PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Is this CE or LE?



JeenLeen
2009-06-08, 02:18 PM
For an evil campaign I might be playing in, I have idea for a character concept. My goal is to play a CE alongside LE and NE without getting myself killed.

The idea: she sees beauty in destruction and chaos, but thinks that the most beautiful chaos can only exist if there is first perfect order. So she strives to create a completely lawful empire in order to let it eventually fall to chaos.
She is utterly CE in her intention, but she will acting with LE goals for probably the entire campaign.

With D&D mechanics, would this make her CE or LE, or would that be up to the DM's rulings? (Of course, it would be subject to the DM's ruling, but I'm hoping to have an argument for ruling in favour of CE.)

Justin B.
2009-06-08, 02:21 PM
Too complex a question for D&D's clunkly alignment system to handle. Some will make the interpretation that the actions influence the alignment, others will say that the intent influences alignment.

It's the good old "Go my Undead Minions! Rescue the orphans from that burning building" scenario. The only real solution is to put it in the hands of your DM.

Lord_Drayakir
2009-06-08, 02:23 PM
I'd say LE. It all comes down to actions. Yes, there are gray areas, but if you're working towards a lawful empire, then yeah, you're gonna be LE, and when you get backstabbed by your NE buddy because you have a shiny ring, you're gonna go to Hell. Probably the Eight. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2009-06-08, 02:24 PM
according to Fiendish Codex 2, for afterlife purposes, Lawful behaviour overrides Chaotic. An evil person who has done lots of extremely Lawful acts (called Obesiant acts in this book) goes to Nine Hells regardless of his actual alignment.

It says that devils sometimes tempt demon-worshippers to the Lawful side by luring them into commiting Obesiant acts.

since Champions of Ruin stresses that, no matter your motive, if you are routinely doing evil, your alignment is evil, it would not be that much of a stretch to apply the same ruling to law- to spend most of your time behaving in a Lawful fashion, is to be Lawful.

Optimystik
2009-06-08, 02:29 PM
It's the good old "Go my Undead Minions! Rescue the orphans from that burning building" scenario. The only real solution is to put it in the hands of your DM.

I can just imagine the poor benevolent necromancer being chased out of the village with torches and pitchforks even after the children are rescued too. :smallannoyed:


For an evil campaign I might be playing in, I have idea for a character concept. My goal is to play a CE alongside LE and NE without getting myself killed.

The idea: she sees beauty in destruction and chaos, but thinks that the most beautiful chaos can only exist if there is first perfect order. So she strives to create a completely lawful empire in order to let it eventually fall to chaos.
She is utterly CE in her intention, but she will acting with LE goals for probably the entire campaign.

In D&D, actions, not intentions, determine alignment. If she dedicates herself to order she will be LE, even if she has every intention of tearing it down once established. Only after she actually carries out her chaotic behavior will she begin to shift back to chaos.

hamishspence
2009-06-08, 02:32 PM
Necromantic evil spells aren't all that evil act-wise. Animating a zombie is less evil (by FC2) than robbing a poor-box.

4th ed had comments on undead sometimes being commanded to do benevolent things. You could be rescued by skeletons.

Seffbasilisk
2009-06-08, 02:34 PM
I'd like to contradict the earlier posters. While she may in fact be following a Lawful Evil alignment, she's only doing it so that the chaos to follow will be epic. Her goal may be a Lawful Evil empire, but she can certainly go about it in chaotic ways. If so, especially considering the fact that her overall mantra is to bring about the beauty of chaos, I'd say she'd be Chaotic-Evil.

hamishspence
2009-06-08, 02:36 PM
the ways would have to be very chaotic. And she'd have to avoid committing majorly Lawful acts.

Like Evil, Law has a scale. But Chaos and Good don't- there is no "this chaotic act is much bigger than That one."

Lord_Drayakir
2009-06-08, 02:37 PM
Necromantic evil spells aren't all that evil act-wise. Animating a zombie is less evil (by FC2) than robbing a poor-box.

4th ed had comments on undead sometimes being commanded to do benevolent things. You could be rescued by skeletons.

Well, depending on whether we look at the BoVD, it says that creating the undead is always an evil thing, because it brings more negative energy into the world.

Optimystik
2009-06-08, 02:40 PM
I'd like to contradict the earlier posters. While she may in fact be following a Lawful Evil alignment, she's only doing it so that the chaos to follow will be epic. Her goal may be a Lawful Evil empire, but she can certainly go about it in chaotic ways. If so, especially considering the fact that her overall mantra is to bring about the beauty of chaos, I'd say she'd be Chaotic-Evil.

Think of it this way; what if she dies before she can complete her grand vision? She will have dedicated her life to founding a Lawful Evil empire. Guess where she goes after death?

In this case, the road to Hells is paved with poor intentions :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2009-06-08, 02:40 PM
true, but its evil primarily because the spell has the evil descriptor. And the default rule for such spells is 1 pt Corrupt act. (FC2)

This can lead to oddities such as Summoning an imp being equal to Gating a Pit fiend, or Animating a zombie being equal to Creating a devourer.

But, its simple and handy.

(Also- Heroes of Horror- dread necromancer, who specializes in this, can be non-evil- "balancing evil acts with good acts and goals")

Suggesting that a creator of undead, though they can never be Good long-term, can avoid crossing all the way into Evil.

same principle can apply to controllers of fiends, like the Fiendbinder in Tome of Magic.

Justin B.
2009-06-08, 02:43 PM
You'd just have to argue the intention angle with your DM.

Though I may have some suggestions about chaotically creating a Lawful Empire, though it involves quite a bit of double dealing. Essentially what you need is a sap. Someone who will serve as your figurehead, large and powerful. Blackguard might work well for this.

You get your sap to think that creating a society that mercilessly rules and controls it's population is the best way to restore order/protect the people/further his own personal power from the chaos you create.

Essentially. Find a Kingdom, wreck havoc, allow your sap to construct a powerfully evil lawful society to extinguish your chaos, bring chaos again.

Optimystik
2009-06-08, 02:46 PM
true, but its evil primarily because the spell has the evil descriptor. And the default rule for such spells is 1 pt Corrupt act. (FC2)

This can lead to oddities such as Summoning an imp being equal to Gating a Pit fiend, or Animating a zombie being equal to Creating a devourer.

But, its simple and handy.

(Also- Heroes of Horror- dread necromancer, who specializes in this, can be non-evil- "balancing evil acts with good acts and goals")

Suggesting that a creator of undead, though they can never be Good long-term, can avoid crossing all the way into Evil.

same principle can apply to controllers of fiends, like the Fiendbinder in Tome of Magic.

Don't forget Malconvoker, who summons demons all day long and serves Pelor :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2009-06-08, 02:48 PM
yes- the "act counts as evil" rules get several exceptions in Complete Scoundrel. Such as the high level grey guard who can do anything he wants if its in The Line Of Duty.

It could be a case of "immune to alignment slippage from certain acts"

Which left me wondering if the Sapphire Guard have a trait similar to this.

DeathQuaker
2009-06-08, 02:56 PM
Understanding that both Chaos and Law have a place in achieving what you desire would make you ethically Neutral.

A typical generic Chaotic character wouldn't be able to stomach establishing a New World Order, even if it's pretense (and in many cases, wouldn't have the patience to plan out said New World Order). A Lawful character would be pleased with the power she's attained through Order and would never be able to stomach destroying it. A Neutral Evil character on the other hand would use whatever means necessary to achieve her dark desires, and would be fine with using Lawful means to get to a point and then Chaotic means to finish that achievement.

All that said, if you really see your character as CE and your GM is okay with that, then she's CE. As always, alignment is supposed to be a guideline, not a straitjacket.

Roupe
2009-06-08, 02:57 PM
Just the fact that she uses a method of structure and a plan , shows that she is lawful. id say she is lE (thats small L and the big E). Not the enforcer of Law, but the agent of evil.

Even a Lawful evil can promote chaos, nothing prevents them from having the mind set -that watching something go to pieces is nice.

Xykon and Belkar in oots are good examples of chaotic evil.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-08, 03:10 PM
With D&D mechanics, would this make her CE or LE, or would that be up to the DM's rulings? (Of course, it would be subject to the DM's ruling, but I'm hoping to have an argument for ruling in favour of CE.)

Just as Redcloak's "evil for a good cause" means he is ultimately very much evil, so is this "order for a chaotic cause" very much lawful. The character is just deluding himself that it isn't.

JonestheSpy
2009-06-08, 03:28 PM
Understanding that both Chaos and Law have a place in achieving what you desire would make you ethically Neutral.

...A Neutral Evil character on the other hand would use whatever means necessary to achieve her dark desires, and would be fine with using Lawful means to get to a point and then Chaotic means to finish that achievement.




Second that.

Quellian-dyrae
2009-06-08, 03:32 PM
I dunno. I'd say spending a massive amount of time and resources on a project, for the express purpose of tearing it all down once it's complete, is pretty chaotic. I'm reminded of a certain scene in Lilo and Stitch.

I think if you want to emphasize the character's chaotic nature, a good way might be to just not pursue the empire with single-minded dedication. I'd play it less as, "Yes, I will raise a perfectly ordered empire only to bring it crashing down in flames! Nothing will stand in my way as I create the ultimate expression of chaos!" as, "Man, wouldn't it be so awesome to raise some sort of huge empire thing and then like, burn it? I'm so going to do that one d-ooh look! Bunny! Let's set its tail on fire!"

Err...well, something like that, leastwise.

Haven
2009-06-08, 03:45 PM
I think it can be done. I can't imagine this kind of character caring too much about the specifics of the government, so much as that it is perfect and lawful, right? Which means there's no need for her to get directly involved with the bureaucracy or the legislation or whatever; all she needs to do is violently ruin everyone who opposes it. "Hey, I made found an empty village for you to colonize!" Chaotic enough.

And later, she gives a portion of her loot from the adventure to funding the government. Which inclines mildly towards lawful, but 1) even demons know how to delegate and 2) she could balance it out by insisting a government official hoot like an owl three times and then kiss her feet before she makes a donation.

For further inspiration look up Bangladesh DuPree from Girl Genius. CE to the core, former pirate queen, fan of torture, and lieutenant to the extremely L? Baron Wulfenbach.

Riffington
2009-06-08, 03:53 PM
Let me just clarify that you don't become Lawful, Chaotic, or Good just because you happen to like that alignment and desire it to win (Evil is a special case).

You can be a faithful servant of a Lawful empire, and wish it to impose its order on everyone. But if you're constantly late, have flashes of inspiration rather than a plan per se, can't actually follow the rules yourself, etc, then you're Chaotic. You could personally destroy every demon in the Abyss, and it wouldn't bring you one step closer to Law.

hamishspence
2009-06-08, 04:01 PM
Fiendish Codex 2 goes with making both evil and law the special cases.- the ones you can slide toward despite your "good intentions" or "chaotic intentions"

Which might lead to certain oddities- like Chaotic societies carefully watching people to ensure they don't slip toward Lawfulness (as opposed to Evilness)

"Obedience, conformity, the Law side are they, easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the Law path, forever will it dominate your destiny." :smallamused:

Pronounceable
2009-06-08, 06:22 PM
If I was DMing, I'd go with NE to save me the trouble.

But if I was to choose LE or CE I'd go for CE. An analogy of similar morality would be doing a lot of good good deeds to befriend a paladin and gain his trust, only to betray and kill him after he starts to view you as a trusted friend. If you get killed while doing all those good deeds and never get to betraying the paladin, does that make you good? So the character in question would be chaotic imo.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-08, 06:29 PM
As Riffington notes, Your Alignment Is Not Your Team. Lawful alignment is about following rules, not forcing them on others.

But if, long term, she plans on both following and setting up lots of rules, so that she can break them all in the end?

Balances out to Neutral. It might be different if she were trying to create the greatest possible amount of chaos in the end, but she isn't. She's just trying to make it very aesthetically pleasing to her personally.

Mind you, if she ever reaches the point where her empire is complete and she starts tearing everything down, then she becomes Chaotic.

She's also Chaotic if she only follows her own rules. That should probably be the definition of Chaotic, actually. ("Insanely inconsistent" damn well shouldn't.)


according to Fiendish Codex 2, for afterlife purposes, Lawful behaviour overrides Chaotic
... but not for purposes of determining a character's alignment, right?

Yora
2009-06-09, 12:23 AM
Chaotic is not being random. So if you only act to be lawful to fool your allies, you're probably still chaotic.
There's nothing that would stop a chaotic character to be devoted to a work for very long time. Elven wizards do it all the time.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-09, 12:38 AM
Don't forget Malconvoker, who summons demons all day long and serves Pelor :smalltongue:

And has a Wisdom score lower than some wizards I know...

QFT to Yora's post. Just because you're not being random and you're working on a very long-term project doesn't mean you won't be acting chaotic in everyday life. You might be NE instead of CE; but someone working towards ultimate chaos, no matter what she does in between, will not be able to adopt the fundamental mindsets of LE even if she works to propagate them.

hamishspence
2009-06-09, 12:33 PM
Since Law and Evil are the only alignments given ratings, and a "condemned to X afterlife unless you atone",

and since doing evil acts consistantly makes you evil regardless of your motives (Champions of Ruin), the same principle could arguably apply to Law.

Act lawful enough of the time, and regardless of your motives, you become Lawful.

Optimystik
2009-06-09, 01:30 PM
yes- the "act counts as evil" rules get several exceptions in Complete Scoundrel. Such as the high level grey guard who can do anything he wants if its in The Line Of Duty.

Not anything. They get more leeway, true, but the penalties are also steeper if they violate their code; Atonement doesn't work, period.


And has a Wisdom score lower than some wizards I know...

Most Malconvokers are arcane casters (according to CS, very few clerics are interested in the class) so low WIS isn't a problem.

I still go with LE. I can intend to tear down my evil empire all I want to, but until I actually do it I've been dedicating my life to Law. I'll ask this question again; what if she dies before she is able to fulfill her grand vision, and her lawful society lasts for centuries? What if she goes to all the trouble to set it up, and decides she likes it? What if her plan backfires, and the people she was attempting to incite to anarchy decide they preferred security (and oppression) and reestablish her creation on their own? Actions matter far more than intentions.

hamishspence
2009-06-09, 01:59 PM
Steeper?

Thus, whenever you seek to atone for deeds that you willingly commit in the name of your faith but that break your code of conduct, a cleric casting an atonement spell on your behalf does not expend 500 XP as is normally required.

Basically, atonement is easier, not harder, unless you push your deity past endurance.

10th level
Thus you never risk losing your class abilities in the pursuit of a just cause and never need to atone for violating your code of conduct

Though there is:

If at any time your deity or a jury of your faith's leaders finds you guilty of grossly abusing the freedom of the order, you permanently lose both gray guard and paladin class abilities

and

Even the atonement spell cannot restore a fallen gray guard's abilities after he is exiled.

The point to be made is gray guard can commit evil acts in a "just cause" and its DM's discretion as to how much you can do so.

Some people take the utilitarian view that any act committed in a "just cause" no matter how evil it would normally be, ceases to be evil.

The gray guard is evidence that the standard D&D rules do not follow this- be being a variant where, up to a point, the rules are changed.

hamishspence
2009-06-09, 02:06 PM
also- on intentions- it can depend on the situation.

BoED has it not matter for:

villains doing good acts (despite the selfish motivations, good acts affect the character of the person doing them)

and heroes doing evil acts (even if motive is To Save The World, evil acts stay evil)

But for good persons doing good acts with selfish motives, intent does matter "Neutral at best."

So, sometimes intent is relevant, and sometimes it isn't.

Optimystik
2009-06-09, 02:08 PM
The latter quote is what I was referring to - once out of the Guards, you are out permanently (and out of paladinhood also) and not even Atonement can reverse it. It's harder to get to that point, but once there there's no turning back.

It's easier to cast atonement on a new Gray Guard because nothing he does to need atonement at that point in his career will even appear on his record after he gains a few levels. A high-level gray guard is all but expected to break the kidnapper's teeth with his boot-heel, burn the illithid captive with a hot poker etc.

daggaz
2009-06-09, 02:12 PM
While the ultimate goal is entirely chaotic to be sure, the means to carry it out, her _detailed_ plans, indeed her entire existense, is EXTREMELY lawful. The very fact that she devises such a cunning, long term, underhanded and careful plan just screams lawful.

She is entirely lawful, with a strange lust to destroy everything in chaos.

To be more explicit.. its not the desires that define the alignment, its the actual way of life, how you act it out, the choices you make. And of course, the alignment _always_ centers on the character, not on the world around them. Just because she wants chaos for the world, doesnt make her chaotic. Indeed, she is quite the opposite in her schemes.

People can and do argue the subterfuge point, that she is just disguising her true nature, but the very act of disguising in this case defines her true nature. A truly chaotic person could/would never carry it on for so long, eventually the truth would come out.

Honestly, I cant even see any argument or "grey area" in this, but hey, its DnD AND morality, so we know it will hit the fan regardless.

hamishspence
2009-06-09, 02:12 PM
or, perhaps, massacring the goblin women and children in the town containing a goblin villain :smallamused:

on intentions- should Law be treated the same way as evil, given the limited corroborating evidence that it is treated so?

jotokai
2009-06-09, 02:40 PM
For an evil campaign I might be playing in, I have idea for a character concept. My goal is to play a CE alongside LE and NE without getting myself killed.

The idea: she sees beauty in destruction and chaos, but thinks that the most beautiful chaos can only exist if there is first perfect order. So she strives to create a completely lawful empire in order to let it eventually fall to chaos.
She is utterly CE in her intention, but she will acting with LE goals for probably the entire campaign.

With D&D mechanics, would this make her CE or LE, or would that be up to the DM's rulings? (Of course, it would be subject to the DM's ruling, but I'm hoping to have an argument for ruling in favour of CE.)

In my campaign, she might be CE or NE until the full chaos emerges. So long as she maintains her actions in accord solely with her own, Chaotic whims, she couldn't drift any further left than Neutral. Letting Devils or even Modrons (the LN spirits from 1e) dominate the people might be Lawful but not injurious so long as she maintains the double standard.

For example, what Chaotic Evil person would really be above tipping off a Paladin about his enemy's hideout? And enjoy a game of "Lets you and him fight." Or lead a group of people trying to stop drinking alcohol (into his tavern, "first round's on me!")


So just remember to "Lie, cheat, and steal, and never tolerate anybody who does!"

jotokai
2009-06-09, 03:09 PM
Not anything. <snip>

I still go with LE. I can intend to tear down my evil empire all I want to, but until I actually do it I've been dedicating my life to Law. I'll ask this question again; what if she dies before she is able to fulfill her grand vision, and her lawful society lasts for centuries? What if she goes to all the trouble to set it up, and decides she likes it? What if her plan backfires, and the people she was attempting to incite to anarchy decide they preferred security (and oppression) and reestablish her creation on their own? Actions matter far more than intentions.

Well, I can think of one particular Real Life Figure who is rumored to be perfectly good, but the organizations founded His name commissioned countless tortures, murders and sacrifices in His name. Yet even those who are not His fan still generally hold Him to have been Good.

Sure, in all likelihood if she dies before she gets her whim, she'll be remembered as a Lawful figure, but hey. "We come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

IF she decides she likes it: blammo! That's the moment she actually changes to LE. All the rest of the time, it depends on her actions. If she just runs around and spins fear, leading weak Chaotics to terrorize powerful Lawful Evil, that's kinda Chaotic. If she preaches things she doesn't actually believe in or practice, that's (evil) Chaos. If it's all a grand joke and she's making fun of all these people doing what she says, that's Chaos. If she achieves her seeming Lawful cred just by having people lie for her, and then whacking them when they serve their purpose (as opposed to the Lawful and terribly inefficient method, whacking them after they FAIL*), that's Chaotic Evil.

*It's inefficient to whack people after they fail, because you then fail to prevent them doing so, and would logically have to whack yourself. Instead, promote them, assume they're going to fail, and whack them first. That will teach them to be unprepared for the next job!!!

Oh, geez, I'll bet I just gained a few points of evil there. Grr...

toddex
2009-06-09, 03:16 PM
To me lawful evil is the single most bad ass alignment ever. DR DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

mistformsquirrl
2009-06-09, 03:39 PM
I'm going to be odd and say NE.

The character has a specific goal that to me, is not particularly lawful or chaotic (it's balanced by having aspects at both ends); and unless I'm missing something crucial, it seems that evil is more important to this character than either Law or Chaos.

That's the beauty of a N- alignment; you can do both Lawful and Chaotic things, and unless you become heavily bent toward one of them, you're still well within your alignment.

The cleric of Pelor who meticulously collects tithes, is always on time with the church's taxes, and is highly organized remains NG; because if the situation required said cleric would hide refugees from the newly installed tyrant, steal from the BBEG's coffers and give the money to the poor, and patch up rebels.

To me at least, Neutral in dicates the capability for either Law or Chaos in equal measure, entirely dependent on what the character sees as necessary at the time.

So your character wants to set the world up like bowling pins just to knock it down all the harder... seems reasonable to me from a NE perspective.

I would say CE can work to a point; but the character is I think likely to become impatient or grumpy, or at the very least take out their annoyance on someone else. (Ex: Whilst building said empire, amuse oneself with razing villages that 'no one important will miss anyway' etc...)

Just my take of course.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-09, 03:44 PM
doing evil acts consistantly makes you evil regardless of your motives (Champions of Ruin), the same principle could arguably apply to Law.

Act lawful enough of the time, and regardless of your motives, you become Lawful.
Well, sure, consistently doing acts of a given alignment is the same thing as being that alignment. But I thought that the deal with the special rules in Fiendish Codex 2 was that you can go to Hell for Lawful or Evil deeds even if you aren't consistently Lawful or Evil.


Some people take the utilitarian view that any act committed in a "just cause" no matter how evil it would normally be, ceases to be evil.
Um, no. The utilitarian view weighs costs and benefits; it does not disregard costs if there are any benefits. That's a blatant straw man, I'm afraid.

For example, killing is Evil by default, but killing someone to protect innocents may be Good on the whole. But it also may not be if the harm prevented doesn't outweigh the harm of taking someone's life.

That really makes more sense for the Good/Evil axis than disregarding benefits entirely if there are any costs. Do that and a paladin falls for killing anyone for any reason.


While the ultimate goal is entirely chaotic to be sure, the means to carry it out, her _detailed_ plans, indeed her entire existense, is EXTREMELY lawful. The very fact that she devises such a cunning, long term, underhanded and careful plan just screams lawful.
But planning long-term and being organized don't make someone Lawful. By RAW, Lawful alignment means honesty and respect for authority and tradition. Someone can have a detailed long-term plan to overturn authority and tradition. Heck, that's the case here. The complicating factor is that she wants to personally set everything up in the first place before knocking it all down.

Being underhanded is Chaotic, if anything, not Lawful.

Chrono22
2009-06-09, 03:50 PM
As others have already said, the 3.5 alignment system is too blocky to handle some of the more complex questions of alignment.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1181832
Check this out.

daggaz
2009-06-09, 04:02 PM
But planning long-term and being organized don't make someone Lawful. By RAW, Lawful alignment means honesty and respect for authority and tradition. Someone can have a detailed long-term plan to overturn authority and tradition. Heck, that's the case here. The complicating factor is that she wants to personally set everything up in the first place before knocking it all down.

Being underhanded is Chaotic, if anything, not Lawful.

You might want to peruse your PHB again.. Lawful means you have respect for authority yes, but it doesnt mean you would follow the law or respect that authority if it goes against your morals, and it certainly doesn't mean honesty point blank. It means you are far more likely to uphold your end of any bargains. You can still lie. (In fact, if you make a point to always lie, then you are being lawful.) It also means you have a very organised way of life, a guiding rule set or perhaps even a creed to which you adhere. See monks. See Paladins. (as the more extreme examples) Or if you dont have a creed, perhaps you just have a pattern to the way you do things, always brushing your teeth in the morning, then putting on your shirt, then getting that cup of coffee. A creature of habits which you are not wont to change.

Having a detailed, long term plan, and following it through from day to day without messing up? Thats about as lawful as you can get.

There is a really great article on the wizards site about the lawful/chaotic axis, and how people often misinterpret them. What's the opposite of evil? Good. And what's the opposite of Chaos? Order. But order was a strange and somewhat boring term to label your character (I am Ordered Good!) so they went with lawful, which opened up a slew of misconceptions, unfortunately.

Optimystik
2009-06-09, 04:19 PM
Well, I can think of one particular Real Life Figure who is rumored to be perfectly good, but the organizations founded His name commissioned countless tortures, murders and sacrifices in His name. Yet even those who are not His fan still generally hold Him to have been Good.

That's a rather one-sided assessment. You've completely ignored both all the Good done in that person's name, and the Good accomplished by that person Himself.

The latter is extremely important; He committed Good acts, so he ends up being Good. The OP's character wants to commit Lawful acts and end up Chaotic. See the difference?

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-09, 04:48 PM
You might want to peruse your PHB again.
NO U!


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
The red text agrees with me, the blue with you.


It also means you have a very organised way of life, a guiding rule set or perhaps even a creed to which you adhere.
Being organized does not require being honorable.

I like to point to Wu Jen as giving the lie to the notion that consistency is inherently Lawful. They have personal taboos that they abide by that are weird and different from others' standards of behavior. Thus, they're not allowed to be Lawful. Because Law is about following others' standards!

Whatever your character's personality, it can be stated in imperative form. "My character is Lawful. His personal code of conduct is 'Be wild and unpredictable and do all sorts of wacky stuff.'" I'm sorry, but that's dumb.

If your character's personality is consistent, that's good roleplaying. If there's no consistency to his behavior, that's bad roleplaying. Neither is an alignment.


Having a detailed, long term plan, and following it through from day to day without messing up? Thats about as lawful as you can get.
No, it's not. Chaos does not require being short-sighted nor impulsive. Chaotic characters can have high Wisdom and Intelligence. Chaos means that you're self-directed, rather than other-directed. The central Chaotic trait is not wanting to be controlled.

A Lawful character will consistently follow someone else's standards of behavior. That doesn't mean that Chaotic characters are inconsistent; it means that they come up with their own standards.


There is a really great article on the wizards site about the lawful/chaotic axis, and how people often misinterpret them.
To the extent that that article contradicts the RAW... well, it contradicts the RAW.

Tyrmatt
2009-06-10, 03:39 AM
It's the good old "Go my Undead Minions! Rescue the orphans from that burning building" scenario. The only real solution is to put it in the hands of your DM.

There is now orange juice on my keyboard -_-

daggaz
2009-06-10, 03:47 AM
Hey Devil's Advocate.. I love how you forgot to highlight the qualifier "implies". As well, adhering to tradition is something I said Law was.

I would also like to point out that the PHB assumes a nonevil alignment, and it is notorious for being very poorly written as per alignments. Being evil just complicates the whole matter. Darth Vader is like the poster child for lawful evil, but are you saying that he cannot lie? Pshyeaa...

At any rate, try and find that article that wizards posted, it defines the "implies" and really takes any and all ambiguity out of the discussion. I posted it once here on an alignment thread, and it recieved thunderous applaus from the playgrounders. They honestly wanted to sticky it.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-10, 03:04 PM
Hey Devil's Advocate.. I love how you forgot to highlight the qualifier "implies".
Well, I also didn't highlight "can include", which applies to all of the blue text. On the other hand, the beginning red text -- "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition" -- is unqualified. So that supports me more than you.


As well, adhering to tradition is something I said Law was.
Not in this thread, you didn't, unless you phrased it differently. I checked with Ctrl+F.


I would also like to point out that the PHB assumes a nonevil alignment
Where does it do that?


Darth Vader is like the poster child for lawful evil, but are you saying that he cannot lie?
I never said that Darth Vader cannot lie. I'm not convinced that he's Lawful, though.


At any rate, try and find that article that wizards posted
This one (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)?

"Hey, guys, Law and Chaos actually aren't what the PHB says at all; they're something completely different instead!"

BLEAH. :smallyuk:

Seriously, if Law is inherently consistent and Chaos is inherently inconsistent, they're both special flavors of stupidity. Then Lawful characters won't adapt to changing circumstances, Chaotic characters won't repeat proven strategies that worked before, and only Neutral characters make decisions rationally. SCREW THAT!

Law is compliant. A Lawful character adheres to the standards set by an authority or by tradition -- rules or conventions -- and not just to a set of guidelines that he came up with for himself by himself. Chaos is independent. A Chaotic character refuses to be controlled by others' standards.

Chaos doesn't mean inconsistency; it means consistently avoiding being controlled by others. If anything, a completely unpredictable character would probably be Neutral (and insane).

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 03:18 PM
Exemplars of Evil has a list of traits for Villains- some of which as Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic.

Law: Strongly associated (very unsual to find a villain with these traits who is not Lawful):
Trustworthy
Intolerant
Obsessive

Law: Weakly associated (Usually or Often rather than Always)
Arrogant
Slothful
Vain
Vindictive

Chaos: Strongly associated
Duplicitous

Chaos: Weakly associated
Avaricious
Mad
Nihilistic
Lascivious

Evil: Strongly associated
Cruel
Gluttonous

Evil: Weakly associated
Envious
Manipulative

this is a rough summary.

The Glyphstone
2009-06-10, 03:26 PM
What does being Vain have to do with being Lawful? Same thing, why is Arrogance lawful, when it'd be a very logical thing for a Chaotic person to fee (they know better than any mere government!).

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 03:35 PM
Hence weakly rather than strongly associated.

It may have to do with how the writers perceived it.

"Proud, vain, and full of self-importance, an arrogant villain shows a blatent disregard for the feelings and wellbeing of others. She spends a lot of time talking about herself and her achievements. These villains are often lawful."

"Consumed with appearences, vain villains spend much of their time perfecting their looks and those of their servents. They pay close attention to small details and never present themselves unless they are flawless. Vain villains are often lawful."

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-10, 04:03 PM
I think that vanity makes sense as Lawful-tending because it means that you're concerned with how others see you. A Chaotic character probably wouldn't care. Arrogance makes sense if you think that your group is superior. A Chaotic character would be less likely to worry about ranking himself against others. Although he might.

I don't see why a gluttonous villain would be especially likely to be Evil, though, except in the sense that any villain is likely to be Evil.

Optimystik
2009-06-10, 04:09 PM
There is now orange juice on my keyboard -_-

Luckily I wasn't drinking when I read that line myself :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 04:09 PM
"Gluttonous villains consume more than their share and hoard treasures to deprive others of the chance to enjoy them. They frequently stockpile food, drink. and wealth, but they can also hoard resources or the attentions of a companion. Gluttons are always evil."

Its not just greed for food, its the hoarder/overconsumer in general.

Optimystik
2009-06-10, 04:27 PM
I don't see why a gluttonous villain would be especially likely to be Evil, though, except in the sense that any villain is likely to be Evil.

It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins), so expect it to come up a lot in moral fantasy. They've been referenced in both ancient literature (notably Chaucer) and modern media (such as anime.)

1) Lust
2) Gluttony
3) Greed (aka Covetousness)
4) Sloth
5) Anger (aka Wrath)
6) Envy
7) Vanity (aka Pride)

They're really all forms of greed if you boil them down enough. Anyway, gluttony is on the list because it represents, as hamish said, consumption of unneeded resources to such a large extent that it denies their use by others.

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 04:31 PM
Though some, as shown above, are associated more with Law or Chaos, than Evil, in that book anyway.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-10, 04:53 PM
Its not just greed for food, its the hoarder/overconsumer in general.
Ugh. That should be called "greed", not "gluttony". :smallannoyed: "Gluttony" is a term for the overconsumption of food and drink in particular. Using it as a synonym for "greed" just confuses things.


It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins), so expect it to come up a lot in moral fantasy.
The Seven Deadly Sins are hardly the epitome of Evil. (That would be sadism, probably.)


They're really all forms of greed if you boil them down enough.
:smallconfused: I'd be interested to know how that works out.


Anyway, gluttony is on the list because it represents, as hamish said, consumption of unneeded resources to such a large extent that it denies their use by others.
Oh... Well, if you define "excessive consumption" as "so great as to deprive others", I guess it works.

But in that case, someone could stuff his face all day and not be gluttonous if food were plentiful enough. I'm not convinced that this definition accords well with common usage. (Not that I see "gluttonous" used commonly...)

Edit: Isn't the alternative term for "Greed" "Avarice"? "Covetousness" would be a synonym for "Envy".

daggaz
2009-06-10, 05:18 PM
It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins), so expect it to come up a lot in moral fantasy. They've been referenced in both ancient literature (notably Chaucer) and modern media (such as anime.)

1) Lust
2) Gluttony
3) Greed (aka Covetousness)
4) Sloth
5) Anger (aka Wrath)
6) Envy
7) Vanity (aka Pride)

They're really all forms of greed if you boil them down enough. Anyway, gluttony is on the list because it represents, as hamish said, consumption of unneeded resources to such a large extent that it denies their use by others.

At the risk of getting this thread closed (its close anyhow), you are looking at things thru some mighty rose colored glasses if you think its all the same thing. So...


Lust. This I can see, tho you are ignoring the subtle difference of just wanting more, and wanting sex. These two are very close, admitedly, but one is more carnal than the other. Think about it.

Gluttony, hmm ok it also fits in the same way as before, but once again its the subtle difference... its not the desire for more more more, its neglecting all the other aspects of life, simply for the pleasure of feeding ones self. This one has more to do with Lust than anything else.

Sloth. I cannot possibly understand how you combine this with greed, except in the most convuluted of fashions. It is quite the opposite. Sloth implies NOT CARING. About anything. You are simply too lazy to care. This one goes more hand in hand with gluttony than anything else.

Anger. Wow. This one is so stand alone, it deserves a higher (or lower) rank on the sin list. Anger is anger, pure and simple. If you dont understand what it is, or how it differs from something like greed (tho it can surely spawn from greed), then sir, I doubt your humanity.

Envy. The bastard step-child of Anger and Greed. Exam this one close enough, and you will see the difference between the parents. Gluttony was probably the mail man...who will ever know?

Vanity. Well, you could argue its the desire to be the best, and thus close to greed, except that vanity is actually believing you are the best. The desire, we leave up to Envy.

hamishspence
2009-06-11, 11:44 AM
how about the train dilemma? The "just cause" is saving the lives of a large number of people. the normally immoral, evil, etc. act is pushing a person into the path of the train to stop it.

Every time I see a "its OK to sacrifice people without their consent if it saves lives" claim, its been justified using utilitarian rules.

or, the claim that "Choosing the lesser Evil is Good by definition" which I have seen here several times.

Does not apply according to BoED- it points out there that sometimes the players choosing "lesser evils" start changing alignment, losing powers, even becoming evil.

Riffington
2009-06-11, 12:01 PM
Every time I see a "its OK to sacrifice people without their consent if it saves lives" claim, its been justified by incorrectly using utilitarian rules.


fixed that for you ;)

Devil's Advocate: so, gluttony is definitely seen differently today than it once was. If this world is here for a reason, then we are stewards of it, we are to use its limited resources wisely and with compassion, and we are to understand the gifts we are given in their proper place. Gluttony upends all this. It deprives others of needed resources such as food - we rejoice while (hopefully unthinkingly) depriving others of things they require. And it misunderstands the purpose of food as nourishment, turning it instead into a toy.

If we believe that man creates his own food without divine help, that there can be plenty for all, and that there is nothing different about creating and enjoying food than about other recreations... then, there should be nothing evil about gluttony. Additionally, the "create food and water" spell should be added to the Sor/Wiz spell list. However, in at least some games, there is a special status to food and drink, and a connection there to the Divine.

hamishspence
2009-06-11, 12:06 PM
Similarly with torture- a lot of people would claim that had Jack Bauer murdered or tortured Syed Ali's children for real in 24: Season 2, it would be morally right, because it saved many lives and the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few.

The usual claim is "standing by and allowing a million people to die is a worse outcome than murdering one innocent person, therefore, since 1 murder is the better outcome than a million deaths through inaction, murder is sometimes morally right"

I've even seen the claim that "Torture has saved lives all through history, from Guy Fawkes to the present" when Guy is the textbook example of it not working- by the time they had gotten any info out of him, everyone else had already been captured.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-11, 04:02 PM
Well, food and drink are precious when they're scarce, which is situational. If there's more than enough for everyone, then wasting resources doesn't have an obvious negative effect. If there's not enough for everyone, wasting stuff is harmful to the population as a whole. And especially so in the case of food and drink, as nourishment is an essential need.


how about the train dilemma? The "just cause" is saving the lives of a large number of people. the normally immoral, evil, etc. act is pushing a person into the path of the train to stop it.
And most people disagree with that... and yet agree with redirecting the train at someone, although that would certainly normally be immoral.


The usual claim is "standing by and allowing a million people to die is a worse outcome than murdering one innocent person, therefore, since 1 murder is the better outcome than a million deaths through inaction, murder is sometimes morally right"
... provided that murdering an innocent ever allows one to save a million lives. Which actually strikes me as unlikely.

If ends don't justify means, what does? For example, is killing a non-innocent being more moral than killing an innocent one, irrespective of the costs and benefits to anyone? If so, why, and what does "innocent" mean in this context?

I see fundamental Goodness as trying to help sentient beings to the full extent possible. Rather than favoring some individuals over others, Good chooses as a selfish person would from behind a veil of ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) that prevented her from knowing which position she personally would be in.

How do you see Good alignment? :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2009-06-11, 04:10 PM
an example of a (relatively) innocent person being OK to kill- when they are charmed/dominated, about to commit mass murder (poisoning a water supply) and the only means you have to stop them, will kill them.

BoVD gives this example, only the person has been conned into doing it.

The problem is, the example given previously suggests that if you have good reason to believe the whole town is evil, its OK to destroy it. Which is wrong accorrding to BoED- non-combatants, even evil ones, should not be destroyed indiscriminately.

Goodness involves respect for life, as per PHB. It can also involve killing in order to preserve life, if that which you kill is a direct threat to it.

As BoED points out, wherever possible, Good people should respect even the lives of their enemies. If its not absolutely necessary to kill them in self-defense or defense of others, they shouldn't do it.

Riffington
2009-06-11, 04:27 PM
I see fundamental Goodness as trying to help sentient beings to the full extent possible. Rather than favoring some individuals over others, Good chooses as a selfish person would from behind a veil of ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) that prevented her from knowing which position she personally would be in.



Rawls' bizarre selfish person, a utilitarian selfish person, a selfish person not well described by either of those, or it doesn't matter?

Je dit Viola
2009-06-12, 12:37 AM
or, the claim that "Choosing the lesser Evil is Good by definition" which I have seen here several times.

Except that, 999999/1000000 there is always an option 3 or something else. Like a grapple check. Or bringing them into the authorities. Or putting them into a hospital. Or mind-wiping them. Or tying them to a tree until they learn better. Any of which is possibly least-Evil, Neutral, or Good.

So, here's a question. Is choosing the lesser evil a Good choice when there are non-Evil choices also involved? Because there nearly always is - noone who honestly respects life will choose millions die vs murder one when there's still a no-death option.

hamishspence
2009-06-12, 12:13 PM
Examples might include a tyrant oppressing population- war will lead to tens of thousands of deaths, doing nothing will lead to thousands of deaths at the hands of the tyrant, murdering the tyrant and most of the people at the top leads to hundreds of deaths in the ensuing revolution, but the overall death toll is least.

Pushing The Fat Man or Murder Man for Life Saving Organs are a bit contrived, but same principle.

Whereas, redirecting the train is slightly different- it involves choosing the minimum number of people to die, when a certain number of people are definitely doomed.

Certain kinds of vaccination are similar- some people will die from reactions, so ordering a vaccination campaign will kill some people who would not otherwise have died. But it minimises the number of deaths, because a lot more people would have died if the disease outbreak had not been contained.

Or- Asteroid is heading toward planet- you know exactly where it will hit (one nation) and that it will certainly kill around 1 billion people (not big enough for world-wide "nuclear winter" effect- just blast damage)

It is too late to use any method other than blasting the asteroid (its a small one so it will work)

Blasting it will lead to an estimated 100,000 casualties from smaller impactors, but spread over most of the world rather than the single target.

Is choosing 100,000 people randomly to die, worse than doing nothing and letting 1 billion people die? You are not aiming the smaller impactors- you have no idea where they will go. But you are choosing to minimise total casualties by replacing an event that causes a billion deaths with one that causes 100,000.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-12, 12:23 PM
an example of a (relatively) innocent person being OK to kill- when they are charmed/dominated, about to commit mass murder (poisoning a water supply) and the only means you have to stop them, will kill them.
What is it that makes killing "OK" in that example? By "OK", do you mean non-Evil?


The problem is, the example given previously suggests that if you have good reason to believe the whole town is evil, its OK to destroy it. Which is wrong accorrding to BoED- non-combatants, even evil ones, should not be destroyed indiscriminately.
I think that in that scenario, the whole town is believed to be demons, which are always alright to kill because they're irredeemably evil and they'll certainly kill innocents given enough time.

Which, y'know, doesn't fit too well with the existence of good redeemed demons...

It's also rather vague on just what constitutes "good reason". Evidently insanely concluding something without any basis definitely doesn't, but apparently just being told something by a stranger does.


Goodness involves respect for life, as per PHB. It can also involve killing in order to preserve life, if that which you kill is a direct threat to it.
I'd think that it would be more important how severe a threat is and whether one can stop it without killing. Why would the directness of the threat matter?


If its not absolutely necessary to kill them in self-defense or defense of others, they shouldn't do it.
I don't know that accomplishing anything requires anything in particular. That which I want to accomplish might yet come about on its own, in some unforeseen fashion. How can I say for certain that it won't? I am not omniscient. Maybe an unknown deity will intervene in my favor at the last second. How can I know that one will not?

But I'm not going to avoid making any sacrifices just because there's an extremely slim chance that what I want will happen anyway.


Whereas, redirecting the train is slightly different- it involves choosing the minimum number of people to die, when a certain number of people are definitely doomed.
But pushing the fat man also minimizes the number of deaths, when deaths will certainly occur. Yes, this comes about in a different fashion, but where's the moral difference?

I say that, all else being equal, minimizing deaths is Good. Isn't preventing harm the only justification for killing? What else would justify it?


Rawls' bizarre selfish person, a utilitarian selfish person, a selfish person not well described by either of those, or it doesn't matter?
Well... I was saying, present a selfish person with a scenario and ask her how she'd prefer each of the people involved behave, but don't let the selfish person know which role in the scenario she'll personally occupy. That way she's forced to care what happens to everyone.

Good is like that, except without being forced.

(E.g.: Not knowing ahead of time which position she'd be in in a runaway train scenario, a selfish person would prefer the policy that maximizes lives saved, because this maximizes her personal chance of survival. A Good person would just want to maximize lives saved regardless of his personal survival, so he'd make the same decision even knowing which position he'd be in.)


So, here's a question. Is choosing the lesser evil a Good choice when there are non-Evil choices also involved? Because there nearly always is - noone who honestly respects life will choose millions die vs murder one when there's still a no-death option.
I say that reducing the death count from millions to one is Good even if you know of another option that would certainly reduce it to zero.

One of my base assumptions regarding alignment is that negative "things" -- the lack of things -- are always Neutral, by definition. Only positive things are non-Neutral. Inaction is Neutral. Indifference is Neutral. Inherently. So standing by and watching a million people die is Neutral. I'd say that saving a million lives at the cost of one is Good in contrast.

(Note, however, that someone who never helps anyone is only Neutral-aligned if he also never hurts anyone. If you help no one, odds are actually good that you're Evil because you also hurt others.)

It's possible to have some respect for life in general without it being one's highest concern. I'm pretty sure that that describes the vast majority of humanity, actually.

hamishspence
2009-06-12, 12:34 PM
non-evil, yes.

Directness: You have an Evil person who has just been released from jail. You know he's a threat to others, but you don't know when, where, or how.

According to BoED- you are not justified in attacking evil persons unless they are actually doing evil things- the orc village example. Just Being Evil is not enough, even though "Evil implies hurting, oppresing, and killing others" by PHB.

Riffington
2009-06-12, 12:44 PM
Well... I was saying, present a selfish person with a scenario and ask her how she'd prefer each of the people involved behave, but don't let the selfish person know which role in the scenario she'll personally occupy. That way she's forced to care what happens to everyone.



So as long as she does the thing she'd actually prefer the [randomized] person do, it's ok even if it's not the thing you'd prefer?
i.e. if she'd want to maximize her chances of being saved, then she should make the choice accordingly, but if her view on life is much more negative then minimizing the number of survivors could be the Good action?

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-12, 02:32 PM
Directness: You have an Evil person who has just been released from jail. You know he's a threat to others,
How?


but you don't know when, where, or how.
So?

Do you think that causing or allowing deaths is somehow better when you don't know ahead of time what their details will be? (This also ties in to your vaccination and asteroid scenarios.) If so, why?


According to BoED- you are not justified in attacking evil persons unless they are actually doing evil things- the orc village example. Just Being Evil is not enough, even though "Evil implies hurting, oppresing, and killing others" by PHB.
Well, that's the thing. If someone is Evil-aligned, that tells you that he routinely does Evil things. That's what Evil alignment means, right?


So as long as she does the thing she'd actually prefer the [randomized] person do, it's ok even if it's not the thing you'd prefer?
i.e. if she'd want to maximize her chances of being saved, then she should make the choice accordingly, but if her view on life is much more negative then minimizing the number of survivors could be the Good action?
Well, fully putting yourself into the place of people, which is basically what I was trying to get at, means assuming their attitudes. But that brings up the issues of what constitutes identity and how it's contradictory to speak hypothetically of "being someone else", how someone can't actually make a decision with her own attitudes stripped away, etc. Which maybe is why Rawls cuts around that by using representatives in place of the individuals being represented themselves.

For the illustration of a runaway train scenario, I was assuming that the selfish person and the people on and around the train share a common desire to live. To be rigorous, this assumption should have been made explicit.

hamishspence
2009-06-12, 02:36 PM
Routinely evil things may not be especially evil.

Fiendish codex 2: robbing the needy, betraying your comrades for personal gain, perverting justice for personal gain, all are evil, but many wouldn't be death penalty crimes.

Heroes of Horror, and Eberron Campaign setting, are also pretty clear on this.

In the 3rd party book Quintessenial Paladin 2, there were 3 tiers:

Low-Grade Evil Everywhere
Roughly 1/3 of the human population are evil. This is not something the paladin can defeat. Using diplomacy or intimidate to steer "grasping landlord" toward Good might be appropiate, but stronger action is not warranted.

Evil As A Choice
Anyone who detects as Evil is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action- in this campaign, detecting someone as Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this Evil person and see if he poses a threat to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Merely human evil would not be detected. A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on the divine level.
However, if this murderer was killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefor detectable by the paladin. This is a morally black-and-white setup- anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.

Given that in PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral", and in BoED being evil is not enough to justify action, most D&D games should by this principle, be somewhere around Evil Everywhere.

Fiendish Codex 2 suggests "most people are only weakly aligned", closer to Evil As A Choice. Still not very severe.

However, some players seem to play Good characters as "radardins" killing anything that pings as evil.

Riffington
2009-06-12, 03:23 PM
Which maybe is why Rawls cuts around that by using representatives in place of the individuals being represented themselves.

For the illustration of a runaway train scenario, I was assuming that the selfish person and the people on and around the train share a common desire to live. To be rigorous, this assumption should have been made explicit.

Right, so this is the problem that Rawls really gets into. He has to assume facts about human nature and what we'd "rationally desire" that bear no resemblance to what many rational people actually do desire. For instance, he suggests that the rational people behind the veil of ignorance would (given the choice) prefer to help out the person in the lowest social position rather than a person in a higher social position - even if the one in the higher social position would benefit more and/or is worse off. It's pretty tough to find rational people who actually believe this, let alone a reason why they should.

So basically, my question isn't really about life/death (that's an easy and fairly universal preference). It's about your broader understanding of goodness. Do I need to have a particular set of rational beliefs in order to be Good, or can I go ahead and use whatever beliefs/preferences I happen to have, provided that I sincerely would prefer that another person in my position make the same decisions as me? If the former, what are those beliefs? If the latter, does the human tendency towards unwitting self-delusion cause a moral problem?

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-12, 04:05 PM
Routinely evil things may not be especially evil.
Ah, right. Evil deeds may be less harmful than killing, so that killing is a disproportionate response.


However, some players seem to play Good characters as "radardins" killing anything that pings as evil.
Well, the alignment section does sort of strongly suggest that Evil creatures are at least violent if not murderous.

Maybe they should have included separate descriptions of typical Evil people and strongly Evil people.


Do I need to have a particular set of rational beliefs in order to be Good, or can I go ahead and use whatever beliefs/preferences I happen to have, provided that I sincerely would prefer that another person in my position make the same decisions as me? If the former, what are those beliefs?
With regard to preferences, it's important to implement the ethic of reciprocity at the right meta level. Don't get chocolate ice cream for someone who prefers vanilla because you'd want him to get you chocolate. Get him vanilla ice cream because you'd want him to respect your individual preference even though it differs from his own. Because the ethic of reciprocity includes formulating your moral heuristics as you'd want others to formulate theirs.

I don't see incorrect or irrational beliefs as making someone less Good-aligned. I see alignment as what you choose to do, which in turn I see as what you think you're doing.


does the human tendency towards unwitting self-delusion cause a moral problem?
It definitely causes problems, though I don't know if they're "moral" problems per se.

It might be necessary to draw distinctions between what people genuinely believe and what they only believe they believe (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/).

hamishspence
2009-06-12, 04:34 PM
yes- PHB descriptions are pretty short.

BoVD had a variety of acts considered evil, but no description of the "typical evil personality" Instead, several archetypes.

Savage Species had the comment that evil people can be affectionate, loyal and loving- but only to their in-group.

Champions of Ruin went into much more detail on evil archetypes- including the For The Greater Good type.

Heroes of Horror also stressed that evil people (especially Lawful Evil) could be fairly law-abiding in their Evilness.

Fiendish Codex 2 had its own list of Evil (Corrupt) deeds- though one "humiliating an underling" should probably be stressed as only the more extreme forms, and not just an underling- the stunt in Carrie pulled on her at the prom by her classmates might fall into the category of Evil Deed.

Exemplars of Evil also expanded on Villainous personality (usually evil, but not always)

Its a pity PHB wasn't more clear on it.

There isn't really a definition of Murder either (Corrupt by FC2). Though, if the person is not trying to kill you, or anyone else, hasn't been charged with anything, no evidence of them committing any crime, etc (so you're not an executioner), its a bit hard to see radardin killings as anything but murder.

Nothing in either BoVD or BoED says killing evil beings is "not murder by definition" and plenty suggests that if the circumstances aren't right, killing even evil beings can be murder. (And conversely, if the circumstances are right, according to BoVD, killing a good being might be Not Murder.)

Riffington
2009-06-13, 12:09 AM
With regard to preferences, it's important to implement the ethic of reciprocity at the right meta level. Don't get chocolate ice cream for someone who prefers vanilla because you'd want him to get you chocolate. Get him vanilla ice cream because you'd want him to respect your individual preference even though it differs from his own. Because the ethic of reciprocity includes formulating your moral heuristics as you'd want others to formulate theirs.
Ok, but this only takes us so far. Most real moral problems involve a conflict between individuals. Example: suppose I would like an open marriage, and my wife would not because it would make her too jealous to think about. I imagine a priori, and figure that not knowing the positions the optimal situation is that I cheat and keep it a secret from her. I know very well that her "a priori" evaluation would be different.

But if I genuinely believe that she is incorrect and that this is the best option overall, is cheating on her therefore a Good act?

I'm not sure, incidentally, that you can really distinguish between what people believe and what they believe they believe. Your link instead appears to be distinguishing between what people believe and what they pretend to believe. A large number of people do genuinely believe things that are quite convenient, and do genuinely change their beliefs when those things become inconvenient.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-13, 01:33 AM
For an evil campaign I might be playing in, I have idea for a character concept. My goal is to play a CE alongside LE and NE without getting myself killed.

The idea: she sees beauty in destruction and chaos, but thinks that the most beautiful chaos can only exist if there is first perfect order. So she strives to create a completely lawful empire in order to let it eventually fall to chaos.
She is utterly CE in her intention, but she will acting with LE goals for probably the entire campaign.

With D&D mechanics, would this make her CE or LE, or would that be up to the DM's rulings? (Of course, it would be subject to the DM's ruling, but I'm hoping to have an argument for ruling in favour of CE.)
That's N.

Why?

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Even if your character really does think that Perfect Order is required to create Perfect Chaos, she's not going to be willing (or, arguably, able) to create that Perfect Order. Chaotic individuals hate external rules - either following them for themselves, or for making them. In order to create a Perfect Order, your character is going to need to both make rules and enforce them; that is, to act Lawful.

Evil doesn't really enter into your description at all - depending on how you plan to make Perfect Chaos you could be N, E, or even G.

But, if you would like to make a more "Law Friendly" CE character along these lines, go the Trickster Route; nothing is more beautiful than secretly perverting a Lawful Society. This allows you to ostensibly "assist" Lawful people while still being secretly disruptive. From a RP-perspective, this is both in-character and unlikely to get you stabbed in the face.

That said, in an Evil game, you can (and should) expect to be killed at any moment for any reason.

chiasaur11
2009-06-13, 02:25 AM
Except that, 999999/1000000 there is always an option 3 or something else. Like a grapple check.

I'm sorry, but forcing someone to us the grapple rules?

Always evil.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-13, 02:27 PM
Example: suppose I would like an open marriage, and my wife would not because it would make her too jealous to think about. I imagine a priori, and figure that not knowing the positions the optimal situation is that I cheat and keep it a secret from her. I know very well that her "a priori" evaluation would be different.

But if I genuinely believe that she is incorrect and that this is the best option overall, is cheating on her therefore a Good act?
That boils down to the question of whether we should be optimizing for perceived satisfaction of preferences or actual satisfaction of preferences. Which is a good question. My feelings on the matter are ambivalent. On the one hand, I feel like I don't want to condone wanting to control what goes on in others' minds, rather than just what goes on in one's own. On the other hand, if we're really just optimizing for a mental state, why satisfaction instead of the more traditional happiness?

And in either case, how do we take into account the fact that preferences change? New preferences appear and old ones disappear. If we only take into account current preferences, then in the long term we're liable to produce results that are bad by our own standards, which seems like the opposite of how consequentialism ought to work. But if strongly satisfied future preferences count for a lot, then we would seem to be obligated to, if possible, make everyone strongly prefer something that it's very easy to have a lot of, like iron atoms. Similarly, if eliminating unsatisfied preferences is what's important, then we have a mandate to permanently eliminate the existence of minds.

So, I've advocated the idea that Good means helping people, but I'm not sure what "helping people" means. That seems like a question without an objectively right answer, yet I have no subjective answer of my own at the moment. So maybe I lack a coherent conception Good.


I'm not sure, incidentally, that you can really distinguish between what people believe and what they believe they believe.
Well, it's at least hard to do in practice.


Your link instead appears to be distinguishing between what people believe and what they pretend to believe.
Yes, but the idea is that one can convincingly pretend to oneself, not just others.

The relevant distinction is that real beliefs are the ones that control anticipations. You know, "If they believe in angels, why should they be surprised to see one?"