expect every creature to infallibly predict the outcomes of its actions, which is just plain stupid), as most of you have said, but I think even that doesn't go far enough. A person may sincerely wish harm upon others, may sincerely be "evil", and may freely admit it to himself. Where does "wrong" come out of this? What contract did he sign saying he had to be nice? What contract did he sign saying he wouldn't break the first contract? What need is there for justification? When is the jump made from "harmful" to "loathsome"? For that matter, define good, define right; if no one were "evil" by your current definition, then your definition would change to mean those who don't sacrifice enough for others.
Evil is irrational, because it breaks the Natural Law. Not to murder, steal, etc.
Ever read The Isle of Dr. Moreau? Picture an army of animals surgically altered to look like humans chanting, "Not to eat fish or fowl, not to eat fowl or flesh, not to give chase. These are the rules of the Master. Are we not men?" At the end of the book, the animals all kill each other :P Now by "Natural Law," I assume you mean some kind of ethics. Where exactly did this code of ethics come from that it can claim such infallibility, such flawless rationale? A decision to break a code of ethics is risky, yes, but irrational? I just don't think that's possible; there are codes of ethics in wide use all over the world that conflict with each other inescapably. Now I can understand how your code of ethics is the "right" one for you, but what makes it "right" for anyone else?
All in all, I think if the whole alignment system were trashed, people would put a lot more focus onto their characters, picking an enjoyable personality as opposed to constructing one to fit an alignment. Sure, it might make it more difficult to figure out rules for some of the cool spells and abilities we all like, but I think the role-playing benefits far outweigh the situationally-applicable detriment caused by removing the system.
Stealing bread for a starving child is the same matter. The child is most likely defenseless, but you can't steal from someone else, causing them to lose bread, to feed that child. Isn't it possible to feed the child without stealing? The only motivation for stealing food for someone else, from someone else would be the possibility that you yourself are poor and can't afford the bread otherwise.
I define good and evil by acts. Good acts help others more than you. Evil ones hurt others more than they help you or others. The rest are neutral. So stealing bread from a beggar is pretty much always evil, but taking it from a rich merchant or noble is often neutral depending on your (or child's) wealth. Of course, it would be good to simply give the child some bread of yours, or buy some for the child.
Azrael, in D&D, evil is objective. Not subjective. Take a good look at the book called PHB. It is somewhere over there.
Oh, Robin Hood is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. This act to me has a "good" stamp on it.
Now, what are his motives? This act could actually be evil if his motives were to gather a reputation of a freedom fighter to earn the population's trust then usurp power for himself. (Faintly similar to Fidel Castro and Cuba.)
Where exactly did this code of ethics come from that it can claim such infallibility, such flawless rationale? A decision to break a code of ethics is risky, yes, but irrational? I just don't think that's possible; there are codes of ethics in wide use all over the world that conflict with each other inescapably. Now I can understand how your code of ethics is the "right" one for you, but what makes it "right" for anyone else?
The "code of ethics" of which you speak is actually called the Natural Law, and is referred to by Christians as the Ten Commandments. And these aren't just right for me, but right for the entire world. The Natural Law is aptly named because it's engrained on EVERY human soul, not just the souls of Christians.
The normal, healthy human soul naturally knows that murder is bad, stealing is bad, and the breaking of the other Commandments is bad. This IS a common trend in other world religions, that share rules similar to the Ten Commandments.
I submit that serial killers and there ilk aren't possessed of normal, healthy souls, and many freely commit acts against the Natural Law without twinging. But many do twinge and do feel a need to repent, or at least feel some amount of guilt.
Before I get flamed for bringing up the subject of real-world religion, I'd like to say that I do in fact take full responsibility for not going with the modern trend of approaching discussions of Good and Evil from the perspective of moral relativism, but go instead with the more traditional view that ideas about Good and Evil are religious in nature, because Man naturally grasps to fill the void in his heart with God.
Since I'm not a theologian, I'll recommend the Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church for further reading, if anyone is that interested.
There's a book by Ayn Rand called "The Virtue of Selfishness", which sets out first to redefine the concept of what is commonly thought of as the identifying characteristics of selfishness by modern society. At the outset she recognizes that the word selfish often conjures the image of an axe wielding brute who renders any casualties that his or her goals necessitate. In order to redefine this image the author changes one fundamental arbitrary preconception, the notion that such behavior can actually be seen as beneficial towards those who practice it. She asserts that it is much more beneficial to oneself to actually work with others rather than to work against them and ultimately set up bigger obstacles down the road. Additionally she asserts that doing what benefits others and by extension the world in which one lives also benefits oneself. Therefore the selfish act is no longer the centerpiece of amorality, but the beacon of morality itself.
On the subject of altruism Ayn Rand designates that though altruism is about making sacrifice for the benefit of others, if we accept the given that helping others does in fact indirectly help one's self then altruism, in the most technical sense of the word, only arises when the harm derived from it is greater than the good. This however goes against the spirit of the word altruism which thus becomes the central tenet of amorality while simultaneously denying the association.
There is one complication however. If one's goals are to harm others then the problem does not arise out of any distinction between selfishness and altruism, but out of one's isolation from the ability to determine what is in their best interest.
To move on as I said I would I'd like to talk about polarity especially as it relates to alignment. There are some glaring asymmetries between good and evil. While it seems relatively simple to embody the concepts it is impossible to embody the so called concepts of evil. The former is largely pro existence while the second at its ultimate extreme states that existence is besides the point. It is as if in order to embody the concepts of evil non-existence is the primary item of criteria. Such an idea is mutually exclusive and there has yet to be an entity to live up to such requirements. The other asymmetry arises from the Darkness/Light metaphor. Its simply enough to say that while light actually is something darkness is not, it is the lack of something. This model appeals to a very "Light/Good central" model of the current state of affairs. It is as if even the really evil one's are just misunderstood/misunderstanding, but this hardly explains just how it is certain characters derive power from a so called force of evil.
When you introduce antimatter to normal matter an interesting effect occurs. Both vanish in a flash of light. If this were similar to the case in a world with two completely opposed cosmic forces such as good and evil then it would stand to reason that neither good or evil would make it past the starting line.
A character with a high Wisdom score will know the truth about good and evil, and that good is right and evil is wrong.
I am forced to disagree. Although in real world interpretation of what wisdom is ia will agree with you, in D&D terms wisdom means something else. In real world sense wisdom describes the ability to be able to tell what is right and wrong, and more importantly, why. In D&D terms wisdom refers to a person's alertness, instinct, and determination. Evil, if done correctly, can have far more gain than good can ever hope to imagine. Especially if you have a clever villain who isn't bound my morals.
Dictionary.com: The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.
SRD: Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings.
As mentioned before, motives are important. While people on these board often say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and think that they just played a full house, I disagree. I do not think that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think that if you try to do good, and you fail, that does not make you evil. Likewise, if you attempt to kill a political figure, but accidentally save him from another assassin, you are not suddenly good.
Oh, Robin Hood is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. This act to me has a "good" stamp on it.
Why? Rich people deserve protection of their property just as poor people do. Stealing from the rich because they're rich isn't justice, it's evil, just as stealing from the poor is. Sure, a rich person may not suffer as much from the theft, but that's just the thief's self-serving justification for clearly evil acts (minor evils, compared to murder and whatnot, but evil nonetheless).
The "code of ethics" of which you speak is actually called the Natural Law, and is referred to by Christians as the Ten Commandments. And these aren't just right for me, but right for the entire world. The Natural Law is aptly named because it's engrained on EVERY human soul, not just the souls of Christians.
Well, I say you're wrong because Natural Law doesn't exist. How's that for double reverse circular logic? :P
Also, I find it funny that you put "code of ethics" in quotes and implied that I didn't know that I was talking about what you call Natural Law, when I explicitly wrote in the sentence before you decided to start your quotation that I assumed your Natural Law was a system of ethics, implying that if it weren't you should tell me.
Anyway, basically all you said was that you're right because you're right and you claim that people agree with you. I won't deny that people agree with you, but I will deny that the agreement makes you correct. I'm challenging your claim that serial killers are distinctly and specifically not normal, healthy souls, for what is a normal, healthy soul, and how can we claim to have one? How can you know a serial killer's motivation, or, as you would seem to be doing, discount motivation altogether? If the motivation behind an action has no bearing on judgment, morality is dice at best.
Oh, Robin Hood is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. This act to me has a "good" stamp on it.
Simply stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is neutral. But, taking risks to do so is good. It can be argued that stealing from the rich is always dangerous, but that is beside the point.
Now, what are his motives? This act could actually be evil if his motives were to gather a reputation of a freedom fighter to earn the population's trust then usurp power for himself. (Faintly similar to Fidel Castro and Cuba.)
The act is still good, no matter motives. But what motives affect is the alignment. If motive is good, alignment moves towards good. If motive is evil, alignment doesn't change unless it was good to begin with. Well, maybe just a little bit towards evil. If motive is neutral (my father did it, so I'll continue), alignment may slightly move towards good. At least away from evil.
To move on as I said I would I'd like to talk about polarity especially as it relates to alignment. There are some glaring asymmetries between good and evil. While it seems relatively simple to embody the concepts it is impossible to embody the so called concepts of evil. The former is largely pro existence while the second at its ultimate extreme states that existence is besides the point. It is as if in order to embody the concepts of evil non-existence is the primary item of criteria. Such an idea is mutually exclusive and there has yet to be an entity to live up to such requirements. The other asymmetry arises from the Darkness/Light metaphor. It's simply enough to say that while light actually is something darkness is not, it is the lack of something. This model appeals to a very "Light/Good central" model of the current state of affairs. It is as if even the really evil one's are just misunderstood/misunderstanding, but this hardly explains just how it is certain characters derive power from a so called force of evil.
The goal of evil is not to destroy everything. It is an evil goal, true, and thus empowers evil, but that doesn't mean that every evil attempts to destroy or that the Evil wishes to destroy everything. Both Good and Evil need sentience or life to exist. In SRD, relevant parts of alignment for good: implies respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings. For evil: implies killing others. Before those passages, evil creatures debase or destroy innocent life. And good makes sacrifices to help others. The key point: Both Good and Evil need life or sentience to exist. Thus, Evil can't have the ultimate goal to destroy everything. To accept this, we must note that there are extremely wise and intelligent creatures of both good and evil. The greatest outsiders and dragons, for example. Not to mention that your average balor/pit fiend is skilled enough to talk anyone into accepting evil as the right way. And pit fiend does it with logic, as it is lawful. Thus, there must be a logical reason to be evil.
The light/darkness bit: both are unaligned. Evil just prefers darkness for traditional reasons. And, in D&D, are there any things arguing for darkness not being something exactly as much as light. There can be [Darkness] spells, instead of [absence of light] spells, which is a mild case suggesting darkness as a force in it's own right. Let hold of the scientific models. They don't necessary apply, and can be a severe hindrance.
I think that the majority of these things need to be judged on a case by case basis. Let's go with an example: Murder is evil. What about killing a killer? (death penalty) Ok, what about killing one person to save another? What about killing one to save 2? 10? 1000? How do you judge one life compared to another? Do you judge it on how good those people are? Or perhaps on how much good they can give to the world in their lifetime?
Killing a murderer: neutral. Same with death penalty. Killing a killer can vary, but generally the killing in and of itself isn't good. At least I can't come up with an example. Killing one to save another: base alignment neutral. Killing one to save many: the act is neutral, but intentions often good.
A bad guy I've used:
A half-elven Sorcerer/Rogue who manipulates people into trusting him. He has seen too much evil in the world to let it go on, so he wishes everyone to gather under his banner or die as the evil cowards they are. He often speaks with the Player Party, to see if he can turn any of them, as he desperately tries to convince them into believing he's working for the sake of the greater good, and is infuriated when people don't believe him.
Here's a nice scene with him; here's the party:
Granden - A male, lvl7 LG Human Paladin. Chiai's fiancé.
Chiai - A female, NG lvl7 Half-elf druid. Granden's fiancé. Comeliness 22!
Tainker - A male, LN lvl8 Gnome Wizard. Leader of the party.
Neen - A female, LN lvl6 Dwarf Monk. Member of "The order of the wooden fist".
And here's the villain's name; Laiken.
Granden- There's awfully quiet here...
Tainker- Not anymore, you just broke the silence. *laughs*
Chiai- *laughs* But it's always good to hear your voice, Granden. *kisses Granden*
Neen- Oh look, we've got company...
Two ogres step into the scene, but are defeated.
Laiken- *claps* Not bad... you could be in my service.
Granden- *points sword at Laiken* Never, foul creature!
Chiai- Granden, easy, my love. What do you want, Laiken?
Laiken- I want to explain my purposes, as you seem to be quite ignorant of the fact that I'm not evil.
Tainker- Not evil? Explain.
Laiken- I've seen much evil in this world of Eanan. Racial hatred leading to wars, leading to death, suffering, pain. I want to stop this. If we all unite, this will not happen. Imagine it, a Utopian society were dwarf, elf, goblin, orc lives in the same neighbourhood, going outside to the lawn, meeting each other and greeting with a smile.
Granden- And you seek this through tyranny and force?
Laiken- No, I just seek to destroy those who are evil and do not wish to see this paradise of cross-racial love.
Neen- And now you seek to hire us? Sorry, I will not betray my order, who see you as a threat to the balance of the races.
Laiken- Then you will die, as the evil threat to paradise you are. But not today. Today, I will make my point.
Chiai- You're making a poor stand.
Laiken- You'd think a beautiful woman such as yourself would be less stupid.
Granden- Don't try it.
Tainker- Wait, wait, he's making a point. You see-
Chiai- No he's not. He'll kill anyone who doesn't have his vision of a false paradise.
Laiken- Don't you see how foolish you're being?! The gnome is right! I am right! I will give you time to think, but I will NOT hesitate to kill you!
Curtains fall.
I have yet to decide Laiken's alignment. What do you think?
Let hold of the scientific models. They don't necessary apply, and can be a severe hindrance.
I realise that D&D and real life are at variance with one another and those who roleplay have varying tastes for verisimilitude. I like to roleplay such that thought processes which arise in this world are equally valid in any other.
It is an evil goal, true, and thus empowers evil, but that doesn't mean that every evil attempts to destroy
The definition of evil as used demands the destruction of something, be it the livelihood of people or the world on which they live. If the evil in question somehow preserves the existence of something else which actively destroys quality of life or life in general then it is transferable as an act of destruction.
"In SRD"
"And good makes sacrifices to help others."
This is just another example where D&D unintentionally falls out of phase with the real world because of an unwillingness to explore the exact implications of traditional blanket statements such as that quoted.
"evil creatures debase or destroy innocent life."
"The key point: Both Good and Evil need life or sentience to exist. Thus, Evil can't have the ultimate goal to destroy everything."
This doesn't reconcile the asymmetry between good and evil but only helps to expand its scope and reaffirm what I've been saying. Evil is oxy moronic and doesn't have a reasonable justification, its more as a result of faulty rationalization.
extremely wise and intelligent creatures of both good and evil.
Which unfortunately have only been allowed to exist because of the tendency to serially neglect certain major conceptual flaws. If the designers don't immediately grasp the implications of the systems they create then how can those fictional entities bound by the systems do so?
Evil just prefers darkness for traditional reasons
Well seeing as evil has been transformed into an objectified force in D&D rather than an abstract concept it would seem that such associations are assumed to be rather concrete.
Evil is more a demonstration of self loathing than anything else because those acts which derive from it are not beneficial to the practitioner simply by design when considering the collaborative alternative. If evil is about the non-collaboration of certain elements (thus its tendency to destroy and interrupt collaboration in a very general sense) then it becomes clear that such a preference and association does not permeate through all aspects of an allegedly "evil" person's life.
Anyway, basically all you said was that you're right because you're right and you claim that people agree with you. I won't deny that people agree with you, but I will deny that the agreement makes you correct. I'm challenging your claim that serial killers are distinctly and specifically not normal, healthy souls, for what is a normal, healthy soul, and how can we claim to have one? How can you know a serial killer's motivation, or, as you would seem to be doing, discount motivation altogether? If the motivation behind an action has no bearing on judgment, morality is dice at best.
I'd like to point out that you can't logically prove that something doesn't exist.
Anyway, these are all matters of faith. As I said before, matters of morality and religion go hand in hand. And all religions are based on faith.
Evil is misunderstood only in real life. In D&D, evil is detected and then attacked. A properly played paladin is not Lawful stupid, he is Lawful Smart.
PS: Laiken is probably LE (He seeks control and slays those who disagree). Though I wonder why your paladin player didn't dispute the statement "...I'm not evil." It is kind of hard to argue that against the guy with detect evil at will.
The "code of ethics" of which you speak is actually called the Natural Law, and is referred to by Christians as the Ten Commandments. And these aren't just right for me, but right for the entire world. The Natural Law is aptly named because it's engrained on EVERY human soul, not just the souls of Christians.
The normal, healthy human soul naturally knows that murder is bad, stealing is bad, and the breaking of the other Commandments is bad. This IS a common trend in other world religions, that share rules similar to the Ten Commandments.
I submit that serial killers and there ilk aren't possessed of normal, healthy souls, and many freely commit acts against the Natural Law without twinging. But many do twinge and do feel a need to repent, or at least feel some amount of guilt.
Before I get flamed for bringing up the subject of real-world religion, I'd like to say that I do in fact take full responsibility for not going with the modern trend of approaching discussions of Good and Evil from the perspective of moral relativism, but go instead with the more traditional view that ideas about Good and Evil are religious in nature, because Man naturally grasps to fill the void in his heart with God.
Since I'm not a theologian, I'll recommend the Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church for further reading, if anyone is that interested.
That's not natural law, that is theological law. Natural law goes something like this:
1-Feed thy ass
2-protect thy ass
3-produce enough younglings of thy ass to ensure future generations of thy ass's race
4-get thy ass some good real estate.
That is natural law. If, through the 2nd law you can do the first, it's fine. Natural law makes no allowance for good or evil. This is the law of survival, and why animals are true neutral, it's enlightened self interest that does not unbalance the ecosystem, good and evil unbalance ecosystems, good would say, okay, rabbits your doing good, but lions, could we have a little less of the killing and eating, thanks, help yourself to some nice grass... evil would say, hey, lions, go get some rabbits, hey rabbits, try and be more like them, maybe you can be the 'king of the jungle'... good's influence on the ecosystem would cause an overpopulation of rabbits and a lot of miffed lions, evil's influence would cause an overpopulation of lions, and a lot of dead rabbits. natural law is neutral. Is Christianity neutral? No. It sees itself as good, and yes, as a whole, sure maybe it is, however there is always the possibility of evil within it.
Some interesting points that this can add to the discussion:
Evil can work together.
Evil can do good deeds.
At one point in the book, a (supposed) TN druid has her faith questioned by a god. To basically sum up the conversation, she states that no act is inherently good or evil, but the reasons for doing so are what makes the act good or evil.
Why does a group of evildoers work together as equals? They would cease to survive if they didn't. They had a stated purpose for the group and every member of it was vital to it continuing success.
An interesting point you can make with the book is that if the motivations were looked at just slightly differently, you could swap the good and evil aspects- and the entire party would have done almost the exact same thing every step of the way.
A different series that has a new outlook on good vs evil is the Renshai Trilogy by Mickey Zucker. The main heroes in the series are neutral, and must stop good and evil (either one) from dominating the rest of the world. Later in the trilogy, neutral must fend off law and chaos (mostly chaos). In this series, good is seen as support for others, evil as the love of self, law as rules, and chaos as creativity. The dominance of any one force would destroy the world, as would the eradication of even one force.
I would put forth the argument that the cleric's/pally's ability to sense evil is more of a sense of evil motivations- those of personal gain without regard for others. The 'without regard for others' part is necessary to prevent pallys from going insane at the flea market.
A group can be composed of those with opposite alignment and never know it if the group doesn't talk much about their actions. If the evil is not sadistic or masochistic, there would be no reason even to suspect wrongful motivations until a sudden theft or betrayal, which may or may not even happen.
I realise that D&D and real life are at variance with one another and those who roleplay have varying tastes for verisimilitude. I like to roleplay such that thought processes which arise in this world are equally valid in any other.
Which might be a problem. In D&D, alignments are absolute. In D&D, both light and darkness are forces. As are fire and cold.
The definition of evil as used demands the destruction of something, be it the livelihood of people or the world on which they live. If the evil in question somehow preserves the existence of something else which actively destroys quality of life or life in general then it is transferable as an act of destruction.
Note the word innocent. Evil has high priority of debasing etc. mainly innocent life. I wouldn't exactly call most evil things innocent.
This is just another example where D&D unintentionally falls out of phase with the real world because of an unwillingness to explore the exact implications of traditional blanket statements such as that quoted.
I work from the game and make statements about alignments based on the game. You decide that the game is wrong (with alignments) based on your beliefs of the real world. To me, at least, it seems that I have the stronger position.
This doesn't reconcile the asymmetry between good and evil but only helps to expand its scope and reaffirm what I've been saying. Evil is oxy moronic and doesn't have a reasonable justification, its more as a result of faulty rationalization.
How about the code that the mighty have all the rights in the world to do whatever they want to the weak? You don't call that evil? And a reasonable justification.
Which unfortunately have only been allowed to exist because of the tendency to serially neglect certain major conceptual flaws. If the designers don't immediately grasp the implications of the systems they create then how can those fictional entities bound by the systems do so?
Because the creatures working in the system are essentially immortal (from age) and have both wisdom and intelligence far above those of the designers. Especially if you are correct and the designers put such huge flaws into the game.
Well seeing as evil has been transformed into an objectified force in D&D rather than an abstract concept it would seem that such associations are assumed to be rather concrete.
Darkness spells don't have evil tag. Evil spells don't have darkness tag. Same with good and light. So the association is anything but concrete.
Evil is more a demonstration of self loathing than anything else because those acts which derive from it are not beneficial to the practitioner simply by design when considering the collaborative alternative. If evil is about the non-collaboration of certain elements (thus its tendency to destroy and interrupt collaboration in a very general sense) then it becomes clear that such a preference and association does not permeate through all aspects of an allegedly "evil" person's life.
Remember that people are stupid. Not everyone has the insight or the patience to work with others simply because it might be more beneficial in the far future. And some know that they can get away with things.
Anyway, these are all matters of faith. As I said before, matters of morality and religion go hand in hand. And all religions are based on faith.
But, we are talking about game with defined alignments. This is not a matter of faith, this is a matter of readin the book and trying to get what it says.
That's not natural law, that is theological law. Natural law goes something like this:
You're half right. Natural Law is a theological concept.
What you're describing are Secular Humanist Laws, not the Natural Law. The Natural Law is called natural because it occurs naturally in the human heart, not because it has anything to do with nature or surviving in nature.
The emperor on the other hand, was evil for his own power. He had no need for denial, he was evil because it gave him power, and he knew it.
However, you must admit that the Emperor probably wasn't thinking he was doing something he shouldn't be. His behavior was justified as something which gave him in his mind some clear form of benefit and thereby became the right thing to do according to his adopted beliefs. He may have recognized the fact that other's adopted his image as a banner for amorality, but only for a system of morality he did not accept because it did not, in his mind, promote his own livelihood.
That's the main difference between true evil, that would be destroyed at all costs, and the evil that requires a different, harder, approach.
I'd say that as all activities are performed at the cost of deliberation before hand there is a reverse deliberation to bring people back to common sense realizations, without the need to kill them, though all bets are off if they build a giant gun and point it at you. In that case it seems expedience is perhaps the most beneficial policy.
"In D&D, good and evil alignment are not subjective concepts."
"Evil is misunderstood only in real life."
True. However, if we take this opportunity as one to examine alternatives that make more sense and have philosophically sound implications, and to compare and contrast morality in D&D and the real world, this dialogue is elevated from idle to useful.
The D&D alignment system provides a point of origin from which one may set off in the wrong direction. It advertises the practices of cruelty and compassion (by which I intentionally exclude the act of pity) as equal opportunities for success. The problem becomes murkier when they misidentify good by tying in the imagined necessity of atonement and just tossing the better alternative of forgiveness out the window.
Though evil believes it carries its own best interest close to heart it fails to demonstrate it. The principles it attempts to embody are self detrimental. What's worse however is that good in the framework of D&D doesn't help itself either. It becomes reliant on the expression of hostilities towards those who are highly hostile against themselves. It promotes the egregious practice of spiritual materialism. It declares that peace must be forged on the outside rather than the necessity of cultivating inner peace. In these ways D&D's good is just evil with a different coat of paint.
When I first read the Book of Exalted Deeds I mused that if one just exchanged the word Evil with Israeli or Palestinian that the book would likely adorn the personal library of one who claims the opposite allegiance. It is this kind of instinctive revulsion of one side for the other that acts as an adhesive between the two until the flaws imagined of each side become manifested in those who imagined them. In reality one cannot hope to carve out a meaningful existence by doing the opposite against others.
Now this is all well and good in the world of D&D, but there is unfortunately no alignment for those who want to play good in terms of the real world, for those who wish to transfer their thoughts on beneficial behavior into an analogous heroic figure. Perhaps a variant alignment system would incorporate the polarization elements embodied in the current one, but with a forth alignment that just rises above it all, the Tom Bombadill alignment.
Originally posted by Wickerbull
I'd like to point out that you can't logically prove that something doesn't exist.
Anyway, these are all matters of faith. As I said before, matters of morality and religion go hand in hand. And all religions are based on faith.
Dude, do you read what you type? Where exactly did I try to prove that something doesn't exist? I only tried to prove that morality is only a judgment on a person if intent is taken into account. Specifically, I said that to do otherwise would be to expect every creature to know all consequences of every action it takes.
Your argument about matters of faith proves my point; if we take something on faith, no one can be proven right or wrong. Therefore, if we're trying to assign a right and wrong (which I've said repeatedly is stupid, but very well), we must base it on the faith of the one we're judging or be doomed to additional idiocy.
Anyway, the morality of actions is based on the object, intention, and circumstances of the actions. If intent, object, and circumstances are going to be taken into account, we can have a clearer picture of what's good and what's evil. This is because we as a race have a pretty good idea of which actions are considered evil in and of themselves.
What we don't have a good idea of, and never will have, are the true intentions behind every action, or all the circumstances that warrant certain actions. So, we need to come back to the idea that, yes, in fact, certain actions are just evil, regardless of intentions or circumstances. There's no good reason to murder someone. Murder is specifically the unnecessary killing of another human person. Why should it ever be appropriate to unnecessarily kill a human being, or even any other living thing?
Likewise, there's no good reason to break any of the other Natural Laws. Look at the list. Can any of those be justified? Maybe stealing, except that, oh yeah, we could always ask permission rather than taking what doesn't rightfully belong to us. And if we're turned down, maybe we oughta work so that we earn the right to have stuff that others shouldn't steal. As far as the other things on the list, none of those can be justified as sometimes not being evil. To break one of the Natural Laws is to commit an evil action, and no amount of good intention or circumstances makes them not evil. So, intention and circumstances come into play only when the action itself can't be defined on their own as being evil in and of themselves.
Now, as to faith being an issue: We must have faith that there are intrinsically good and evil actions. That way, we need not always rely on there being a good or evil intention behind every action. Because intention doesn't always matter. And since faith can be defined as confident belief in the truth, faith is a part of every person's life. Unless there are some people who have no idea what to accept as truth, which is somewhat sad and wishy-washy. What we must do then, is all find faith in the right truth. And I'm sure everyone can guess what I'm going to say is the truth.
This point has been made before in this thread, I know.
The Natural Law is called natural because it occurs naturally in the human heart, not because it has anything to do with nature or surviving in nature.
I'm sure that monotheism is naturally in human heart. That said, I'll drop the subject before we get into a theological (religious) debate.
Though evil believes it carries its own best interest close to heart it fails to demonstrate it. The principles it attempts to embody are self detrimental. What's worse however is that good in the framework of D&D doesn't help itself either. It becomes reliant on the expression of hostilities towards those who are highly hostile against themselves. It promotes the egregious practice of spiritual materialism. It declares that peace must be forged on the outside rather than the necessity of cultivating inner peace. In these ways D&D's good is just evil with a different coat of paint.
True, this. This is because the alignments are equal and polar opposites. Having heroes who forgive opponents, only to stop them again and again, isn't quite as thrilling as fight to death.
Now this is all well and good in the world of D&D, but there is unfortunately no alignment for those who want to play good in terms of the real world, for those who wish to transfer their thoughts on beneficial behavior into an analogous heroic figure.
Good would still be most appropriate.
Your argument about matters of faith proves my point; if we take something on faith, no one can be proven right or wrong. Therefore, if we're trying to assign a right and wrong (which I've said repeatedly is stupid, but very well), we must base it on the faith of the one we're judging or be doomed to additional idiocy.
This is a good point, especially to Wickerbull. We are not discussing good and evil, or lack thereof, in real world, but in D&D. The alignments are defined in PHB (and SRD, for that matter). They don't include any particular religion. Though they are based on strongly western (Christian) worldview.
This is a good point, especially to Wickerbull. We are not discussing good and evil, or lack thereof, in real world, but in D&D. The alignments are defined in PHB (and SRD, for that matter). They don't include any particular religion. Though they are based on strongly western (Christian) worldview.
Yeah, I got the point that we were talking about a game.
About the D&D rules for morality being based on strongly Christian worldview (polytheism aside), they are, in theory. In practice, the fact that violence is the main way to solve problems in this game blurs the differences between Good and Evil so that intention is what we have to go on when we determine the morality of an action.
That just doesn't work. The moral codes in the PHB is there to give a reason for a morally based character to adventure; they add no actual depth to the game, because they're blanket statements about what Good and Evil are.
We're forced to go outside the game for moral guidance for our characters, and that's what leads to real world moral discussions. Certainly not religious fanatics with nothing better to do. :D
The Outer Planes are polarized, as are their occupants. The thing is, polarized does not necessarily mean "absolute." Yes, yugoloths are very, very evil, and the guardinals are very, very good, but does this mean that either is representative of absolute evil or absolute good? And would any asserted position be acknowledged by all the entangled parties?
I hate to use Plato's corpse as a shield, but the problem is one of World One, World Two: can the pure definition be represented materially? In the terms of the Cave, can the shadow incarnate every detail of the base object?
Given the way D&D metaphysics is set up, I'd say no: even though form, matter, and concept are more intimately bound in the Outer Planes, they still are not unified: thus form does not perfectly mirror concept. The planar exemplars are high-relief representations of different facets of the pure [Platonic World One] definitions of good, evil, neutrality, law, and chaos...well-defined shadows on the cave wall.... The fact, though, that an archon can fall or a devil be redeemed suggests the exemplar identity is not wholly deterministic, just phenomenally ingrained: powerful forces...whether magical or just plain stimulating...though, can alter their nature.
Sentient beings on the Prime Material Plane, by contrast, seem to have free will: their lives, both biological and psychological, are not automatically governed by an inclination toward good or evil, law or chaos [sorry, Meng-tzu]
from a spiritual standpoint. Different individuals will experiment with different strategies of moral conduct and arrive at a decision about how to prioritize their desired ends versus those of others as well as the acceptable means to obtain those ends. Over time, environment and socialization standardize moral and ethical systems across individuals, but it still comes down to personal exercise.
However.
The first complication of this dichotomy is the mutual permeability of the Prime and Outer Planes. Prime sentients have been engaged in a diaspora into the Planes for uncounted generations, and outsiders have in turn visited, tinkered with, and habited the Prime Material Plane. Over time, the oil and water of free will and determinism have begun form a colloid...resulting in smeary spectrum of planar inhabitants currently extant in D&D mythology. Alignment issues have become correspondingly blurry: while there is little threat of the planes suddenly depolarizing, the concept of a clear alignment "identity" derived from an Outer Plane has become more complicated.
The second complication is the problem of chicken versus egg...or in this case, separating the chicken and egg portions of a sizable, slightly messy chicken omelet. Does the polarized nature of the Planes generate the alignment conflict on the Prime, or do the moral and ethical dilemmas of Prime sentients manifest themselves as the planar quincrux of Good, Evil, yadda, yadda? If the former...who set up this crazy design in the first place? If the latter...then what or who is defining the operant criterion for the five basic positions? Is it gestalt? A manifestation of the collective unconscious? Jimmy Hoffa?
Crandor, you said: "Well, I say you're wrong because Natural Law doesn't exist. How's that for double reverse circular logic?" Granted, you didn't try to prove that Natural Law doesn't exist. You just implied that you could use logic to prove a negative, which can’t be done, using any form of logic, because that breaks the rules of logic.
That was a joke. I was making fun of your illogic in some previous post. I thought the emoticon with the tongue sticking out would have given that away, along with the fact that I humorously named my own breakdown in logic
Anyway, the morality of actions is based on the object, intention, and circumstances of the actions. If intent, object, and circumstances are going to be taken into account, we can have a clearer picture of what's good and what's evil. This is because we as a race have a pretty good idea of which actions are considered evil in and of themselves.
By taking into account intent and the situation surrounding that intent, you are, in fact, merely trying to get a clear picture of intent. It seems strange that you've dropped consequences from your list of things to be analyzed; that was really the source of most of the argument, here. And if we, as a race, know what's good and what's evil, why are we having this argument right now?
What we don't have a good idea of, and never will have, are the true intentions behind every action, or all the circumstances that warrant certain actions. So, we need to come back to the idea that, yes, in fact, certain actions are just evil, regardless of intentions or circumstances. There's no good reason to murder someone. Murder is specifically the unnecessary killing of another human person. Why should it ever be appropriate to unnecessarily kill a human being, or even any other living thing?
If we can never know the true intentions, as you admit, how do you expect to make a judgment based, even partially, on them? If you don't want to base your judgment at all on intent, why are you calling it morality? That is called practicality. It's interesting to see how such practicality conflicts with your claim that there's never a reason to murder someone (by the way, murder is unlawful killing, not unnecessary). Even if murder were "unnecessary killing," who defines unnecessary? If the person killing didn't think it was necessary, he wouldn't do it, but that killing is extremely unnecessary from the point of view of the victim. Also, there's no way to survive in this world without killing something. Even plants kill each other by blocking out sunlight or fighting for minerals from the ground.
Likewise, there's no good reason to break any of the other Natural Laws. Look at the list. Can any of those be justified? Maybe stealing, except that, oh yeah, we could always ask permission rather than taking what doesn't rightfully belong to us. And if we're turned down, maybe we oughta work so that we earn the right to have stuff that others shouldn't steal. As far as the other things on the list, none of those can be justified as sometimes not being evil. To break one of the Natural Laws is to commit an evil action, and no amount of good intention or circumstances makes them not evil. So, intention and circumstances come into play only when the action itself can't be defined on their own as being evil in and of themselves.
I don't have your list right in front of me, but I'd like to ask what higher power decreed that these actions are wrong such that I'm now supposed to justify them? Also, you seem focused on situations where someone is weighing breaking your as-yet-inadequately-defined Natural Law against...well, I'm not sure what against, exactly, but something to the effect of "not breaking it"; what about times when the "crime" is a completely unintended outcome? They think something's theirs so they take it, but it turns out it was someone else's. There's stealing; was it evil?
Now, as to faith being an issue: We must have faith that there are intrinsically good and evil actions. That way, we need not always rely on there being a good or evil intention behind every action. Because intention doesn't always matter. And since faith can be defined as confident belief in the truth, faith is a part of every person's life. Unless there are some people who have no idea what to accept as truth, which is somewhat sad and wishy-washy. What we must do then, is all find faith in the right truth. And I'm sure everyone can guess what I'm going to say is the truth.
This point has been made before in this thread, I know.
Well, mostly this last part doesn't say anything. It says, " It's self-evident that I am right" Not exactly convincing :P I can assure you that it is not imperative that I believe that good and evil are absolutes. Faith is confident belief in something, but not necessarily the truth. And saying the words "sad and wishy-washy" in no way makes it less correct to reserve judgment at times.
Having heroes who forgive opponents, only to stop them again and again, isn't quite as thrilling as fight to death.
That much can be agreed upon.
Good would still be most appropriate.
However, those characters would likely feel disinclined to submit to the rulings and actions of others who display the "Good" descriptor as according to the general D&D interpretation, and would also likely debate against both the existence and necessity of fighting so called evil. In fact, they would be inclined to indicate how meting out retribution only contributes to the problem, whereas restoration is far more appealing and productive.
These characters would also feel that evil is to strong a descriptor especially whereas magic is concerned and that if it were taken to mean "emotional retardation" or "acceptance of and action upon false agreements with oneself" then they would likely opt for a "detect hostility" spell as an alternative to the "detect 95 percent of the population" spell. So in many ways these people would be the black sheep of the good alignment. :D
IIRC from sociology last semester, or maybe my HS sociology class, or both, most sociologists agree (enough to put it in the textbooks) that you cannot define an action as being indisputably good or evil, even after considering circumstance, motivation, intentions, etc. The problem is that what is defined as good or evil varies from culture to culture. As much as I would like natural law to exist, I really don't think it can, though if everyone had the same viewpoint, or at least a large enough majority, something like natural law could happen...but it wouldn't be infallible. And that's the thing that makes natural law so appealing--you absolutely know its right, period. Fact of the matter is though, how good and evil, morality, and the like works doesn't matter as much as how it's applied to DnD.
Here's something to chew on: Take druidsrule's character, laiken. He is most definitely committing evil acts as he attempts to achieve this paradise he wants. He will probably fail, and no good will come of these bad acts. Regardless of his intention since its so grandiose and not really a realistic possibility, he's evil. If he, through some stroke of luck or whatever, succeeds in his dream of paradise, do you now consider him good? Assuming that everyone does get along, there's no conflict, racism, or prejudice of any kind, it's hard to call him evil. Yes, he did, in fact, commit a lot of evil in his day, but it was all for the far greater good.
Another little idea. Who says a villain has to be evil, or be doing something that happens to be evil. The PCs could be working for one good nation/city/state/group/individual against a rival good nation/city/state/group/individual. Likewise, they could be working for an evil force of some sort against another evil force. Just because your good (or evil) doesn't mean that you are necessarily on friendly terms with another good (or evil) person.
It's very interesting to be working for, say, an evil lich to thwart a potential rival's attempt at becoming a lich. Think of the possibilities of betrayal on both the PCs and the lich's part. Also think about what must be running through the LG paladin's head the entire time...
In some stories, there can be a tendency to focus on originality at the expense of common sense. Personally, I find an individual with a real skull fetish quite depraved, and very disturbing. Sometimes execution isn't about originality, it's about taking yourself seriously.
1984 wasn't the first story about a dark future of mental slavery, but it explored that concept in a very personal and serious way. Likewise Tolkien's stories were taken from existing mythology, yet they dealt with white wizards and funny people with pointy ears as though they were real people.
How many modern pseudo-philosophical day-to-day man meets the bizarrest series of characters in existence pulp literature novels are there? Of course they're critically acclaimed. They're "original".
Fantasy is, and can feel very real, but in many ways it is MORE than real. It is iconic, archtypal. Good and evil are real forces in the fantasy world, very much unlike or own.
it is defined as "convenient belief in something, often in the absence of evidence".
Also, Evil is a completely valid viewpoint.
For example, take a nihilist. Their belief is that nothing matters in the long term. Many nihilists therefore see no problem with doing what feels necessary to please themselves.
And then there's the selfish gene.
Things like forgiveness, love, charity, they are all survival mechanisms, which, when misplaced, are called moral and good.
All altruism is truly selfish at heart.
In any event, I have nothing of substance to add that hasn't been pointed out. It seems like our view of reality can never be 100% sure. D&D morality is most assuredly consequentialist, since good and evil folks do essentially the same thing in the name of being right (Unless you use the BoED, which still condones violence at times). Elves kill orcs and orcs kill elves, using all the same dirty tricks, as has been pointed out.
For D&D to be non-consequentialist, then basically evil and good need to be polar opposties. Evil kills, good doesn't. Evil steals, good doesn't. Good shouldn't kill the BBEG just because it will solve some hefty problems in the game world. Good shouldn't steal an artifact just because the BBEG will use it to cause problems in the game world.
The problem, it seems for me, isn't good and evil anymore. It's consequentialism and non-consequentialism.
Belief in a given set of knowns, within a range of precision, without empirical evidence or experimentation, in order to eliminate or reduce the energy and time requirements to find such knowns or increase the range of precision.
Say we believe the values of A=1, B=2, C=3. We know the values of A,B, and C are not exact, but we have already used these values in all our other calculations (which are also more than likely flawed because of our misplaced priorities). The more we adhere to our 'belief' philosophy, the more energy and experimentation is required to tear down all those connections and recalculate everything. So, faith is like not doing your mental laundry.
'Valid' requires definition here. If valid means that it has a quality of existence, then yes it is as valid as any other viewpoint. If valid means that it is correct, then I would have to disagree. To take the nihilistic example, such a viewpoint contains an opinion-based value, that of 'matters'. Whether one believes cause and effect is important in the long term or not with respect to themselves, such cause and effect relationships exist.
To return to Plato, it is impossible to separate the individual from the society. Such an individual will cause themselves harm, if only mentally or emotionally, by causing harm to others for their own benefit, or by isolating themselves and hoarding wealth for example. Alienation and mistrust, lack of communication, these are all real psychological forces. Nietzsche himself was destroyed by his inability to incorporate the value of community.
Selfishness is to me a perfect example of the interference of language in mental definitions. Is there only one kind of selfishness or many? The same with love, is it one or many? Could there be a 'good' kind of selfishness and likewise a 'bad' kind of selfishness that causes more harm to self and to others all things being equal?
In all philosophy I believe it is important to define one's terms within a given frame of reference, rather than falling prey to the tyranny of Webster's, Oxford's and dictionary.com. Otherwise all we are doing is relying on predetermined values, just like the one who refuses to experiment upon their variables.
In my campaign I have created a deity who is the goddess of birth, life, and purity. Her religion is very popular because of the obvious importance of birth and life. They hand out a great deal of healing. However the deity is neutral, thus her clergy cover a range of interpretations of this (lawful neutral, chaotic neutral, neutral evil, neutral good). The aspect that mostly calls this into issue is purity. The general public sees them as unwilling to tolerate the existence of undead, aberrations, and constructs, which they see as mockeries of life. But the more extreme priests see half-elves, half-orcs, etc as mockeries as well and believe they must be exterminated. Some of them view only their own race as pure and so on.
This makes it impossible to treat the entire religion as villains because some of them truly honor, respect, and give charitable aid to any living being. It makes them a very interesting group to deal with because the PCs may have allies and enemies within the same organization. It also means that the worst of them all could be the most popular of them all depending on how he is perceived by the public, making him nearly untouchable.
All good things that make the campaign more interesting, and incidentally help the NPC to exist long enough to be a recurring villain.
Some examples from literature have been brought up in this thread that I think have had their alignments misinterpreted. Robin Hood, for example, is chaotic good. Theft is chaotic, not evil. It's only evil if it brings harm to someone, which taking from the rich does not. They are less privileged, not harmed by the theft. Stealing from the poor is evil because it may cause them to starve or be unable to afford healing and the like. This is causing harm.
Darth Vader is Chaotic Evil in a lawful evil empire, as is the emperor. The Sith have no loyalty to anyone (not even each other), they use deception to achieve their goals, care nothing for honor or honesty, and draw their power from hatred, rage, and fear. They are chaotic evil, but demand lawful behavior from those they command. Darth Vader's habit of killing any servant who fails him is manifestly chaotic evil. Lawful evil would realize that this does not encourage the best performance from your underlings, it encourages the smart ones to try to avoid notice (ie. promotion).
Anyway, basically all you said was that you're right because you're right and you claim that people agree with you. I won't deny that people agree with you, but I will deny that the agreement makes you correct. I'm challenging your claim that serial killers are distinctly and specifically not normal, healthy souls, for what is a normal, healthy soul, and how can we claim to have one? How can you know a serial killer's motivation, or, as you would seem to be doing, discount motivation altogether? If the motivation behind an action has no bearing on judgment, morality is dice at best.
Serial killers often do exactly what soldiers, freedom fighter/terrorists, nations, businesses and all sorts of people do - that is view people as symbols and treat them as such. I didn't kill a woman I killed a harlot, I didn't kill a man, I killed a commie/terrorist/infidel whatever.
Is the Wizard who sells magic items to the big bad guy evil?
That's not natural law, that is theological law. Natural law goes something like this:
1-Feed thy ass
2-protect thy ass
3-produce enough younglings of thy ass to ensure future generations of thy ass's race
4-get thy ass some good real estate.
1. It is precisely the "feed your ass" which has led to environmental destruction,
2. "protect your ass" which inevitably leads to ever more powerful weaponry. Nuclear weapons anyone? Also you're gonna die anyway.
3. Produce enough younglings" which has led to overpopulation. Your race will also die out anyway in the long term, sooner if resources are overstretched.
4. "get your ass some real estate" which has led to innumerable territorial conflicts.
Saying that humans obeying these laws might respect the environment would only work if we went back to the stone age (or earlier, to a tool-less society) and were thus limited by concrete physical limitations to our destructiveness.
I'd like to point out that faith is not defined as "convenient belief in the truth"
it is defined as "convenient belief in something, often in the absence of evidence".
Also, Evil is a completely valid viewpoint.
For example, take a nihilist. Their belief is that nothing matters in the long term. Many nihilists therefore see no problem with doing what feels necessary to please themselves.
And then there's the selfish gene.
Things like forgiveness, love, charity, they are all survival mechanisms, which, when misplaced, are called moral and good.
All altruism is truly selfish at heart.
I have a homebrew theory that people usually (but not always) believe that others are deep down like themselves. So selfish people believe everyone is selfish if they get the chance, the generous that others are generous if shown a good example.
So a CE villain may just assume that everyone else is trying to be the alpha dog and would screw them if they got the chance. They just decide to act first. When they see a paladin doing good they may think "dumb boy scout" or they may think "what's she getting out of this? Yup she's got a smart angle there, the "good" angle, gotta figure out how she works it"
1. It is precisely the "feed your ass" which has led to environmental destruction,
2. "protect your ass" which inevitably leads to ever more powerful weaponry. Nuclear weapons anyone? Also you're gonna die anyway.
3. Produce enough younglings" which has led to overpopulation. Your race will also die out anyway in the long term, sooner if resources are overstretched.
4. "get your ass some real estate" which has led to innumerable territorial conflicts.
Saying that humans obeying these laws might respect the environment would only work if we went back to the stone age (or earlier, to a tool-less society) and were thus limited by concrete physical limitations to our destructiveness.
Ok... well, the four basic rules there, modified by the conditions they created, do in fact drive evolution. To deny them this becuase you do not like the consequences is, well, ignoring reality because you don't like it... And there are padded cells for you if that is the case.
However, just on the addition to your commentary on the four points that you added below it: Humans didn't respect the environment any more than they thought would save them from being eaten by the local mountain god or some-such. Humans, as they went about disrespecting the environment, found better ways to keep themselves alive while doing it, and these advances were applied to other more... fun uses, and now we can argue over the internet.
In short: no matter what you were to do, either by destroying technology or all humal life, another bunch of civilizations would evolve, go to war with each other, and hopefully live long enough to make nukes and another internet. Nothing can stop the march of progress.
Now, to the topic: Evil.
1. Evil is defined by the SRD, no use arguing about what is evil, at most only why something is evil.
2. We can see that many actions defined as either good or evil can be used in order to accomplish other acts which have been defined by the SRD as the opposite. What? This is meant to be confusing? It is a simple case of interpenetration of opposites and the transformation of quantity into quality.
The very acts themselves are present in both: killing, for example, here we see where the alignments overlap, where their elements interpenetrate each other, but they are still easily definable by the aims and effects, for example, debasing innocent life, but the very fact that the actions can be chose allows their use for the exact opposite: the sacrificing of a virgin to a demon in a bargain to stop that demon from coming through to the prime-material while good has a chance to build its forces &c.
We can argue for ages about why this is good or evil and such, but it will all come to naught if we do not realize that at a certain point quantity turns into quality. Just as every element material has its definite boiling and freezing point at a given pressure, between which no change in temperature will affect it, just as water, after melting into liquid will not become more liquid if one increases the temperature by one degree, it will not become just a little more gaseous, it will stay liquid, until it reaches that set heat level for that given pressure, at which point it explodes into gas. The same thing happens with Evil, Neutral and Good, just as much with Chaos, Neutral and Law.
I'd like to surmise a better definition for faith:
Belief in a given set of knowns, within a range of precision, without empirical evidence or experimentation, in order to eliminate or reduce the energy and time requirements to find such knowns or increase the range of precision.
Say we believe the values of A=1, B=2, C=3. We know the values of A,B, and C are not exact, but we have already used these values in all our other calculations (which are also more than likely flawed because of our misplaced priorities). The more we adhere to our 'belief' philosophy, the more energy and experimentation is required to tear down all those connections and recalculate everything. So, faith is like not doing your mental laundry.
I'd say that's pretty accurate. But really, we all have to go on some sort of faith. I have faith that I'm not in the matrix for example. Have you ever read Descartes' evil demon theory?
'Valid' requires definition here. If valid means that it has a quality of existence, then yes it is as valid as any other viewpoint. If valid means that it is correct, then I would have to disagree. To take the nihilistic example, such a viewpoint contains an opinion-based value, that of 'matters'. Whether one believes cause and effect is important in the long term or not with respect to themselves, such cause and effect relationships exist.
While I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, I don't believe all moral nihilists deny causation. It's my understanding that the moral nihilist believes that there is no universal good and evil and nothing 'matters' in the moral sense- basically the universe doesn't care if you're naughty or nice. No heaven. No hell. No God passing judgment and making sure the good guys win in the end.
I see the whole anarchy thing as similar to the common reaction to the possibility that we may not have free will: "If we don't have free will, then we can't be held morally responsible for our actions." The same can be said for a man-eating lion; but you still put it down. It is plausible for a person to believe that there is no universal good but still be civil and even act as they 'should'.
To return to Plato, it is impossible to separate the individual from the society. Such an individual will cause themselves harm, if only mentally or emotionally, by causing harm to others for their own benefit, or by isolating themselves and hoarding wealth for example. Alienation and mistrust, lack of communication, these are all real psychological forces. Nietzsche himself was destroyed by his inability to incorporate the value of community.
I think this is where that 'selfish gene' comes in. Do you ever wonder why most dogs are so loving and loyal and why most cats are not? I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that cats could survive without us.
Selfishness is to me a perfect example of the interference of language in mental definitions. Is there only one kind of selfishness or many? The same with love, is it one or many? Could there be a 'good' kind of selfishness and likewise a 'bad' kind of selfishness that causes more harm to self and to others all things being equal?
Or perhaps the English language doesn't have enough words to convey each 'type' of love and selfishness. I've heard other languages are better. Most people consider 'destructive love' be something completely different than what is commonly known as love as to warrant a different term- usually jealousy or possessiveness.
In all philosophy I believe it is important to define one's terms within a given frame of reference, rather than falling prey to the tyranny of Webster's, Oxford's and dictionary.com. Otherwise all we are doing is relying on predetermined values, just like the one who refuses to experiment upon their variables.
I won't argue with you there. Dictionary.com has it's uses however.
If wickerbull's natural law is the same as the one I learned about in my ethics class, then there exist non-contrived situations in which there is no possible moral action under the tenets of natural law.
I always tell my characters that perception is key and my CG Ranger (who acted more like a Paladin and was in a self declared war against the Drow) went blow for blow against a paladin who kept calling him a spiderspawned vermin and that still messes with his head.
1. Refrain from harming living beings.
2. Refrain from taking what is not offered.
3. Refrain from acting out unwanted sexual activity.
4. Refrain from lying.
The fifth, which is "refrain from intoxicants", seems to me as more of a good idea than a good moral choice, but it is true that people don't think clearly when intoxicated, so feel free to include that one if you want.
Objectively, good people avoid causing suffering and help others. However, there is still a lot of gray area. Here are couple of examples:
1. Is it wrong for a poor person to steal from a rich person? Personally, I think it is acceptable only as a last resort: the suffering of a starving poor person is greater than the suffering of a rich person who lost a loaf of bread.
2. What if a person was convinced that existence and the chance of happiness wasn't worth the chance of suffering? What if he believes that destroying existence would ultimately be the greater good because there would be no one around to suffer anymore?
Regarding "Natural Law": Humans do seem to generally agree with each other regarding what's right or wrong. If this was because of an absolute, supernatural moral law engraved on our hearts, then I don't think there would be any disagreement at all. There would be no debate if abortion is wrong, or if homosexuality is wrong. Everyone would agree. Because of this and other reasons, I feel that a naturalistic explanation is more satisfactory because it does not rely on beliefs that not all people share.
Second, even if there is a Natural Law, why should we assume the Christian God created it? Maybe another religion's god did, or maybe it was created by some sort of god that we have no knowledge of? If the Christian God did make it, he seems to be more of a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of deity, which in my opinion is pretty scary.
Forgoing niceties in the pursuit of a goal can be very tempting. Seeking to to the greatest good and lead to an evil alignment.
When you think of only the big picture in trying to do good you start reducing seeing those in the way as problems instead of sentient beings. Thus you end up debasing their worth for profit. That is the definition of evil, and the bases for fallen paladin syndrome.
Evil is also often hard to truly spot.
The black robed necromancer with a horde of zombies under is command is an obvious target.
A truly evil person will disguise their evil acts with other motives and might work through intermediaries to cover themselves. Spells that hide alignment are often used by the more subtle evil beings.
Generally the most dangerous of foes is the one that appears to be something else.
The problem with evil is the sad fact that nobody has made any logical reasons why someone is evil. Personally I think that evil is simply belief that strong triumph over the weak, and have all rights to do it. LE thinks that this is achieved best with regulated society, where the capable can be given good positions, and weak slavery. Chaotic evil thinks that society hinders the process of natural selection, setting limits to it. For more information, read Mein Kampf or books by Nietzsche.
If you think that Nietzsche is evil, and especially chaotic evil I would suggest that you read his work again. I wouldn't consider myself a follower of Nietzsche myself, but I admire the system of morality he created. Even using your generalization of his view of "the will to power" as natural selection isn't that actually a form of law?
Honestly, you could play a Nietzschian character as any alignment in my mind. The only thing to keep clear is that this will not be a character who is humble or who thinks that all people are equal. Nietzsche was interested in the few who could rise above what we usually call good and evil and take on the burdens of truly living without the crutch of morality and instead living to self-actualize, introspection and creating one's own meaning in life.
This has got me thinking and the next time I'm picking a character I'm going to pick a lawful good Nietzschian character, wow, that's going to be fun.
Before I address a few points directly related to this thread I would like to refer to another thread once on the first page of the Regdar forum. The thread in question proposed altruism versus selfishness as the distinction between good and evil. However, I'd like to turn that notion on its ear in this more recent thread as it seems to be the most appropriate place.
There's a book by Ayn Rand called "The Virtue of Selfishness", which sets out first to redefine the concept of what is commonly thought of as the identifying characteristics of selfishness by modern society. At the outset she recognizes that the word selfish often conjures the image of an axe wielding brute who renders any casualties that his or her goals necessitate. In order to redefine this image the author changes one fundamental arbitrary preconception, the notion that such behavior can actually be seen as beneficial towards those who practice it. She asserts that it is much more beneficial to oneself to actually work with others rather than to work against them and ultimately set up bigger obstacles down the road. Additionally she asserts that doing what benefits others and by extension the world in which one lives also benefits oneself. Therefore the selfish act is no longer the centerpiece of amorality, but the beacon of morality itself.
On the subject of altruism Ayn Rand designates that though altruism is about making sacrifice for the benefit of others, if we accept the given that helping others does in fact indirectly help one's self then altruism, in the most technical sense of the word, only arises when the harm derived from it is greater than the good. This however goes against the spirit of the word altruism which thus becomes the central tenet of amorality while simultaneously denying the association.
There is one complication however. If one's goals are to harm others then the problem does not arise out of any distinction between selfishness and altruism, but out of one's isolation from the ability to determine what is in their best interest.
Another interesting viewpoint. To expand upon that, another criticism of sacrifice that she had was that usually it isn't sacrifice at all. Instead, you are merely exchanging one good for another that you value higher. I help someone move their furniture instead of watching a Cubs game, I sacrifice something I like, but is it really a sacrifice? Not if I got even more enjoyment out of doing something for another.
What really frightens Ayn Rand and the objectivists are those who advocate true sacrifice. What she calls aceticism (be it outrightly religious or otherwise) the favorite quote of her and her followers is Mother Teresa who once said "one must give until it hurts."
What she interprets this to mean (perhaps rightly) is that Teresa is asserting that to truly be good you have to give until you are getting no benefit and are actually hurting yourself, not just physically but emotionally, mentally, and even spiritually.
The payoff for the objectivists isn't that they are really what we usually mean by "selfish" they assert that mankind is charitable enough without having to be forced to be so by religious or ethical guilt. We will help our fellows because it feels good to help others especially our loved ones. The one place where they might have trouble is dealing with the mentally and physically handicapped who have no family who love them. What happens if no one gets pleasure from helping them? Are they to be left to die? I've asked this of Dr. Bernstein (the current objectivist leader) and he danced around the question.
One of the things that is overlooked about evil is it is often seductive.
Evil is also often hard to truly spot.
The black robed necromancer with a horde of zombies under is command is an obvious target.
A truly evil person will disguise their evil acts with other motives and might work through intermediaries to cover themselves. Spells that hide alignment are often used by the more subtle evil beings.
Generally the most dangerous of foes is the one that appears to be something else.
I play a Dread Necromancer (8th level) that started out Lawful Neutral, and due to an indiscretion with some halflings that thought it was a good idea to try and restrain him... wound up Neutral Evil. But, I've relished playing a NE character, and playing him smart.
1. He wears simple white and blue robes, and carries a holy symbol of Wee Jas.
2. He carries a fiddle, just in case anyone that sees his (Charisma-based) spontaneous arcane casting- they'll think he' a Bard.
3. He works actively for the good of his party (a CN Half-fey Bard, a N Druid, and CG Barbarian) *
4. Undetectable alignment is the first spell cast everyday (we houserule that that spell makes you appear to be TN, as having "no alignment" when detected is just as good as having an Evil one)
5. Gentle repose. When you have fresh zombies- keep them fresh.
6. When in public, he's always very friendly, open, and helpful. Anything that _looks_ shady? He brings attention to it, and gives it a very reasonable explanation (like buying masses of Onyx gems, for animating dead? "Making some jewelry for my love!"- told to the merchant with great exuberance and pride).
*That's the key. Just like there is the alignment of Chaotic-Dumb ("OMG, I'M WACKY AND WILD AND I'll GET EVERYONE KILLED!") and Lawful-Stupid ("I don't care what experience says, the law says that we have to do it THIS WAY!!!!") there is always Moronic-Evil ("I'll rob my party members in their sleep!!").
Moronic-Evil is a no-no. Why do Good characters often beat Evil ones? Because good characters pool their resources. It's much easier to achieve great feats if you _know_ someone is watching your back, ready to cure (or, in my case, Inflict) your wounds. I bought a wand of Inflict Light Wounds and gave it to our Bard, to go with her staff of Cure Light.
Extra protection for her, and her tiny pool of HP, and of course, comes in handy when I'm out of spells for 'healing' myself (I took the feat to be healed by negative energy- a must for Dread Necros).
So, yeah.
In Christianity, at least, this seems to be the case. Good is defined and being in accordance with the character of God. All else is evil. In our world, we consider this to be a value judgment (as it should be). "Good" is a positive quality and desirable, "evil" is a negative and undesirable. This is a direct result of believe there is one ultimate moral standard and that we should all try to find and adhere to it. My own opinion is that this ultimate moral standard is Almighty God whose judgment dictates all which is morally good or bad.
In D&D, we have no such simple standard. What a "good" aligned god sees as positive and desirable is directly opposed to what an "evil" aligned god sees as desirable and positive. Morality is reduced from a single bar graph with "Good" on one end and "bad" on the other, it becomes an x-y graph with many possible, and in the end, equal outcomes from the viewpoint of whatever god you happen to follow.
In short:
Our world: Good is like God (whatever you've decided to call Him) and thus desirable, Bad is Not Like God (whatever you've decided to call Him) and therefore undesirable.
D&D: Good is like Pelor/Heironeous/the shiny bottle deity and therefore desirable by those gods. Bad is like Lolth/Vecna/smoking flaming bottle deity and therefore desirable by those gods.
I propose then the following: all moral judgments are to be made based on the deities which would applaud those judgments. WWPD? What would Pelor do?
OK, Good and Evil are definitely objective in DnD. However, how do we know what is good and what is evil? We need some sort of ideal to compare them to. The first four of the Five Precepts of Buddhism seem like a pretty good moral guideline: [...]
Regarding "Natural Law":[...]
[...]why should we assume the Christian God created it? [...]
"Good and Evil are definitely objective in DnD" you say? well, if you believe that why did you go on to ask what is evil? You know that they are objective in D&D, and so you should also know that D&D also provides definitions for the alignments, or rather it tells you what Good and Evil are...
So why do you continue with the buddhism?
Natural Law:
There is no 'natural law' in the sense that there is an inbuilt moral code in all of us, even a general one. There is none. Morality is culturally determined, and culture is purely historical.
To understand why a certain moral exists we need to understand the society and its historical development.
I quote:
But nevertheless there is great deal which the three moral theories mentioned above have in common -- is this not at least a portion of a morality which is fixed once and for all? These moral theories represent different stages of the same historical development, have therefore a common historical background, and for that reason alone they necessarily have much in common. Even more. At similar or approximately similar stages of economic development moral theories must of necessity be more or less in agreement. From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this injunction thereby become an eternal moral injunction? By no means. In a society in which all motives for stealing have been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the preacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!
Frederick Engels
Anti-Dühring, part 1
And the God thing: Why should we assume there is a god at all, why not reply to old man Bonaparte: "I have no need for that hypothesis"?
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Why do people try to make a morality for D&D that isn't the morality of some isolated sect, but rather try to make the whole game world, RAW, conform to their morality? It is a closed system people, there is not even a door under which you may smuggle your wares!
When you introduce antimatter to normal matter an interesting effect occurs. Both vanish in a flash of light. If this were similar to the case in a world with two completely opposed cosmic forces such as good and evil then it would stand to reason that neither good or evil would make it past the starting line.
O.O You can't be serious?
Good and evil are absolutely nothing like matter or anti-matter. You can't, for one, bring science into a conversation about moral philosophy. And for two, you can't assume all opposites cancel each other out. A positive and negative charge, for example attract each other. Thirdly, assuming anti-matter exists (as far as I know, it's an as of yet unproven theory, I'll admit I'm not up to date within the scientific community, however it's really irrelevant to this point)... As I was saying, assuming anti-matter exists, it's not the opposite of matter, simply by the fact that it exists in a tangible way it can't be the opposite of matter. The opposite of matter (to exist in a physical way), would be nothing. As in to not exist in a physical way.
O.O You can't be serious?
Good and evil are absolutely nothing like matter or anti-matter.
Agreed. I compare them to actual light and darkness, all overused metaphors aside: Dark is the absence of light in the same way that I view evil as the absence of goodness. But that's IRL and not D&D philosophising.
You can't, for one, bring science into a conversation about moral philosophy.
We're again getting into IRL arguments here, but I have to say that I disagree violently with this statement. Science is a fantastic starting and reference point for morality, religion, faith and apologetics for any belief structure. If you can't bring logic or science into debates about morality, there is no way to ever bring it above a level of opinionated argument. (Some say it can't get higher than that anyway, but I digress) I believe we can agree, however, that the argument/example of matter and antimatter are a bit inappropriate to the conversation.
And for two, you can't assume all opposites cancel each other out. A positive and negative charge, for example attract each other. Thirdly, assuming anti-matter exists (as far as I know, it's an as of yet unproven theory, I'll admit I'm not up to date within the scientific community, however it's really irrelevant to this point)... As I was saying, assuming anti-matter exists, it's not the opposite of matter, simply by the fact that it exists in a tangible way it can't be the opposite of matter. The opposite of matter (to exist in a physical way), would be nothing. As in to not exist in a physical way.
Good points. Anti-matter, as I understand it, is thus far theoretical, though I've heard rumors that there really is a Dan Brownesque super collider creating antimatter in Europe. I'm pretty sure I don't believe it.
You're half right. Natural Law is a theological concept.
What you're describing are Secular Humanist Laws, not the Natural Law. The Natural Law is called natural because it occurs naturally in the human heart, not because it has anything to do with nature or surviving in nature.
Natural laws are those that occur naturally. I contend that natural laws are those that further one's survival, not those that further one's destruction, as theological laws often do... or at the very least, they make it damned hard to enjoy life.
This is a male cleric who kidnaps young women and forces them into a transformation ritual that turns them into vampires. He then rebukes them and takes command of them, then sets them out to create spawn, increasing the size of his army without having to waste his capacity for commanding undead. Between battles, he uses them as slaves, guards, and concubines to keep his underground fort "lively".
There's yourself a villain.
...well, back to what this thread was for, here's an example of a truly nasty villain:
This is a male cleric who kidnaps young women and forces them into a transformation ritual that turns them into vampires. He then rebukes them and takes command of them, then sets them out to create spawn, increasing the size of his army without having to waste his capacity for commanding undead. Between battles, he uses them as slaves, guards, and concubines to keep his underground fort "lively".
There's yourself a villain.
Right, Vampire concubines: nothing could possibly go wrong.
I mean, seriously. This is the kind of evil that natural selection takes care of *for* the heroes.
Agreed. I compare them to actual light and darkness, all overused metaphors aside: Dark is the absence of light in the same way that I view evil as the absence of goodness. But that's IRL and not D&D philosophising.
Absence of good alone is neutrality.
If you want a better analogy try charges. You have positive charges (good) negative charges (evil) and the absence of charges (neutral of course).
While on the subject, though, I would like to recommend the Coldfire trilogy by C. S. Friedman. Great fantasy, very original world, and they really got into the whole 'what is evil' topic. The main character was a priest, and another was basically an emotional vampire- evil through and through, but clinging to his honor- who was revealed to be the founding prophet of his church. Excellent books that explore the meaning of evil while telling an epic story.
Regarding "Natural Law": Humans do seem to generally agree with each other regarding what's right or wrong. If this was because of an absolute, supernatural moral law engraved on our hearts, then I don't think there would be any disagreement at all. There would be no debate if abortion is wrong, or if homosexuality is wrong. Everyone would agree. Because of this and other reasons, I feel that a naturalistic explanation is more satisfactory because it does not rely on beliefs that not all people share.
Well, remember that for instance not everyone is *good* in the motivations for their morality. People may have a moral law 'engraved on their hearts' but they also learn to avoid and distort that moral law, beacause they find it inconvenient.
Simply because a person (or society) holds something, doesn't make them right.
The crucial thing, is among a society that is Evil, Evil is Good.
__________________________________________________________________
The fundamental difference between Good and Evil is how they relate to those weaker than themselves, Evil beings who go around killing people at random for their gain are certainly evil, but they also have a very low Wisdom score. This is a fundamental confusion, an Evil Being of a high Wisdom might very well appear and act in a Good manner, understanding that by so doing they are serving their own interests because of the payoff. Where their Evil nature is revealed is when they can reasonably expect their actions to have no personal effect at harming their interests.
The crucial element of Evil alignment is the willingness to harm others in order to further a personal or group interest or desire. There is no requirement that the desires and interests of Evil and Good beings be actually massively separated. An Evil being does not have to enjoy killing or harming others, this is often purely instrumental to some other goal which is desired by the Evil being.
Enjoying inflicting suffering on others is not necessary to be Evil, although expressing such desires would make one evil, since such desires are necessarily Evil.
Good beings however, will not further their own desires or interests if doing so hurts others, nor will a group of Good beings do this to other groups and strive to minimize the harm done to others and themselves. However, if not doing so harms them or their group more than it harms the other beings, they will normally harm others, for instance the situation of stealing a loaf of bread when you're starving. Also, they are often prepared to harm others, in order to prevent others coming to harm, which is clear in the D&D universe's depiction of the behavior of a Good being. However, a Good being will never hurt others simply because it benefits, they will only ever do so out of necessity.
Neutral beings, basically come in four shades. The first is the conflicted Neutral, the being who does Good and Evil acts, in basically equal amounts, such beings are essentially internally conflicted and divided. The second is the compromise Neutral, that is one who neither strives to harm or help others, in other words a being that neither furthers his own interests when it harms others, nor will sacrifice their own interests in order to help others. The third is Animalistic Neutral, that is beings that simply act according their animal nature, ie the basic instinctual laws of survival and procreation, without making any moral decisions, obviously only animals can be of this alignment. The fourth is Slave Neutral, that is beings who 'Only follow orders' and who are essentially an extension of another's will, pretty much this sums up Lawful Neutrals, someone else gives the orders and they follow simply because of the Authority of the one giving the orders, regardless of their moral character.
Like a monk who embraces his more primal instincts to become the best he can be (ala the King from Baki), or a necromancer who raises the dead to save his motherland from starvation or war, i find these the most fun to play, and i don't stop when not dming, either, i carry it on when playing too.
***
These discussions about right and wrong seem a bit strange- isn't good sacrificing the self for the collective, and evil sacrificing the collective for the self? Can't you just leave it there, at intention, and forget about what the result was?
What the result comes to is dependent on intellect and circumstances, not morality- and there's no reason a machiavellian genius should be *more* moral (because of the result) than a blundering altruist.
Then a rival family shot up his father. Then, while his father was in the hospital, Mike goes to visit one night, and notices all the guards and people are all gone, and that someone was going to send a hit squad to finish off his dad. His descent into being a 'bad dude' started there.
In game context, a sympathetic villain is one that didn't start that way, instead making compromises to evil, often for what he feels is the honorable thing to do, protect his family, protect the greater good, whatever.
For every Batman type result, you can also get a Punisher type result. Some people when tested by darkness continue to be 'good', some don't.
Think about an assault victim, in fantasy, there are different types of assaults we'd never experience in real life, and righteous anger can easily slip into 'they all deserve it' kinda violence.
But that being said, too many sympathetic villains dilutes the concept.
Evil is un-kind.
Nope, not quite the simplistic statement it seems to be :D
Kindness is to do with commonality; it is strongly related to "kind" in the sense of "we are the same kind" and to "kin". So "kindness" is not some fluffy dolphin hugger word :D but refers to commonality.
Good is Kind to all - that is they see a commonality of all life; hence the sacrifices they are willing to make in the service of the common - we are ALL one together. The ultimate expression of this is the top layer of Mount Celestia.
Neutral only sees kinship; being bound by personal relationships as opposed to Good's impersonal/transpersonal loyalty.
Evil is Un-kind. It has no commonality; neither Good's transpersonal commonality nor Neutral's personal commonality. Evil is apart from, alienated, separated, alone, cut off. It sees only itself in any valuable sense; all else is separate resource - to use not to serve or connect with.
These discussions about right and wrong seem a bit strange- isn't good sacrificing the self for the collective, and evil sacrificing the collective for the self? Can't you just leave it there, at intention, and forget about what the result was?
What the result comes to is dependent on intellect and circumstances, not morality- and there's no reason a machiavellian genius should be *more* moral (because of the result) than a blundering altruist.
I won't be able to post during the week so I'll post now.
The Collective is not necessarily Good. A Collective is only as Good as the sum of the individuals that make up the collective, with differentials based upon things like Power and Influence within the group.
There exists such a thing as 'Collective Evil', which is fundamentally a number of Evil beings, acting together and even sacrificing their immediate self-interest, because it allows them to serve their long-term survival and growth at the expense of other groups and individuals naturally. In this case, the situation could well arise that a Good being may be forced to encourage strife and 'Evil' within that group, in other words ally with Individual Evil against Collective Evil, because it destroys the internal unity and coherence and reduces the Evildoers to isolated individuals, far more easily contained.
So in that sense, encouraging Thieves to kill each other off, because the fewer Thieves, the more each Thief gets, would be a Good act, because it is dividing the Collective and Individual Evils.
Evil is Un-kind. It has no commonality; neither Good's transpersonal commonality nor Neutral's personal commonality. Evil is apart from, alienated, separated, alone, cut off. It sees only itself in any valuable sense; all else is separate resource - to use not to serve or connect with.
Evil beings don't necessarily not care about anyone, they can have Friends/Lovers/Family like everyone else, and can be Evil in order to benefit those they care about. The crucial thing is that Evil beings care only about those he happens to be close to; anyone else he will may happily sacrifice for the sake of those he is close to.
This does blur the line with Neutral a bit BUT THE LINES BETWEEN NEUTRAL AND EVIL OUGHT TO BE BLURRED!
The crucial thing is that while a Neutral being is not very charitable towards those that aren't of his group, he will not go out of his way to benefit his group at the expense of the others.
An Evil being would, for instance, rob other families of their wealth in order to enrich his or her own family, while a Neutral being would not do so unless the need was dire.
On the other hand, this Neutral being would allocate his surplus resources to his family.
Neutral Alignment is a bit strange, because essentially Neutral alignment doesn't exist. What Neutral really indicates is a partial or incomplete Goodness and since Evil is the absence of Good, a Neutral being is actually an Evil one, although they are also Good at the same time.
Why you ask? Reasons (not necessarily in order):
1: Becoming increasingly fed up with amoral natures of those around here. These things are things that'd generally be considered amoral like purchasing 'goods and services' from a harlot, cheating on a spouse, constantly breaking one's word... In other words, it wasn't just her that'd object.
2: Having 95% of her species genocided just for being a 'lycanthrope'. Note: Character is not a lycanthrope, and not evil either (at this time). Nor is she even related to them (see: shifters). They just assumed them to be based on appearance and never bothered to check.
3: Becoming heavily disillusioned with anyone who thinks themselves 'righteous', 'fighting evil' and so forth largely because of the above, believing them (rightly) to be a bunch of hypocrites.
4: Getting the impression from people in general they want to be manipulated (an example of mildly twisted logic given the circumstances) and beginning to treat them like resources accordingly. Being involved in the political exchanges isn't helping.
5: Learning that anyone can say anything, and it doesn't mean a damn thing without some backing. If they don't benefit from an action, they aren't assured of taking it and therefore approaches like 'requests from a friend' become invalid in favor of 'exchange of favors'.
6: Learning that keeping one's word is not the same as being honest, and therefore wording things in such a way so they can be misunderstood, or adhering to the letter but not the spirit and so forth are fair game. (definitely showing LEness here)
7: Arranging 'unfortunate accidents' which claim the lives of hundreds who were either responsible for the genocide, or are among those that have positive opinions of those views (see: descendants that still maintain that viewpoint, etc).
8: Building a social, economical, and political power base within a metropolis, to serve her purposes.
9: Coming to realize that even lives have values measured in gold coin, namely the amount of coin necessary to purchase diamonds for resurrection.
End result is a character who is very Lawful Evil, and almost an exemplar of the former. Despite being the exact opposite when young.
Evil, in DnD, can be understood in light of the word "Kindness".
Evil is un-kind.
I disagree. Neutral can fall into the category of "un-kind" in the sense that you spell out below.
Evil itself can also easily be kind. The measure of evil falls into a broad overview of behavior instead of a single part.
Nope, not quite the simplistic statement it seems to be :D
Kindness is to do with commonality; it is strongly related to "kind" in the sense of "we are the same kind" and to "kin". So "kindness" is not some fluffy dolphin hugger word :D but refers to commonality.
Kinship can be the driving force of evil. Those that think "we are the same kind" is relating to other based on that can easily lend to evil thought. "We are the same and you are different, so you don't have the same value as us." That is a common view by evil types.
Good is Kind to all
Except possibly evil.
[snip]
Evil is Un-kind.
In part, but that need not be true of the whole.
It has no commonality;
Huh... No. An evil community can be quite tightly knit, but treat outsiders like animals.
neither Good's transpersonal commonality nor Neutral's personal commonality.
Evil beings are quite capable of both. Some do evil in seeking to do good. Also they are quite capable of personal friendship and love.
Evil is apart from, alienated, separated, alone, cut off. It sees only itself in any valuable sense; all else is separate resource - to use not to serve or connect with.
That is only one way that evil can be and in no way representative of the whole.
Absence of good alone is neutrality.
If you want a better analogy try charges. You have positive charges (good) negative charges (evil) and the absence of charges (neutral of course).
CliffracerSlayer actually got this point across rather well already, I'd just like to tie it to the analogy.
Charges work fine as an analogy, but I think you have misconstrued the basic nature of charges. While you may have been working from a single particle concept, a person is defined by many decisions and, therefore, many particles (by my logic).
Your overall charge comes from particles that have charges. If you have more negatively charged particles (electrons being the most common IRL), then you have a net negative charge. Same for positive. Being neutral is not the absence of negative particles -- which would theoretically give you a huge positive charge. The absence of evil is good, yes. Similarly the absence of good is evil. Neutrality can be achieved in two ways, either the equal presence of both good and evil, or the absence of both.
(Remember that conscious decisions are necessary for an action to be aligned, at least that seems to be modern consensus.) In the final case of the animal intelligence, you might make a case for the neutron there. Creatures of low intelligence do not decide anything, technically, so every particle that they add to the tapestry of their being is neutral.
I probably haven't helped much. Well, there's some more mud in the water then.
Absence of good alone is neutrality.
If you want a better analogy try charges. You have positive charges (good) negative charges (evil) and the absence of charges (neutral of course).
Good analogy for DnD. IRL it becomes problematic as DnD puts some artificial constraints and freedoms to morality that don't exist for us "normals".
To quote another game Sourcebook (Rifts) "There can be no neutrality, for the truly neutral would have no motivation to do anything, especially not adventure."
That does segue into why these morality debates show up in DnD though. For one, most people can't agree what morality is IRL, then you take a game and enforce some artificial rules on it to make it even more confusing. It's great. I'm still all for enforcing alignment based on deity approval though. Makes things much less confusing.
The bottom line is that in the world of D&D good and evil are real forces, and if there is anything in your campaign that differs from that you have to make your players aware that your cosmology differs for whatever reasons you may have. Generally its a good idea to avoid having players have their alignments shift on them because they didn't understand how your campaign differed from the source material.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that evil people should not think they are actually doing good, the misguided fool makes for a good villain. Sometimes though, the Dr. Evil type who champions evil as a cause is a perfectly acceptable alternative in the world of D&D. Sometimes you just need a guy who has a pool filled with sharks with frickin' laser beams on their frickin' foreheads (or at the very least ill-tempered mutated sea bass). Of course let's not forget some people just aren't going to care about whether they are good or evil, they are just gonna do what feels right to them in a practical sense. I doubt many gnolls sit around at the end of a long day of raiding and discuss the nature of relative ethics. All of the archetypes are done often enough to feel cliche anyway, but the key is to vary them in your campaign so that they don't appear predictable to your players. "Hey look, its another big bad evil guy who's not really that big or bad or evil, because whats evil these days anyway?" This or something like it is not something you want your players to be saying all the time, there is a certain virtue in variety.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Well we have 2 questions: What is evil, and what isn't good? You can give a very strong definition of evil, such as the above poster's, but that won't incorporate every single evil character. Instead you need a definition of how good you have to be to be neutral. I would say neutrality is not hurting others without benefit beyond the bare minimum. The bare minimum includes saving a drowning kid's life even if it gets your new suit muddy, but not forgoing the purchase of a new suit to give the money to a starving child, saving their life. It's not a good definition, but it is one.
I will have a go at answering the question.
What is Evil?
Evil is the placing by a party (individual or group), of it's own interests and desires as having such importance that the wellbeing of one or many parties are sacrificed for the sake of the parties goals.
The victims of an Evil parties actions, can be the Evil party itself. Self-Destructive Evil (suicide for instance) is still a form of Evil.
What is not Good?
That which is Evil.
The question is then.
What is Neutral.
To which there could be two answers depending on what form of Neutral.
Incomplete Goodness/Incomplete Evil.
OR
That which is morally irrelavant.
In the Robin Hood example given by popular culture, he would be good. Robin Hood fights against the corrupt Prince John and his lackey the Sheriff of Nottingham. Prince John is certainly rich, but more importantly he is corrupt and rules from a throne that is not rightfully his. The Prince and the Sheriff are the archetypal villains and deserve to be brought to justice.
Robin Hood's characteristics as a hero are determined by the people he fights. If Robin Hood robbed anyone that happened to have money, that would be evil, but as his exploits are limited to Prince John and his supporters, he is justified in his actions. He is not a common criminal seeking gold or glory for himself, but rather a freedom fighter seeking the downfall of a nefarious despot.
Robin Hood is clearly not a Lawful Good character, Chaotic or Neutral Good seems to be a more appropriate choice.
Well we have 2 questions: What is evil, and what isn't good? You can give a very strong definition of evil, such as the above poster's, but that won't incorporate every single evil character. Instead you need a definition of how good you have to be to be neutral. I would say neutrality is not hurting others without benefit beyond the bare minimum. The bare minimum includes saving a drowning kid's life even if it gets your new suit muddy, but not forgoing the purchase of a new suit to give the money to a starving child, saving their life. It's not a good definition, but it is one.
Two big but under-considered terms in the definitions of Good and Evil are "dignity" and "debase"....meaning to raise up, and pull down, in value, respectively.
Good- The capacity to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others.
Evil- The capacity to sacrifice others for your personal benefit.
What this means:
Unlike most systems, this system doesn't factor in motive, which may or may not be a flaw depending on how you see it, but if a good char is committing an evil act by killing one to save many, then it stands to reason that an evil Character committing a good act to do a more evil act is still, at the moment of committing good, committing good. HIH (Hope It Helps)
Evil, by that story is insane. The actions it takes have no justification to a rational mind. A neutral being could act immorally, but there is always some manner of justification/reward to themselves or others that they could get from the action.
True Evil has no justification of risk/reward. The reasons it acts as it does are superfluous to the impact of the actions themselves.
A neutral man might wipe out a village so they could put a trade route to profitable iron mines in, uncaring of the fate of the locals. This action can be seen as evil, neutral, or chaotic, depending on your point of view. If the village was home to bandits or raiders, it could even be a good activity, as elimination of the village benefits more then just those doing the deed.
An Evil man will wipe out the village to wipe out the village. The fact that there's profit to be made and that he's 'just following orders' are all extras. In truth, he's doing it because he loves to do it, he enjoys it, and he'd do it again.
A good man would prefer to work out an agreement with the natives whereby all might profit...a rising tide raises all ships. The fact that others are coming behind him to use blades where words and gold don't work is probably a good impetus.
=============================
Natural law is hard to reconcile with the notion of good. It's not hard to reconcile with Evil, because Evil can, by it's very nature, include every action permissible to Good. The Evil man is free to act Good....the good man is NOT free to act Evil.
Natural law considers only three things: Survival, reproduction, and securing the means to make that possible in the form of territory and species dominance. The three F's...Feed, ****, and Fight.
If you fail at any of these, you are a failure by the standards of nature. Your bloodline will not be dominant, or it will not pass on, while those who succeed in such things will. Evil, being willing and able to do anything in pursuit of those objectives, often has a much easier time accomplishing them.
Good, by ruling out many of the actions that can be taken in pursuit of those goals, adds a whole other level of complication to the struggle. That's why Good is seen as an uphill battle...it IS harder to be Good then other alignments.
=================
It's for that reason that I believe that Good is also the most dangerous of the alignments. Any being who can survive and reproduce, and thrive, while carrying a Good alignment, is a superior being. Evil has no handicaps...Good does. Ergo, if both of them carry on, the Good must be a stronger, better person over time.
Evil gets to take the easiest, laziest way out every single time. Good simply cannot do that. That forces Good to perform at a higher level to accomplish the same tasks, explore alternatives that Evil doesn't need to and doesn't want to bother with.
The whole 'Good is stupid' idea is balderdash. Good is dangerously, powerfully smart. Evil, on the other hand, tends to be pretty stupid. It's only the Evil masterminds who are a threat, because they actually take the time to think about other paths then the most direct and easiest. Evil is lazy because it doesn't have to be active...it can always take the short road, and mock the Good people for taking the longer and harder one. But that long and hard road tempers the Good people, and woe to them when it comes time to push and Good and Evil face one another on equal terms. Evil tends to get a very big surprise and one hell of an ass whupping handed to it.
That's my 2p.
===Aelryinth
Evil, in DnD, can be understood in light of the word "Kindness".
Evil is un-kind.
Nope, not quite the simplistic statement it seems to be :D
Kindness is to do with commonality; it is strongly related to "kind" in the sense of "we are the same kind" and to "kin". So "kindness" is not some fluffy dolphin hugger word :D but refers to commonality.
Good is Kind to all - that is they see a commonality of all life; hence the sacrifices they are willing to make in the service of the common - we are ALL one together. The ultimate expression of this is the top layer of Mount Celestia.
Neutral only sees kinship; being bound by personal relationships as opposed to Good's impersonal/transpersonal loyalty.
Evil is Un-kind. It has no commonality; neither Good's transpersonal commonality nor Neutral's personal commonality. Evil is apart from, alienated, separated, alone, cut off. It sees only itself in any valuable sense; all else is separate resource - to use not to serve or connect with.
That is such a perfect definition! Thank you!
I have a question, though. At the highest "level" of good, i.e., the greatest transpersonal commonality, wouldn't good have to be common with evil?
I won't be able to post during the week so I'll post now.
The Collective is not necessarily Good. A Collective is only as Good as the sum of the individuals that make up the collective, with differentials based upon things like Power and Influence within the group.
There exists such a thing as 'Collective Evil', which is fundamentally a number of Evil beings, acting together and even sacrificing their immediate self-interest, because it allows them to serve their long-term survival and growth at the expense of other groups and individuals naturally. In this case, the situation could well arise that a Good being may be forced to encourage strife and 'Evil' within that group, in other words ally with Individual Evil against Collective Evil, because it destroys the internal unity and coherence and reduces the Evildoers to isolated individuals, far more easily contained.
So in that sense, encouraging Thieves to kill each other off, because the fewer Thieves, the more each Thief gets, would be a Good act, because it is dividing the Collective and Individual Evils.
This "collective evil" only has meaning in reference to some larger collective being hurt by the evil collective, in this case whatever society spawned the thieves. So the theory still holds if you increase your scale. If this collective of thieves had no sapient beings to steal from, would they still be evil? I would say no. So this collective of thieves on a desert island would read as Neutral or Good because of their relationships among themselves, with the potential to harm other beings with moral value left dormant and unknown by their isolation.
I agree with the theory that Good is pro-collective at the potential cost of the self, Evil is pro-self at the cost of the collective, and Neutral sets the self and collective as equal.
One problem that's been on my mind lately is setting the size of the collective to which morals apply. Setting a collective size equal to or larger than average for one's time is Good or Neutral; setting a collective size smaller than average and acting upon that belief is Evil with rare exceptions. I say "for one's time" because the size of the collective, before the Neolithic, certainly rarely exceeded one's tribe. As agriculture, kings, and large cultures took hold, the moral collective grew, slowly and unevenly. Non-tribesmen were fit only for slavery according to a prominent 4th-century BC thinker, while slaves were set free elsewhere in the 6th century BC. Humans with a different religion and fewer weapons were still being reduced to slavery for those reasons as recently as a century ago. Nowadays the "default" moral collective (at least for this American, and she feels safe generalizing it) is all humans from birth to death, but when looking back remember how revolutionary an idea that is and how recent its spread.
What about non-humans? Killing an animal, in the West Asian-European moral tradition, is inherently Neutral; Good and Evil are determined based on the effects on fellow humans, not non-human animals. (Indian moral tradition is quite different, but for now I'm sticking to West Asian tradition because it's at the root of D&D.) Killing a plant is similarly Neutral before effects on humans, but this time no tradition argues that; being, at some level, obligate predators of autotrophs (plants), animals can't afford sympathy for their prey, and I have never heard of a "plant rights" movement.
Evil beings don't necessarily not care about anyone, they can have Friends/Lovers/Family like everyone else, and can be Evil in order to benefit those they care about. The crucial thing is that Evil beings care only about those he happens to be close to; anyone else he will may happily sacrifice for the sake of those he is close to.
This does blur the line with Neutral a bit BUT THE LINES BETWEEN NEUTRAL AND EVIL OUGHT TO BE BLURRED!
The crucial thing is that while a Neutral being is not very charitable towards those that aren't of his group, he will not go out of his way to benefit his group at the expense of the others.
An Evil being would, for instance, rob other families of their wealth in order to enrich his or her own family, while a Neutral being would not do so unless the need was dire.
On the other hand, this Neutral being would allocate his surplus resources to his family.
Now, this I agree with completely.
Neutral Alignment is a bit strange, because essentially Neutral alignment doesn't exist. What Neutral really indicates is a partial or incomplete Goodness and since Evil is the absence of Good, a Neutral being is actually an Evil one, although they are also Good at the same time.
This I don't. This applies to only one sort of neutral, the sort that has the faculties for moral judgment and uses them. It does not apply to beings below the domain of morality (animals and plants) nor does it apply to beings that have no choice but to follow orders (golems, computers, robots), which are neutral through the absence of both good and evil.
I would say that mindless undead are also neutral as beings who cannot act on their own, but I can see where a campaign using a more primitive, Shinto-style conception of good and evil as purity and pollution would classify undead as polluted and evil. (Incidentally, I wouldn't run a campaign on that basis because I believe that ritual purity is one of the most pernicious religious ideas ever invented by a species that has invented a bewildering variety of them. But it is a valid if unusual basis for defining Good and Evil, and it makes undead make a lot more sense.)
At the highest "level" of good, i.e., the greatest transpersonal commonality, wouldn't good have to be common with evil?
Indeed, however Evil would be understood has being a misapprehension of the universe; basically a mistake/lie in understanding the universe to which Good's role, in part, would be as a corrector (in the sense of love the sinner but not the sin).
One problem that's been on my mind lately is setting the size of the collective to which morals apply. Setting a collective size equal to or larger than average for one's time is Good or Neutral; setting a collective size smaller than average and acting upon that belief is Evil with rare exceptions. I say "for one's time" because the size of the collective, before the Neolithic, certainly rarely exceeded one's tribe. As agriculture, kings, and large cultures took hold, the moral collective grew, slowly and unevenly. Non-tribesmen were fit only for slavery according to a prominent 4th-century BC thinker, while slaves were set free elsewhere in the 6th century BC. Humans with a different religion and fewer weapons were still being reduced to slavery for those reasons as recently as a century ago. Nowadays the "default" moral collective (at least for this American, and she feels safe generalizing it) is all humans from birth to death, but when looking back remember how revolutionary an idea that is and how recent its spread.
A distinction needs to be made between a State/Tribal collective and a Mystical one. In the former, collectivism is a manufactured response to the "state of nature" argument; offering security in exchange for obediance to a single authority. In the latter, collectivism is an innate way of living coming from realising "all is one".
This "collective evil" only has meaning in reference to some larger collective being hurt by the evil collective, in this case whatever society spawned the thieves. So the theory still holds if you increase your scale. If this collective of thieves had no sapient beings to steal from, would they still be evil? I would say no. So this collective of thieves on a desert island would read as Neutral or Good because of their relationships among themselves, with the potential to harm other beings with moral value left dormant and unknown by their isolation.
Well, obviously if there is a collective of thieves with no sapient being to steal from, then this is a contradiction, because the collective itself is made up of sapient biengs, without biengs outside of the collective to rob, the collective then breaks apart and begins to enslave, kill and rob itself.
The actual outcome depends on the Lawful/Chaotic balance. If there are a lot of Lawful Evils, then the outcome will be a Lord of the Flies, with perpetual creation of minority enemies, by leaders trying to mantain the unity of the group and therefore their own power by creating enemies to mantain the unity of the Evil Collective, they would Rob, Kill and Enslave these assigned minorities, so as to avoid breaking apart.
If they are predominately Chaotic, then they will simply break apart into ceaseless warfare, with a number of small and multiplying factions gathering around particular individuals and robbing and killing the other factions and individuals.
I agree with the theory that Good is pro-collective at the potential cost of the self, Evil is pro-self at the cost of the collective, and Neutral sets the self and collective as equal.
No, you are confusing Lawful and Chaotic and Good and Evil. The CollectiveVSIndividual question is the LawfulVSChaotic question.
Good biengs may not care about the "Collective" they may simply care about other individuals in general, even at the expense of the Collective of which they are a part.
One problem that's been on my mind lately is setting the size of the collective to which morals apply. Setting a collective size equal to or larger than average for one's time is Good or Neutral; setting a collective size smaller than average and acting upon that belief is Evil with rare exceptions. I say "for one's time" because the size of the collective, before the Neolithic, certainly rarely exceeded one's tribe. As agriculture, kings, and large cultures took hold, the moral collective grew, slowly and unevenly. Non-tribesmen were fit only for slavery according to a prominent 4th-century BC thinker, while slaves were set free elsewhere in the 6th century BC. Humans with a different religion and fewer weapons were still being reduced to slavery for those reasons as recently as a century ago. Nowadays the "default" moral collective (at least for this American, and she feels safe generalizing it) is all humans from birth to death, but when looking back remember how revolutionary an idea that is and how recent its spread.
I am not sure I agree with you. The assumption you are working on is that past societies were really driven by their moral precepts, that people enslaved people because they didn't see them as "moral agents", rather than simply because it benefitted them and their group. People don't follow their own morals, they are in fact universally hypocritical.
The dominant ethos of most of the societies you mention is Collective Evil. This is because Lawful Evil people can command Lawful Neutrals and sometimes even Lawful Goods. The "Lawful Axis", is the ruling order of all societies, Past and Present.
Collective Evil, is Collective Evil regardless of how large or small the Collective. It doesn't get any more Good, because it is the interests of a million evildoers, than it would be if it was 2 evildoers.
What happens is that Lawful Evils can establish a lengthy domination, by eliminating Lawful Good from the picture and therefore gaining themselves lasting control over the Lawful Neutrals.
The problem is that within the Lawful Axis, Lawful Evil can disguise itself within the Good structures (ie laws) created by Lawful Good. And then when opportunity presents itself, trouble.
Because Lawful Neutrals respect the structures and the Lawful Goods must work within the structures to win them over, this means that once the concealed Lawful Evils get a chance, they cannot be quickly dealt with.
If you doubt the idea of a Lawful Evil society, what do you think would have happened if the Nazis had won WW2? We would have the domination of the Lawful Evil collective.
This I don't. This applies to only one sort of neutral, the sort that has the faculties for moral judgment and uses them. It does not apply to beings below the domain of morality (animals and plants) nor does it apply to beings that have no choice but to follow orders (golems, computers, robots), which are neutral through the absence of both good and evil.
We are talking about Neutral Moral Alignments, not creatures that are simply Non-Aligned and therefore Neutral morally by default.
I would say that mindless undead are also neutral as beings who cannot act on their own, but I can see where a campaign using a more primitive, Shinto-style conception of good and evil as purity and pollution would classify undead as polluted and evil. (Incidentally, I wouldn't run a campaign on that basis because I believe that ritual purity is one of the most pernicious religious ideas ever invented by a species that has invented a bewildering variety of them. But it is a valid if unusual basis for defining Good and Evil, and it makes undead make a lot more sense.)
It's not really valid, given that if your mindless undead are just tools without independant minds, they are Lawful Neutral whatever way you want to shake it. If they are "impure" or "pure" mentally, would require them to have a mind.
And above all others, he loved his family and was eternally loyal to them. So it came as a massive shock when his father turned out to be the infamous drug lord whom some of his colleagues had been tracking. They showed up at his house, in full battle plate, to take his father away.
Now what? The paladin was faced with a choice: his church or his family? In a burst of emotion, he made his choice: he struck one of the paladins with a heavy candlestick. The man was unharmed, but another brought a swift counterstrike with his longsword.
The paladin fell to the floor in agony. The blade had entered his face at his right temple, had cleaved his face in two, and the gash ended just below his left jaw. His father resisted arrest once his son had been struck down, and he was killed.
The paladin woke in a temple dedicated to Hextor. A priest tending him explained that he had rescued him when the paladins left him for dead. The paladin vowed justice in his father's memory, and became a blackguard on the spot.
He never had the wound healed all the way, insisting that the scar remain. He is still hideously malformed, with most of his nose gone completely and his right eye put out. His mouth drags into an angry snarl on the left side, where the sword tore his mouth downward permanently. The dark gash shows across his whole face.
And now, he crusades against the very paladins he used to work with, leading evil's armies with the same zeal and devotion he once showed the church of Heironeous.
I've always been proud of him as a character. And everything he does, he does in his dear father's memory, unable to accept that he was a self-serving drug dealer. Just my little example of non-stereotypical evil.
-Count Dravda
To me, too many games have stereotypical villains. A knight in black armor decorated with skull motives. A black robed wizard with a staff with a human skull on it...The typical villain sacrifices babies and tortures/mutilates the innocent and is a nice basic BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy/Girl) and the game can run fine but I prefer more detailed villain...One thing I don't like found in a lot of adventures is evil's fascination with the undead...
The referenced images of stereotypical evil that the OP mentioned are symbols used to evoke the "that's evil" reaction in the audience. Proof that it's working:
...On one of his forays around town he came across an attractive noblewomen. One conversation and a detect evil spell later with her she admitted to following a CE god opposed to his own god. He was ready to unleash holy wrath right there and then on her but she refused to fight! The player even tracked down where she lived and went and visited her occasionally. The priestess invited him in and made him feel welcome and supplied food and drink (after a detect poison spell). The rogue snuck in and couldn't find any hidden alters or murals of demons eating human that usually adorn most fantasy villains lairs...
Now, is all of this symbolism a good thing or bad thing? I'll argue that, too, is subjective. It really depends on what type of game you're wanting. If you want to confuse the issue of alignment, then make your villians arguably more realistic and less stereotypical by adding images of 'good'. If you want a clear cut, 'smite it' game, then wrap your villian in skull-themed black armor and put them at the head of a demonic undead army.
This destroys the problem of Evil thinking they're not evil. Any moron with a potion of Protection From Evil can prove to an evil person that they have been pigeon-holed into the Evil alignment (*glug glug glug* *urp* "okay now let's play tag and tell me if you feel a deflective force").
That being said, consider those persons who are evil, they know it, but they conclude that...
- the universe is messed up, and they're doing what really "the right thing to do". Yeah they murdered those people, but they deserved it. This badguy has a terrible sense of justice, and thinks their view is above that of the "misguided cosmos"... probably even think there's a higher existence that the known cosmos, and it helps him justify his actions.
- it's worth losing your soul to make the world a better place. Someone has to get their hands dirty, and the BBEG is the only one willing to make the ultimate sacrifice - his own soul - for a better tomorrow. Tough times call for tough decisions, the ends justify the means and all that.
- there's magic that can do anything. Magic could possibly make you immortal, or possibly turn you good. Or just plain, old-fashioned repentance can save him later. Either way, right now he's doing what he wants, or feels is necessary for some goal, or whatever. The good & evil problem can be cleaned up later, after the fact.
- good and evil doesn't matter. Only power matters. So what if he's evil and feared and doomed to be cast into the pits of hell? He'll own hell, he'll dominate hell. People are stupid. They're all just a bunch of dumb sheep who don't have what it takes to get anywhere in the world. Nice guys finish last, if at all. Badguys can cut the corners and have the guts to take what they want.
- Only by willingly submitting to the forces of evil can they protect those they care about. Sometimes, only a monster can hold the other monsters at bay. Bow to the forces of darkness, submit to evil so that you can steer it away from your family. Appease the darkness so it will spare another. Sort of like joining the mafia so they won't extort from your parents.
= = = = = = =
All of these examples are of someone who's evil and knows it, but feels justified in their alignment. It's the justification that really matters. Once someone realizes they're evil (via spell, paladin detection, what have you), it's just a matter of asking...
- Do they care? Why or why not?
- Is it something they're willing to be? Why or why not?
- Do they really see evil as a bad thing? Or perhaps just as a means to an end?
- Do they plan on being evil forever?
= = = = = = =
Another thought.
Consider the badguy who discovers he's evil, and is horrified by it. The "weeping villain" if you will. He knows he's a horrible person, and absolutely hates himself. He could have zero self-worth, and thinks he's trash, but he's stuck in the middle of something bigger than himself. Nauseated by what he's done and what he has yet to do, he's a tortured soul trapped in the worst of fates.
= = = = = = =
Regarding the OP's post on undeath. Undeath is a tool, an evil one according to the rules (
). But it need not be smelly or gross. There have been many a character in many an evil game that I've played or DMed where the prospective necromancer has taken ranks in Craft - taxidermist, or Profession - mortician. I even played an evil wizard (Alienist, actually) who took the time to care for his undead servants. As such they always smelled quite pleasant and were well covered to as to appear like nothing more than silent, aromatic, featureless figures bound in tight black cloth with unique, personalized white masks... with their hands severed and replaces by sickles, but that's not important.The man clearly was evil. Flat out no denying and yet he knew which side of the bread was buttered. He knew to behave himself in front of the king and the folks who held power over him. It's highly unlikely he spit on those weaker than him but since we do not have accurate record of his daily goings on in his life, all we can do is speculate.
Now I have successfully run three PC's at the same time in the same campaign successfully and the DM understood where I went with them. The first was a simple Chaotic/Good fighter class human; the second was a Lawful/Evil human Wizard; and the last is a Chaotic/Evil human Cleric. I had it that the three actually knew one another as they attended the same schooling as youths.
The tact that I took with them was that it is far better to band together to fight for whatever it is you wish then to try and fight alone and perish in a hostile world. Their adventures crossed boundaries including theft, murder, bounty hunting, and cleansing hellish evil from various kingdoms.
Motivation? Money. Greed. Fame. Ego. Reknown. Of the three, the Cleric was the most devious and he had strong feelings of trust and friendship with his adventuring party. The Wizard started off as clinically depressed and had to be motivated to fight. The Fighter was a jolly, happy go lucky fellow who eventually worked his way into a Barony of his own and of course the Mage and Cleric were his right hand men. Why not? They were friends.
We've seen (at least in literature) the way of evil Clerics in leauge with the Church and working for themselves but seeking and gaining power. Remember Cardinal Richelieu in the Three Musketeers? Evil cleric, right? Still performed the Catholic rites of God in church yet he was as evil as they get.
We've all seen the Evil Wizards who were lovable enough in film and book thus no need to give examples there. And fighters who were villains of their own accord by reputation albeit not necessarily sinister.
Evil is not something that should be relegated to Undead or world conquering marauders - at least the BEST villains should be difficult to discern. I detest the 'Detect Alignment' spell as it has a tendency to be a heavy handed use. Typically I have a house rule that forbids its use. Clever PC's can use this to their advantage as well. In my opinion, detecting someone's alignment should come out thru conversation and observation of deeds NOT what some spell or Spirit can tell you.
Just my nickle's worth...