"Good" characters

[Thatguyoverther]

Does anyone else seem to have problems with "good" characters? I don't mean good characters policing the party and making sure that everyone plays nice, but "good" characters who attack with little or no provocation or loot corpses and pillage graves?

I recently had a session where one of the party breaks into an enemy base. The enemies where sleeping, and one of the characters a lawful good paly announces himself and gives the enemies a chance to surrender. The rest of the party, all of which are "good" characters rush in and attack the recently awakened enemies who hadn't even had a chance to grab a weapon let alone surrender. Killing about a half dozen of them while they were still prone.

Should I remind them that they are supposed to be good characters? Have NPCs harp on them? Just beat them over the head with an alignment change?

[Knaight]

I see this as them doing what needed to be done, provided those at the base weren't conscripts or anything. Its not like letting them wake up then killing them would have been a better act, although just bypassing the room would have been. Provided they were going for justice, and had noble goals then they are justified in the game world. As for looting corpses, just leaving whatever there is to rot isn't any better. Pillaging graves is basically trespassing, and very rude, but not necessarily evil. Its not like they are stealing from living people.

[Seatbelt]

There is a chaotic good sorc in my party who does something similar. It seems that "chaotic" is used by a lot of people to mean 'random acts' that are good so long as they can be justified in some way. He's chaotic good, but he stole a powerful magic weapon from our dwarven employers and proceeded to sell it. He also routinely hordes gold and items from the party and he was *very* excited to become the party scribe/inventory monkey. We see very little income anymore until after he purchases a favored item. :(

[Hat-Trick]

Lawful characters wait for surrender. Good save those in danger. Looting is neither here nor there. Unless they have some sort of code about desecrating the bodies of their enemies, it's no problem, really.

[Mystic Muse]

it depends on the enemies in question. if they're only doing this because they're slaves and have no other choice because they need to feed their families there's no way in the nine hells I'd consider it a good act.

if you're storming the castle of Vecna and the sleeping people happen to be his cannibalistic cultists then I say slay away!

granted those are both extremes but the point stands. what the action was depends on the intent, the result and the victims.

[Rhawin]

In this particular case the act may have been excessive, but I wouldn't call it evil or even necessarily non-good. Unless enemies have surrendered before there's little reason for them not to take advantage of a situation.

Is there a problem with a good rogue attacking an unaware target? Even if the target has no weapon ready? I would imagine that most players would say no.

The problem is more one of inner party conflict, or at least lack of harmony. One character had a plan to deal with the encounter, while the others ignored it. If the other characters have respect for the merciful Lawful Good character, they should have considered his plan, though the merciful Lawful Good character should have discussed the matter with his party members beforehand.

[Thatguyoverther]

I see this as them doing what needed to be done, provided those at the base weren't conscripts or anything. Its not like letting them wake up then killing them would have been a better act, although just bypassing the room would have been. Provided they were going for justice, and had noble goals then they are justified in the game world. As for looting corpses, just leaving whatever there is to rot isn't any better. Pillaging graves is basically trespassing, and very rude, but not necessarily evil. Its not like they are stealing from living people.

They kind of were. They are followers of a 'prophet' who hasn't been sanctioned by the church. He preaches about impending doom on street corners. The powers that be want him dead because he's making waves. Even if the prophet where evil, he's supposed to be charismatic and his followers are by and large uneducated commoners who couldn't argue theology if their lives depended on it.

[Alejandro]

I have usually found that players will play alignments the same way the GM does. How do your good aligned NPCs act in similar situations?

[Hat-Trick]

Then they are following orders. They may not have chosen the most "good path", but if they believe their doing the work of a good deity, then you can't truly blame them for anything other than ignorance.

[Stormageddon]

Does anyone else seem to have problems with "good" characters? I don't mean good characters policing the party and making sure that everyone plays nice, but "good" characters who attack with little or no provocation or loot corpses and pillage graves?

I recently had a session where one of the party breaks into an enemy base. The enemies where sleeping, and one of the characters a lawful good paly announces himself and gives the enemies a chance to surrender. The rest of the party, all of which are "good" characters rush in and attack the recently awakened enemies who hadn't even had a chance to grab a weapon let alone surrender. Killing about a half dozen of them while they were still prone.

Should I remind them that they are supposed to be good characters? Have NPCs harp on them? Just beat them over the head with an alignment change?

I don't see a problem with what they did. Paly's are bound by the restriction of not attacking a defenseless character but that is in addition to being Lawful good not part of being Lawful Good otherwise why mention it in the Paly code. Besides they had plenty of time to surrender talking is a free action.

[Arkaim]

I don't see a problem with what they did. Paly's are bound by the restriction of not attacking a defenseless character but that is in addition to being Lawful good not part of being Lawful Good otherwise why mention it in the Paly code. Besides they had plenty of time to surrender talking is a free action.
Unless, you know, they still haven't realized what was going on because they have just woken up. The party also apparently didn't have any reason to believe that they were going to do evil things from what I inferred from Thatguyoverther explanation of the situation.

[Mystic Muse]

Unless, you know, they still haven't realized what was going on because they have just woken up. The party also apparently didn't have any reason to believe that they were going to do evil things from what I inferred from Thatguyoverther explanation of the situation.

which is kind o WORSE than being killed in your sleep in certain cases

[Thatguyoverther]

I have usually found that players will play alignments the same way the GM does. How do your good aligned NPCs act in similar situations?

Good point. The campaign is still new, and I've yet to introduce any good characters.

Do you think inserting a good character in the campaign would help?

[mistformsquirrl]

I'll give a two-part answer here.

First, a direct response to the OP's situation -

This really depends a great deal on exactly who the enemy is.

Against a group of bandits who've been robbing the area blind, but haven't actually killed anyone - yeah, this is a problem.

Against a group of Ravagers who've been waylaying settlements and slaughtering everyone? I'd say they're fair game - with the notation that the Paladin will probably still be annoyed due to his/her Lawful side.

Nature of the foe makes a tremendous difference; though player motivation also matters a great deal as well. (Hence why I say in OOTS, V's killing the black dragons was invariably Evil; despite being almost entirely Evil creatures that got killed).

Second, an answer to the question -

Most definitely have had that problem.

Some quick examples:

I'm playing a 13 year old girl (long story, the short version being it was a very anime-style campaign and thus younger characters were the norm).

I'm introduced to the party as they enter my village - which is currently infested with ZOMBIES! My character, not yet a real adventurer, is running for her life and runs into the Chaotic Good Barbarian/Ranger PC.

I panic and mumble something at her... she says something insulting (I forget precisely what it was); and my character kicks her in the shins (for no damage).

... For this I am cut with a greatsword. <o.@>

A chaotic EVIL character I can see doing that. Even a Chaotic Neutral on a bad day. But Chaotic Good? Attacking (with intent to kill no less!) a kid after they inneffectively batted at you for being an ass during a crisis? >.<

Same character also shot another party member with a longbow shortly thereafter, after said character said "We need to leave, there are way too many of them!" - and started to retreat.

The excuse? "He was running!"

Definite alignment issue there.

--

Other examples:

Fighter doesn't like that merchant won't sell him what he wants on the cheap. So he smashes the merchant's head with his mace. Fighter is Lawful Good. ?!!?! - Strangely, DM seems to think the Fighter did the right thing !??!?!?!

I facepalm >.<

Example of my own stupidity:

I was playing a Small catgirl monk (Did I mention that i had a very anime heavy group for awhile?) and, after being attacked by an elven pirate, leaped onto his back and ripped his ears off bare handed.

After he surrendered.

... Yeah - dropped an alignment step for that one. (I earned it. Normally I'd argue "one act doesn't change your alignment" - but it was completely without justification so...)

Another:

Neutral Good sorcerer sets the town on fire to flush out an evil cult. Does not seem to understand the problem with burning a city to flush out the villains.

I (the DM) facepalm mightily.

His excuse? "Arthas did it in Warcraft III, he was a Paladin!"

(Do it with me now - *headdesk*)

... really I have a huge number of these stories unfortunately <x.x> some of the people I used to game with (and myself too at one time) seemed to view alignment one of two ways:

A) Alignment is completely and utterly rigid! You must never ever ever ever do anything even vaguely perhaps possibly out of alignment. (That means Lawful has a stick up it's rump, Good is (for reasons unknown) chaste, Chaotic is completely random, and Evil eats babies.)

B) Always Chaotic Evil (regardless of what's on the character sheet)

[Knaight]

If you're storming the castle of Vecna and the sleeping people happen to be his cannibalistic cultists then I say slay away!

Whats wrong with cannibalism? Its gross, but there is really nothing inherently wrong with it. If your killing people to eat then you are a murderer, and murder is wrong, but eating somebody after they are already dead doesn't hurt them further. It hurts the people eating them, but they brought that on themselves. I really can't see any moral problem with cannibalism, other than saying it is evil because its disgusting, which is really just a way to say very abnormal. Abnormal isn't an issue unless it causes violence, which cannibalism doesn't necessarily do.

[mistformsquirrl]

I think you might be reading more into it than necessary Knaight hehe <@_@> I think the murder part was assumed there. (I mean, cannibal cultists of an evil god typically speaking, don't wait for people to die on their own >.>)

[Thatguyoverther]

Why is looting corpses okay? Whenever I bring it up people seem to think it's fine for good characters to do.

I'm not talking about looting bad guys, but what about good npc's or party members? People usually say, "He's dead, he can't use it." or "It'll help the party." But don't the characters have an obligation to return the items to the character's significant other or next of kin?

Or use the money to get the guy a decent burial? You know in a churchyard instead of on the side of the road.

For that matter how often do players bother to even bury the dead? The only time I can remember characters doing it was when they we're trying to fake a party members death to avoid the thieves guild.

[mistformsquirrl]

Some of that is just typical D&D fare >.> it's been lampooned pretty heavily actually <@_@> (Watch the movie "Gamers" sometime for a rather hilarious example of looting your fallen friends >.>) - Looting the dead is a staple of RPGs; usually it's the enemy, but not always.


Some of it is also just plain resourcefulness - depending on the situation.


Example:

You're in the wilderness, far from civilization. Your NPC guide falls to the group of orcs you've been hunting. Given the situation, I think it's perfectly fine to loot him since he's probably got useful equipment.

You should of course probably bury him as well when time allows - players often simply forget that though.

--

To go into greater detail as far as burial goes:

This depends entirely upon the character's culture (for some, it might be much more honorable to be buried where you fell; others cremation is preferable, etc...) - and also on the resources available at the time.

I mean ideally, you want to follow their customs - however sometimes, when time is of the essence and the evil cult is nearly done with their ritual... you may have to toss them in a shallow hole marked with a sword. It's not ideal -and if you survive it's probably good to go retrieve them for a real burial; but it doesn't always work out that way.

I'm not saying it's right to always gloss these things; but adventuring does require a very different mindset than that of a modern civilian. Theoretically at least, your characters are in mortal danger at every turn; and their resources are often scant.

Looting seems to mostly be a Neutral act. (Remember, lifelong thieves can be Good after all)

[Talon Sky]

Meh. It's no fun being the hero if you can't slaughter the bad guys.

William Wallace killed some of the corrupt nobles in their sleep or when they were barely awake, and the Scottish consider him a God. ;p

[Solaris]

Does anyone else seem to have problems with "good" characters? I don't mean good characters policing the party and making sure that everyone plays nice, but "good" characters who attack with little or no provocation or loot corpses and pillage graves?

I recently had a session where one of the party breaks into an enemy base. The enemies were sleeping, and one of the characters a lawful good paly announces himself and gives the enemies a chance to surrender. The rest of the party, all of which are "good" characters rush in and attack the recently awakened enemies who hadn't even had a chance to grab a weapon let alone surrender. Killing about a half dozen of them while they were still prone.

Should I remind them that they are supposed to be good characters? Have NPCs harp on them? Just beat them over the head with an alignment change?

I imagine there's a difference between being bloodthirsty and being genre-savvy. I mean, if eight out of ten critters you encountered tried to kill you, wouldn't you be a little stab-happy?
As for looting corpses... heck, how is that evil? I just killed him for trying to kill me, he doesn't need his stuff anymore and if I gave it to his next-of-kin they'd probably try killing me with it. Paradoxically, looting graves is theft. The dead are innocent, more or less, so it is stealing from them (and their descendants) to rob the grave. Remember, in a fantasy setting, who's to say you can't take it with you to the afterlife?

I'm generally NG/LG, and I would have gagged the paladin until further notice for breaking cover by demanding the surrender of cultists. Good is not dumb. Good is not necessarily nice. Good operates with the best intentions for others, putting others before themselves. Sometimes that means you gotta do the ugly thing so other people don't have to.


Then they are following orders. They may not have chosen the most "good path", but if they believe their doing the work of a good deity, then you can't truly blame them for anything other than ignorance.

I have no problems killing people who only have ignorance to blame for trying to kill me. Even if they haven't actually tried yet. A threat to my person or the persons I care about is a threat regardless of its reasons. I am not a nice person.
I'm assuming, of course, your party had reason to believe this was an actually hostile base that would've taken them prisoner for a rather unpleasant fate if the party had allowed themselves to be captured. If not, then why wouldn't they just walk in the front door and ask to speak with Mr Crazyprophet?

[Thatguyoverther]

Meh. It's no fun being the hero if you can't slaughter the bad guys.

William Wallace killed some of the corrupt nobles in their sleep or when they were barely awake, and the Scottish consider him a God. ;p

Vlad Tepes did the same thing. Although the Transylvanian's think he is teh awesome.

[Talon Sky]

Vlad Tepes did the same thing. Although the Transylvanian's think he is teh awesome.

There ya go ;p All the cool heroes are slaughtering helpless villains! Why shouldn't your PC's be popular?

[ColdSepp]

As a player in the game, let be say this...

The paladin rolled initiative, and declared his actions.

I (goliath barbarian) beat his initiative, and declared my actions, which were wait, if they respond peaceably, don't do anything, if they keep going for their weapons, attack.

The ranger rolled below the paladin, saw the results of the successful diplomacy check, and still attacked.

At that point, I felt I had two options. Grapple the ranger, or join the attack, since, no matter what the diplomacy check is, they are going to be defending themselves when attacked.

Grappling, I seriously considered, but I didn't want to start inner party fighting. So, I had my barb say something nasty about the ranger, and fight the bad guys.

*shrug* I guess I could have done nothing, but that didn't seem right.

[Thatguyoverther]

Good is not necessarily nice. Good operates with the best intentions for others, putting others before themselves. Sometimes that means you gotta do the ugly thing so other people don't have to.


I don't think that good characters should be able to use the "end justifies the means" sort of argument.



I'm assuming, of course, your party had reason to believe this was an actually hostile base that would've taken them prisoner for a rather unpleasant fate if the party had allowed themselves to be captured. If not, then why wouldn't they just walk in the front door and ask to speak with Mr Crazyprophet?

They were sent to apprehend the Mr. Crazyprophet at night so they could get at him without the normal mob surrounding him. I guess they were afraid he might slip out the back if they knocked at the front.

[Blackknight1239]

Not sure if I really should post, but I will anyway. Hi, I'm the Paly in mentioned in the OP. Honestly, I was a little put off when it happened, and almost PM'd the player myself, but it's not really my place. Anyways, I'm a believer that one action doesn't change a person's alignment. People do do bad things, and make mistakes, that's party of being human. So, a good person gets nervous, jumps the gun, and kills someone before they could fight back, they aren't evil. Evil act, but not evil. However, if the person keeps acting in such a manner, it's grounds for alignment change. I would merely keep it to a warning at the moment. I mean, just because my Paladin doesn't alway act LG, doesn't mean he'll fall, right?

...Right? :P

[mistformsquirrl]

I think it's fair to say that being a cultural hero doesn't have much bearing on your RL alignment honestly; and alignment is... difficult to gauge in RL, at least with any accuracy.

Genghis Khan is incredibly popular in modern Mongolia. ... he also caused the deaths of millions.

Miyamoto Musashi's depictions run the gamut from relatively noble to rather bloodthirsty.

Etc...

Definitely would avoid trying to use RL cultural heroes as a template for what's "Good" (or evil for that matter). Especially given that history is in many cases rather incomplete.

Even when it is complete, you have uncomfortable facts like - for all the good a person did for their culture and people; they often times did horrifying things to others.

I guess what I mean is... it doesn't translate well, as in the real world we lack things like Orcs and Dragons - sure there are cultists, but those run the gamut from rather good to rather evil (and everything in between), etc...

*edit*

Re: Ends justify the Means -

That depends - What are the ends, and what are the means?

If the ends are Good; but the method involves the brutal slaughter of innocents - no; it is most definitely NOT a good act.

On the other hand, if it's merely underhanded (stabbing an enemy when his back is turned, dirt in the eyes, kick em in the nads etc...); then assuredly the ends DO justify the means.

That phrase unfortunately has become used as a crutch to assume that whenever a situation comes up where a person can be pragmatic or noble*, the noble option is always the better one.

Pragmatism doesn't lead to evil - what leads to evil is the willingness to do *anything* - to amend the phrase, I'd say it would be "The ends justify any means" would be the problem.

Of course whether the means are Good, Neutral or Evil depends largely on the target, the motive of the player, and the potential danger in total. Thus why blanket statements aren't particularly useful on the subject.

*Noble in this sense I take to mean "The highest high road" - that is, forthright and direct action; no deception or subterfuge etc...

[Thatguyoverther]

As a player in the game, let be say this...

The paladin rolled initiative, and declared his actions.

I (goliath barbarian) beat his initiative, and declared my actions, which were wait, if they respond peaceably, don't do anything, if they keep going for their weapons, attack.

The ranger rolled below the paladin, saw the results of the successful diplomacy check, and still attacked.

At that point, I felt I had two options. Grapple the ranger, or join the attack, since, no matter what the diplomacy check is, they are going to be defending themselves when attacked.

Grappling, I seriously considered, but I didn't want to start inner party fighting. So, I had my barb say something nasty about the ranger, and fight the bad guys.

*shrug* I guess I could have done nothing, but that didn't seem right.

I wasn't faulting your character. He's LN last I knew of, or the paladin for that matter.

But the other two seem to think that wanton violence was okay.

[Blackknight1239]

Cool post, for serious.

Well, I think the problem with comparing RL "Good and Evil" with D&D "Good and Evil" is the evil and good are objective in the D&Dverse, not subjective like in RL. There are clear cut good people, and there are clear cut evil people. Unlike IRL, where one action could be consider both, depending on your view point.

[ColdSepp]

Not sure if I really should post, but I will anyway. Hi, I'm the Paly in mentioned in the OP. Honestly, I was a little put off when it happened, and almost PM'd the player myself, but it's not really my place.

Yeah.. I didn't want to start a scene, either. Inner party harmony, and all that.

[Hat-Trick]

I think the consensus here is It could have happened batter, but it doesn't really need an alignment change. A warning should do. Maybe in character by the paladin.

[Thatguyoverther]

I almost didn't post the example in the OP. I was a little concerned guys from the game might show up. I didn't want to call anyone out.

I also almost added some stuff that would have given future plot stuff away. :smalleek:

[Blackknight1239]

Yeah.. I didn't want to start a scene, either. Inner party harmony, and all that.

Well, I think inner party conflict could be a great RPing experience, provided it's not happening every encounter and de-railing the campaign.

Btw, I totally agree with you in your previous post. I was thinking the same thing. Honestly, if the room didn't get cleaned out already, I would have tackled the Ranger myself.

[Elfin]

Does anyone else seem to have problems with "good" characters? I don't mean good characters policing the party and making sure that everyone plays nice, but "good" characters who attack with little or no provocation or loot corpses and pillage graves?

I recently had a session where one of the party breaks into an enemy base. The enemies where sleeping, and one of the characters a lawful good paly announces himself and gives the enemies a chance to surrender. The rest of the party, all of which are "good" characters rush in and attack the recently awakened enemies who hadn't even had a chance to grab a weapon let alone surrender. Killing about a half dozen of them while they were still prone.

Should I remind them that they are supposed to be good characters? Have NPCs harp on them? Just beat them over the head with an alignment change?

If I had given them time to react, I don't think they'd have thought twice about using it to their advantage. This isn't needless slaughter of innocents- these guys, even if not immediately aggressive, are villains.

[Thatguyoverther]

On a lighter note, it's pretty easy to keep an evil group evil.

[Knaight]

Of course, the people being misled peasants makes the whole thing unfortunate, but hardly evil acts. Just Fate being a fickle mistress.

[Devils_Advocate]

I recently had a session where one of the party breaks into an enemy base. The enemies where sleeping, and one of the characters a lawful good paly announces himself and gives the enemies a chance to surrender.
So... the paladin wakes up the sleeping enemies? Without previously discussing this with the group? And instead of trying to tie them up in their sleep or something?

That's pretty stupid at best and criminally negligible at worst.


The rest of the party, all of which are "good" characters rush in and attack the recently awakened enemies who hadn't even had a chance to grab a weapon let alone surrender. Killing about a half dozen of them while they were still prone.
How Evil that is depends on how dangerous the enemies are they think the enemies are. Heck, how dangerous the enemies are to others determines whether even attempting to capture them would be Evil.


They kind of were. They are followers of a 'prophet' who hasn't been sanctioned by the church. He preaches about impending doom on street corners. The powers that be want him dead because he's making waves. Even if the prophet where evil, he's supposed to be charismatic and his followers are by and large uneducated commoners who couldn't argue theology if their lives depended on it.
So, what, the PCs took a job to kill a dude because the establishment finds him threatening? If that's the plot, I find it weird that they or you would want their characters to be considered Good.


Should I remind them that they are supposed to be good characters? Have NPCs harp on them? Just beat them over the head with an alignment change?
Yes. :smalltongue:

Ask them if they think their actions were compatible with Good alignment, and if so, why. If you disagree with their responses, explain why.


I'm not talking about looting bad guys, but what about good npc's or party members? People usually say, "He's dead, he can't use it." or "It'll help the party." But don't the characters have an obligation to return the items to the character's significant other or next of kin?
No, there's a general understanding amongst Good-aligned adventurers that valuable tools in the fight against Evil should remain in the hands of Good-aligned adventurers. Heck, if they didn't think that they should have them, they'd give their own stuff away to others!


Or use the money to get the guy a decent burial? You know in a churchyard instead of on the side of the road.
Burial in a churchyard? In the D&D world, you should either get someone resurrected or cremate him so that he doesn't rise up as an undead. Those are the sensible options.

Now, if the actual implicit understanding is "We're not gonna get that NPC raised from the dead because we want to raise our party wealth, not lower it, duh", that's non-Good.

[Blackknight1239]

If I had given them time to react, I don't think they'd have thought twice about using it to their advantage. This isn't needless slaughter of innocents- these guys, even if not immediately aggressive, are villains.

Not necessarily. I mean, we had previous knowledge that they were mislead and such, thus only the truely dedicated would defy the will of the Emperor, IMO. Now, if after that they attack, well, I think kill them would be okay.

[Thatguyoverther]

So... the paladin wakes up the sleeping enemies? Without previously discussing this with the group? And instead of trying to tie them up in their sleep or something?

That's pretty stupid at best and criminally negligible at worst.


I disagree. At least here in America police officers are required by law to give a criminal/suspected criminal an ultimatum and a chance to surrender before opening fire.

And sneaking in and tying them up might not have been an option. They could see at least one light on in the building, so someone was awake. The door was already kicked open, there wasn't much time for group discussion.




So, what, the PCs took a job to kill a dude because the establishment finds him threatening? If that's the plot, I find it weird that they or you would want their characters to be considered Good.




I'd explain my reasons more, but the PCs are watching.

[Solaris]

I don't think that good characters should be able to use the "end justifies the means" sort of argument.
Nor do I. Killing a village to get at an unholy scion is still an evil act. Killing an unholy scion while it's still just a baby is an ugly act, but still a non-Evil/arguably Good one. Good characters still have lines they won't cross, but that doesn't mean Good characters can't be ruthless or even mean.


They were sent to apprehend the Mr. Crazyprophet at night so they could get at him without the normal mob surrounding him. I guess they were afraid he might slip out the back if they knocked at the front.
Heheh. We run into the same problem when we have to do a tactical callout on a high-value target. 'S why we put a guy on the back door. Preferred method is still "Go in there and kill everyone we don't need to stay alive". Prisoners are real pesky in that they might not stay prisoners, especially if you don't have some way of reliably incapacitating them.
This is assuming, of course, there's reason to believe this cult is dangerous. Seeing as how a Good-aligned church wouldn't send adventurers after a cult that believed in the sanctity of fluffy bunnies and hugs, I'm thinking 'dangerous cult' is a safe bet.


I disagree. At least here in America police officers are required by law to give a criminal/suspected criminal an ultimatum and a chance to surrender before opening fire.
The Iron Age (D&D isn't Middle Ages, it's Middle Age tech in Iron Age culture) isn't America. Besides, I'm betting a lot of policemen find it necessary to give out an ultimatum after the fact. I know if soldiers had to issue out an ultimatum every time someone pointed an AK at them, it'd be a sorry day. That's a slightly different situation, though. Your party wasn't yet in clear and present danger and didn't have proper probable cause that the enemy was an enemy.


And sneaking in and tying them up might not have been an option. They could see at least one light on in the building, so someone was awake. The door was already kicked open, there wasn't much time for group discussion.
Sleep spells or similar incapacitance not available, then really lethal combat and treating the survivors after the objective is achieved is really the only viable option.
It's always handy to discuss a battle-plan before kicking in the door.

[Thatguyoverther]

This is assuming, of course, there's reason to believe this cult is dangerous. Seeing as how a Good-aligned church wouldn't send adventurers after a cult that believed in the sanctity of fluffy bunnies and hugs, I'm thinking 'dangerous cult' is a safe bet.

Yarg!:smallmad: Quit poking at my plot while the PC's are watching.

It makes sense, I swear.

[Blackknight1239]

Lol, it's not like it's a super-dangerous-rat-poison-in-the-kool-aid kind of cult. It's just some wack job say things he shouldn't. Of course, the church dislikes this, so we got called in. :smallcool:

[mistformsquirrl]

Gonna disagree with that first point there Solaris.

You need to make sure there's very specific information on these evil scion before comitting to an action like that - and I'd very much say it could almost never be a Good act.

The questions that have to be asked are:

A) Is this being guaranteed (I don't mean "probably" - I mean literally 100%) to be evil? Perhaps raising it in a different environment would alter things?

B) Is there no other way? Is there a curse that can be broken? A blessing granted? Some other possible touch of goodness to dispel the evil?

This is the stuff of legend and heroism - a child, even one imbued by evil; is not a threat yet, and not guaranteed to be one barring specific circumstances.

It's one thing to gut a reaver who's murdered a village in his sleep; but a child has yet to truly demonstrate the potential for evil - let alone their evil proclivities. Prophesy just isn't good enough for me in that regard.

At the very worst: Gate the child to Celestia - let beings of Pure Law and Good sort out what to do with it.

*edit*

@Thatguyoverthere -

I don't think the police example flies.

First - You aren't the police; who are by definition upholding Law and Order in order to protect the citizens - usually from those among them who would do them harm.

You're closer to soldiers - though even that's a thin comparison because you lack the support of a massive organization behind you most often.

No... even the best of Good characters fall under the traditional purview of the mercenary. That doesn't mean money is their primary objective - but it's going to lead to decisions that simply do not fly from using an example like that.

There's also the fact that while D&D does use a great many modern sensibilities - it also hearkens back to the middle ages; which were to be blunt, quite brutal. That doesn't mean a good character can or should get away with doing the kind of stuff real medieval people all too often did... but you've got to remember that we're very often not dealing with the same type of world.

This is the kind of world where public executions still occur remember - often with an axe by beheading. (More creative methods occur in nastier areas).

I only mention that because sometimes I think people forget that real life morality doesn't quite mesh with D&D morality. I mean it's a solid baseline in many cases; but using examples like US police isn't particularly compelling given the vastly different natures of the worlds, ya know?

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm talking about non-lethally incapacitating people so that you don't need to open fire, though.

I really think that the group should have been on the same page about whether they wanted cultists they encountered to surrender or be killed before they broke into their base. As it was, they wound up working at cross purposes a bit, didn't they?

Well, hopefully they'll learn that they need to discuss group tactics more in the future.

[Solaris]

Yarg!:smallmad: Quit poking at my plot while the PC's are watching.

It makes sense, I swear.
Hee.
Just have them get back and their superior yell at them, "You were supposed to not kill everyone! What kind of sick people leaps to wanton murder as a first resort?"


Gonna disagree with that first point there Solaris.

You need to make sure there's very specific information on these evil scion before comitting to an action like that - and I'd very much say it could almost never be a Good act.

The questions that have to be asked are:

A) Is this being guaranteed (I don't mean "probably" - I mean literally 100%) to be evil? Perhaps raising it in a different environment would alter things?
Yeah. It's a monster template from the back of Heroes of Horror. Basically, a demon replaces the unborn child's soul. We're talking Omen-quality evil chitlin.


B) Is there no other way? Is there a curse that can be broken? A blessing granted? Some other possible touch of goodness to dispel the evil?
Possibly a rightly-worded wish from a high power. The kind of reality-reworking that's well beyond what most anyone could reasonably hope to access. You're wishing for a demon to be not-evil... So it's really setting-dependent. As it's written in HoH, not so much.


This is the stuff of legend and heroism - a child, even one imbued by evil; is not a threat yet, and not guaranteed to be one barring specific circumstances.
Unholy scions are threats in the womb. They're active and intelligent before birth, able to influence their mothers and those around them into committing evil acts.


It's one thing to gut a reaver who's murdered a village in his sleep; but a child has yet to truly demonstrate the potential for evil - let alone their evil proclivities. Prophesy just isn't good enough for me in that regard.
Clearly, you've never had to sit in the back of a car in between two six-year-olds.


At the very worst: Gate the child to Celestia - let beings of Pure Law and Good sort out what to do with it.
... No truer definition of hate mail yet exists.
That's actually not a bad idea - if you have access to a Gate. If you're a sixth-level adventurer in a setting where high-level spellcasters won't give you the time of day, you're stuck with somewhat more mundane means.


I'm talking about non-lethally incapacitating people so that you don't need to open fire, though.

I really think that the group should have been on the same page about whether they wanted cultists they encountered to surrender or be killed before they broke into their base. As it was, they wound up working at cross purposes a bit, didn't they?

Well, hopefully they'll learn that they need to discuss group tactics more in the future.
Amen to the group tactics. My D&D party actually has written standardized operating procedures (benefits to everyone being in the Army, heheh) for what we're gonna do and how we're gonna do it. I'm betting the 'working at cross-purposes' woulda made for a rather comical moment.

[Devils_Advocate]

Yarg!:smallmad: Quit poking at my plot while the PC's are watching.
We don't need to talk about how things are behind the scenes, just how they seem to the PCs.

Assuming that we're not treating morality as a crapshoot; that beheading an Evil quasit glamered to look like an innocent baby is Evil, and beheading an innocent baby glamered to look like an Evil quasit isn't Evil (just unfortunate).

[mistformsquirrl]

@Solaris - Ahh, see once you know for sure that it is, in fact a demon (and not just a child 'infected' with evil) - then yeah, it's probably OK. But that's why you have to ask those questions first and do the legwork to investigate them

You can't jump at it without asking, because at least to me, that's little better than burning the village to clear it of 'taint'. >.< Once you know for sure... that might be the only option; though it's definitely not pretty.

Also, I admit, I rofl'd at the "hate mail" thing lol

Seriously though, it depends mostly on the campaign setting there and also the high level casters you can find access to. The high priestess of a Good church might do it for free. A wizard might do it on commission (It'll be pricey, but good characters should probably be willing to drop the money on it).

[Thatguyoverther]

We don't need to talk about how things are behind the scenes, just how they seem to the PCs.

Assuming that we're not treating morality as a crapshoot; that beheading an Evil quasit glamered to look like an innocent baby is Evil, and beheading an innocent baby glamered to look like an Evil quasit isn't Evil (just unfortunate).

I guess I'll let you make the decision. The NPC who sent them on the missions exact words were:

"Your probably wondering why I gathered you all here." He sighs leaning back in his chair. He then recites what seems like a rehearsed speech. "I've called you all here because the empire needs you. For more than one reason. The empire needs men like you to do the things that the empire can't be seen doing. To remove the threats to the empire and her people.

The empire also needs men like you to stand in front, and be seen by the people of the empire. To serve as a shining example for others to follow. A rallying cry for the people. What do you say, will you be my trouble shooters? Hero's for the empire?

This business at hand in rather... sensitive. This is Petre Thanos, a cobbler turned holy man, known to many as the "Shoemaker Prophet." He's been preaching that the end is nigh, that the final battle is at hand and the empire is about to crumble. His preaching has been stirring up the people, and so far two riots have started. We think he might also be connected with the death of ambassador Abbadi of Marukan. He's almost always surrounded by his followers, and any attempt to apprehend him has been met with violence."

We need to apprehend him quietly so the church can do a full inquiry. We also can't let him die, certainly not in public. His followers are bothersome now, but if he's made into a martyr, they could become more fanatical.

That's where you come in. Do you think your up to it?"

[JonestheSpy]

Something that seems to be missing from this: what were the goals of this 'raid'? I mean, think about this in real life terms - a police raid would want to arrest people, ideally the ringleaders, not slaughter flunkies. A military raid would probably want to achieve some strategic objective - capture or eliminate leaders, control a valuable asset or geographical location, or something similar.

On the other hand, the standard rpg/video game plan of "Invade complex and kill everyone we find" would just be insanely evil by any realisitic standard. Especially in light of the scenario the OP laid out - regular folks who are following what the authorites deem the Wrong Religion. That sounds like the Inquisition more than anything else.

[Guancyto]

"We need to apprehend him quietly so the church can do a full inquiry. We also can't let him die, certainly not in public. His followers are bothersome now, but if he's made into a martyr, they could become more fanatical."

And they killed all the followers in their semi-sleep? o_O The PR department will be working triple overtime!

They should get some serious "you're a loose cannon" chewing out, but it's also really the church's fault for pulling in a random bunch of mercenaries and not bothering to make clear that doing that sort of thing would be a really bad idea.

What you describe is a failure to communicate clearly enough that "these are probably not bad guys, and the ringleader may well not be a bad guy either," not really an evil act. Most of the party's actions are SOP for dealing with evildeathgod cults, and even a Good-ish barbarian or the like might have to be told not to kill everyone before he considers the idea of nonlethal damage and subterfuge.

[Baalthazaq]

Determine what is good in your world.

You are the DM, you can decide these things.

With moral objectivism like "What's wrong with X when you really think about it" where X is so far in this thread, Cannibalism, Grave Robbing, Murdering unarmed, sleeping subjects for their faith, you can't win.

Decide, from the beginning what makes an act good.
In my campaign worlds:
Good is Altruism. Evil is Selfishness.
Lawful is obedient to those above you. Chaotic is disobedient to those above you.

I then judge all acts from there.

It doesn't matter what "True Goodness" is in real life, because that is a lifetime of philosophical debate with no real answer. It is a word we made up to describe something we don't fully understand.

Decide and implement, or don't have alignments.
Either way: Have the NPCs treat them accordingly for their actions. If they rob graves have them chased out of town, if they fight the people chasing them, have them flagged as troublemakers by a higher power, etc.

"But it was a good act" doesn't fly with an angry mob.
Hours of philosophy, epistemology and rules lawyering doesn't really matter to the angry level 20 Fighter whose wife they just dug up to steal her jewelry.
"But in the grand scheme of things, who are we to judge what is good and what is evil?" doesn't compete with "Grave robbers eh?! Clearly some sort of Necromancer's hirelings, quickly, you go tell the church while I turn them to stone!".

[Devils_Advocate]

My opinion is that Good is trying to help others and Evil is trying to hurt others (whether as a means or an end). (Law is showing respect for the establishment and Chaos is showing disdain for the establishment.)

Hmmm. Those orders do sort of leave open how big of a threat the guy's followers might represent. The notion that their information is sufficient cause for killing them seems a bit dubious at best. All things considered, though, I think that's they're mostly guilty of ineptitude on the "apprehend quietly" front. :smalltongue:

The NPC makes it sound like he's hiring the PCs because he's OK with them (but not the Empire) using questionable means to achieve their objective. At least his words could certainly be taken that way. So he might wind up punishing them, but mostly to maintain plausible deniability.

[Thatguyoverther]

Yup. That's basically what I was aiming for.

"The empire needs men like you to do the things that the empire can't be seen doing. To remove the threats to the empire and her people."

[Baalthazaq]

My opinion is that Good is trying to help others and Evil is trying to hurt others (whether as a means or an end). (Law is showing respect for the establishment and Chaos is showing disdain for the establishment.)

Almost exactly what I just said.
Altruism vs Selfishness, the only difference with mine is, it has something to do with yourself.

"Charity is not throwing the dog a bone when you're not hungry, charity is sharing your bone with the dog when you are". - Paraphrased from Jack London.

Similarly, it's not really a good act to give someone food when you're done with it. It's neutral. You don't care one way or another. It would be evil to throw it away for no reason, thus letting someone starve.

Giving someone food when you are hungry... good points easily.

[Evilfeeds]

I hate these sort of threads, because half the posts are always inevitably filled with stupid, but I will share this:

Ignoring practicality / greater good (which most people seem to do):

Killing is an evil act.
PCs kill monsters.
No PC is in d&d can EVER be good.[1]


I personally go with the concept of "killing is not an evil act, as long you act in the greater good", but unfortunately people seems to prefer black and white morality. [2]

Incidentally, there is NO difference between killing someone who is awake and killing someone in their sleep (aside from a code of honour, but that only applies to lawful characters, and then only a small percentage of them).


[1] unless you roleplay a political or merchant campaign, but I consider D&D an inferior system for that sorta thing.

[2] Yeah, I know its D&D, and Good and evil are NOT subjective, but that still doesnt mean killing an evil creature is an evil act.

[Hat-Trick]

In a world of resurrection and speaking with the dead, killing isn't as evil as it is in real life. In fact, I had an idea for a government that would kill anyone accused of heinous crimes and judge using Speak with Dead. If they were right, the person stays in the soul sucking dagger. If they were wrong, "Oops, sorry for the mix up." *Rez*.

[Random832]

In a world of resurrection and speaking with the dead, killing isn't as evil as it is in real life. In fact, I had an idea for a government that would kill anyone accused of heinous crimes and judge using Speak with Dead. If they were right, the person stays in the soul sucking dagger. If they were wrong, "Oops, sorry for the mix up." *Rez*.

In addition to providing the expensive diamonds for raising, do they also provide compensation for the lost level or Con point (or, alternately, use the even more expensive True Res)

[Solaris]

In addition to providing the expensive diamonds for raising, do they also provide compensation for the lost level or Con point (or, alternately, use the even more expensive True Res)

Hm. I imagine instead of being the ordinary procedure, it's the appeals process for criminals convicted of capital crimes.

[Jayabalard]

Whats wrong with cannibalism?Mad cow.
besides, Vecna's cannibalistic cultists don't just eat dead people, they go out of their way to make more dead people.


Killing is an evil act.I'd have to disagree; in and of itself, killing is a neutral act. Murder is evil (that's killing + malice aforethought), as is killing an innocent (even when it's "for the greater good").

[Deepblue706]

Does anyone else seem to have problems with "good" characters? I don't mean good characters policing the party and making sure that everyone plays nice, but "good" characters who attack with little or no provocation or loot corpses and pillage graves?

I recently had a session where one of the party breaks into an enemy base. The enemies where sleeping, and one of the characters a lawful good paly announces himself and gives the enemies a chance to surrender. The rest of the party, all of which are "good" characters rush in and attack the recently awakened enemies who hadn't even had a chance to grab a weapon let alone surrender. Killing about a half dozen of them while they were still prone.

Should I remind them that they are supposed to be good characters? Have NPCs harp on them? Just beat them over the head with an alignment change?

The situation may deem it non-evil, but the only possibly explanations for this action comes down to "The Ends Justify the Means", which by some moral codes, such as Kantism, is not good.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the characters are not good, any longer. Alignment should represent what a person is most likely to do, and shouldn't change with every single encounter. Only classes with specific codes, such as the Paladin, should be expected to make every action a good one. I expect others to vary, but still be mostly good.

This is not to say that I think it's fine to sometimes be evil; no, generally an explicitly evil action is very significant for a good character. I think Good characters who perform an evil action would often become Neutral, whereas a Neutral character who did something evil would lean closer to Evil, but stay Neutral until more is done to reinforce the alignment change.

I've never really had alignment troubles like these with my players, but I would suggest talking to them about it, briefly. You can have NPCs judge them, but don't be too harsh. Because after all, enforcing your own preconceptions of Good onto other people will be seen as kind of annoying when morality continues to be something that we all have trouble defining today.

[hamishspence]

According to Champions of Ruin, "The Ends justify the Means" is one of the ways a character can become evil.

It also says that alignment should be judged primarily by methods- regardless of motivations, if character more often uses evil methods than good, they should be given an Evil alignment.

Several Evil characters do fit the archetype, including Michael Ambrose, the witch slayer in Tome of Magic.

[Mike_G]

This is why I hate Alignment.

Almost any situation with the slightest shade of grey can be turned into an unending philosophical debate.

What the real issue is, is that the players need to be on the same page as to where they draw the line.

The DEA clearing a crackhouse would not consider killing everyone crawling out from under the covers to be appropriate. A Delta Force team taking down a house where Osama bin Laden is hiding with a squad of his bodyguards would probably be cool with it.

The thing is, professionals who use lethal force all have Rules of Engagement that say when one should and should not kill somebody. This can be as loose as "The target is in the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong uniform" up to as restrictive as "Don't shoot until he actually shoots at you."

The game is about combat. Even Paladins, the most goody two shoes class in the book, has special abilities to deal more damage not subdue foes, so hitting the bad guys with a sharp hunk of metal is pretty much implied to be OK. Rogues get a special ability to hurt defenseless people even more than aware people, but they can still be good. "Good" and "Evil" don't really apply to killing per se, more to whom you kill, and why you killed them.

I would sit everyone down OOC and work out rules of engagement that everyone is happy with. Chances are, if the characters fight for a living, they've dealt with them before.

And you, as a DM, already introduced the shades of grey thing by hiring people to do things that "The Empire can't be seen doing." This is not generally Knight in Shining Armor stuff. James Bond is far less concerned about fair that Sir Launcelot, and you gave them a much more Bond mission. You kinda have to expect them to act less like Boy Scouts than if the job was "rescue the Princess from the Evil Necromancer."

[Devils_Advocate]

Incidentally, there is NO difference between killing someone who is awake and killing someone in their sleep
Yes, there is. A sleeping individual isn't an immediate threat. That's not to say that killing is necessarily unjustified, but there is a difference.


Similarly, it's not really a good act to give someone food when you're done with it. It's neutral. You don't care one way or another. It would be evil to throw it away for no reason, thus letting someone starve.
You're contradicting yourself. If you genuinely don't care about someone else at all one way or another, then you won't act in order to help him. You might give your food to a starving homeless guy or toss it in a trash can based on which one is closer to you, for example.

My baseline for alignment is that inaction and indifference are definitionally Neutral. Actively helping others is Good and actively hurting others is Evil.

Normal humans will often help others when it doesn't cost them anything, but this tends to balance out those cases in which they exploit others. So the guy who won't reach a branch into the river to help a drowning man is probably Evil -- not because his inaction is Evil, but because he probably does as much Evil as a normal human without balancing it out with Good deeds. He could also possibly be a hardcore Neutral type who won't help anyone for free but also won't harm innocents; but most people aren't like that.

I can see how an Altruism/Selfishness dichotomy looks like it makes sense at first glance. It's about the relative value you place on your own welfare and that of others: Hurting others to help yourself is considered Evil, hurting yourself to help others is considered Good, and helping yourself by helping others is Neutral. So far, this seems to make sense.

However, what about making significant personal sacrifices in order to hurt someone else, e.g. for revenge? Should this also be considered Neutral?

Should a lazy guy who won't get up off his ass to work for himself or others be considered the same alignment as someone who works hard for both himself and others?

And finally, should it really be counted as less moral to help others in a way that doesn't harm yourself, instead of in a way that does harm you? The path requiring more personal sacrifice might even be less beneficial to others, in some cases. Is it still more virtuous? 'Cuz that seems pretty wacky. (For example: A demigod of healing can heal people by giving them his blood to drink, and also simply by laying hands on them. Is giving them his blood more Good because it's less pleasant for him?)

For all of those reasons, I say: Good isn't at all about hurting yourself; Good is entirely about helping others. Evil isn't at all about helping yourself; it's entirely about hurting others.

That's non-RAW, of course: Altruism is treated as Good. But note that cruelty, not selfishness, is Evil. I think we can agree that it makes more sense for Good and Evil to be opposites of each other. And personally, I think that a beneficence/cruelty dichotomy makes more sense for the Good/Evil axis than an altruism/selfishness dichotomy.

[Hat-Trick]

I agree that Good/Evil is Help/Hurt, not Selfless/Selfish. Selfish is more Chaotic in a way.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Quotations are helpful:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.A sneak attack is by no means Not Good - surprising your enemies allows you to end the conflict with less risk to your allies. However, once it is clear that the PCs have won, a Good PC should seek to avoid unnecessary slaughter; in general, slitting people's throats while they sleep is considered unnecessary slaughter.
In this situation, the Paladin did not have to wake up the enemy - he could have sent a stealthy guy in to round up the weapons and then wake the baddies up once the PCs were in a superior position. Then he could have demanded their surrender - and likely would have got it.

Now, do Good characters always need to take prisoners? No. If the enemy is fighting to the death or if the battle is so pitched that there is no time for mercy then they can, of course, fight to defend their own lives and the lives of others. However, a surrendering or helpless living foe should never be cut down - unless, of course, the PC believes the surrender to be insincere. Elan and Lord Kubota (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html) provide a good example of Good behavior.
Now, is this a problem endemic to D&D? Not particularly - PCs from various RPGs often ruthlessly murder their foes with little provocation, regardless of their supposed moral outlook. One problem in D&D is that the idea of the "dungeon crawl" makes the random slaughter of monsters seem legitimate. In truth, killing bad guys in a classic dungeon crawl usually is a result of pure life-and-death struggle; bad guys rarely surrender and never ask for quarter.

Sidenote: grave robbing and looting the dead are not Non-Good acts; nothing in the Good description seems to apply here. It is certainly true that disrespecting funerary traditions is Non-Lawful, but aside from a few specifically Evil acts (creating undead) the Good side of the alignment does not seem to apply.

[Baalthazaq]

Altruism and Selfishness are opposites more than Altruism and Cruelty are.
The opposite of Cruelty is Kindness.

Altruism is caring for other more than you care for yourself. It has nothing to do with kindness, other than that is how it manifests.

Basically however, my campaign worlds don't reward players who are kind at no cost to themselves. A man who gives his only source of water to someone else, is more good, than a man who gives water he was going to throw away to someone else. It is not volume of water that determines the goodness.

If you accept that, then you also inherently suggest that there is more to goodness than the acts themselves.

Also, when I said "give someone your food", I didn't mean necessarily with action on your part. You finish, he says "Can I have it" and you say yes. (if you really want to be pedantic about how neutral you have to be, you don't say yes, you do nothing other than go about your daily business, but leave the food there). I personally don't think Neutral means you don't react to stimulus. Just cos you're playing a druid doesn't mean you're roleplaying a plant.

You're also forgetting that Neutral in DnD leans good, because Neutral characters would rather live in a good world than an evil one.

[Baalthazaq]

I agree that Good/Evil is Help/Hurt, not Selfless/Selfish. Selfish is more Chaotic in a way.

Sorry, also: Lawful Evil is using the law to your own needs, not "using the law to be cruel". It seems a very silly villain that "abuses the law selflessly to hurt the population".

Let me put it another way.

Good = The good of the many outweighs the good of me.
Neutral = The good of the many is equal to the good of me.
Evil = The good of the many is not worth the good of me.

Lawful = My superiors(and/or lawmakers) know better than I do.
Neutral = My superiors know as well as I do.
Chaotic = I know better than my superiors.

Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a "what is good/evil/lawful/chaotic" debate, my whole point is, as the DM you can decide. It doesn't matterif the party disagrees, and I don't mean railroad your players. Very few people agree on alignment, that's why you take a stand, to consistently hold the world together, otherwise it devolves into this thread every session.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter how you set alignment up. The NPCs still have their own opinions on what the PCs are doing. If they think it is an evil act, they can act accordingly. The characters may (possibly even should) even disagree with the DM at times.

It may also be more relevant for what your god NPCs think if they play a role. I hate when all the gods agree with the DM. I hate it a lot. One thinks cannibalism is cool, on thinks it is an abomination, one raises the undead and pillages villages, yet all are in complete agreement with the DM as to what the characters are doing is "Good" or "Bad".

It's ridiculous.

[Devils_Advocate]

Altruism and Selfishness are opposites more than Altruism and Cruelty are.
The opposite of Cruelty is Kindness.
Exactly. Hence it makes more sense for Good to be Kindness than Altruism, since RAW Evil is definitely Cruelty. From the SRD:


Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “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.

You're also forgetting that Neutral in DnD leans good, because Neutral characters would rather live in a good world than an evil one.
Typical Neutral people will tend to choose Good over Evil, all else being equal. (Note: All else is never actually equal. :smalltongue: But it's nice to have a baseline to work from.) Super hardcore devotees of Neutrality are hardly typical Neutral people, though. Ordinary people happen to be Neutral; they're neither precisely nor fundamentally Neutral.


It seems a very silly villain that "abuses the law selflessly to hurt the population".
What about a villain who harshly punishes anyone who defies his will, on the principle that he won't put up with being deified? Even though this makes his life harder?


I hate it a lot. One thinks cannibalism is cool, on thinks it is an abomination, one raises the undead and pillages villages, yet all are in complete agreement with the DM as to what the characters are doing is "Good" or "Bad".

It's ridiculous.
No, the gods don't agree on whether things are good or bad, they agree on whether they're Good or Evil because they have a good understanding of how alignment works.

It's basically a terminology problem. Replace "Good" and "Evil" with "Kind" and "Cruel", or "Altruistic" and "Selfish", or whatever you're running them as, and then the problem goes away; characters in the game world can now use the terms "good" and "evil" like people do in the real world.

[Baalthazaq]

No, the gods don't agree on whether things are good or bad, they agree on whether they're Good or Evil because they have a good understanding of how alignment works.

Erm, this is DnD. Whilst similar to Oots, it isn't oots. The Gods do not have "an understanding of how alignment works" any more than they have "an understanding of the D20 system".

They disagree a hell of a lot, even amongst same alignment gods, between editions, between alignment styles, between campaign worlds.


What about a villain who harshly punishes anyone who defies his will, on the principle that he won't put up with being deified? Even though this makes his life harder?

What about him?
1) That is almost textbook chaotic evil. It is how both demons and drow operate.
2) I really don't see what that example is trying to say? Are you suggesting that it's the same as my example of a silly villain? Are you suggesting that I only intended for gain to be a motivator? Vanity is still a reason, and it still fits fine in my original setup.

[hamishspence]

Altruism is not always good, even in BoED D&D, nor Self-sacrifice- if the guy you are being altruistic toward, is using that altruism for evil, and you know it.

An Evil cleric spending his own valuable resources to heal/resurrect Evil minions, is't being good merely because its costing him a lot in time, resources, etc.

Nor is an evil soldier diving in front of the arrows fired at his commander, being good, when he knows what will happen thanks to his commander being saved.

Conversely, a guy who helps people for money, isn't being evil because of his selfish motivations- evil implies causing at least some harm, even if not necessarily a lot.

[Coidzor]

Hmm, my Good characters have usually insisted upon burning the bodies of their fallen enemies, though that might have been more due to the fact that they were clerics and believed that the dead who weren't seen to would arise as undead.

[Baalthazaq]

Altruism is not always good, even in BoED D&D, nor Self-sacrifice- if the guy you are being altruistic toward, is using that altruism for evil, and you know it.

An Evil cleric spending his own valuable resources to heal/resurrect Evil minions, is't being good merely because its costing him a lot in time, resources, etc.

Nor is an evil soldier diving in front of the arrows fired at his commander, being good, when he knows what will happen thanks to his commander being saved.

Conversely, a guy who helps people for money, isn't being evil because of his selfish motivations- evil implies causing at least some harm, even if not necessarily a lot.

But you've stopped asking questions at the point where you've made your point. How is it altruistic to say **** the many, I'll be selfless to the few. You are maintaining power for your own group, aiding your own group, resurrecting your own group, without giving any heed to the many more not in your "we". That's Selfishness on a grand scale, even if you're being altruistic on a small scale.

With what I said before:

Good = The good of the many outweighs the good of me.
Neutral = The good of the many is equal to the good of me.
Evil = The good of the many is not worth the good of me.

Lawful = My superiors(and/or lawmakers) know better than I do.
Neutral = My superiors know as well as I do.
Chaotic = I know better than my superiors.

Your soldier is lawful, not good.
Your cleric doesn't serve the good of the many, he serves the good of the some(his own group) against the good of the many.
The mercenary isn't evil or good from your description. You haven't described his alignment. You've described his job. He's not being selfish necessarily, why did he take that job? Would he equally well take a job killing peasants for the same cash?

I wouldn't give the mercenary good points for his acts. I wouldn't give him evil points. He isn't putting the many before himself. He isn't putting himself before the many. Neutral all the way until he starts doing something that actually has alignment implications.

[Devils_Advocate]

Erm, this is DnD. Whilst similar to Oots, it isn't oots. The Gods do not have "an understanding of how alignment works" any more than they have "an understanding of the D20 system".
Um, alignment isn't like BAB and hit points. It's an actual element of a D&D setting, not just an aspect of the system. The forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos actually exist within the game world. There are spells that characters can use to detect them.

A god's cleric has to be within one step of his alignment. A cleric can't cast spells opposed to his deity's alignment. A cleric detects as the alignment of his god, even more strongly than he detects as his own. Deities are outsiders with alignment subtypes matching their alignments; they're physically made of Good, Evil, Law, and/or Chaos, and reside on planes of existence also made of those things. Deities are strongly associated with alignment in D&D. Even in cases where this doesn't make much sense because a god's philosophy isn't really tied to an alignment.

You could say that not every god is a strong supporter of his alignment. But even so, his surroundings and his relationship to his clerics are partially defined by alignment. And we're talking about beings with superhuman mental abilities and senses, here. It's not gonna take them that long to clue in to what's going on.


Are you suggesting that I only intended for gain to be a motivator?
That's what I took "selfishness" to mean: pursuit of personal gain. If that's not what you mean, what do you mean? Pursuing one's own ends? Because everyone does that all the time. Even if you're making sacrifices to help others, that's because helping others is something you want to do.


How is it altruistic to say **** the many, I'll be selfless to the few.
Um, by definition? Aren't "selfless" and "altruistic" synonyms?


You are maintaining power for your own group, aiding your own group, resurrecting your own group, without giving any heed to the many more not in your "we". That's Selfishness on a grand scale, even if you're being altruistic on a small scale.
No, it's cruel on a grand scale, not selfish. Selfishness is concern for oneself, not one's in-group.


Your cleric doesn't serve the good of the many, he serves the good of the some(his own group) against the good of the many.
"Many" means "a lot", not "all". Saying that the many means everyone is equivocal.


why did he take that job?
For money. That's the stated motivation, if you're referring to hamishspence's third example (which actually isn't specifically a mercenary).


Would he equally well take a job killing peasants for the same cash?

Neutral all the way until he starts doing something that actually has alignment implications.
Well, now, wait a minute. Are you saying that Evil is willingness to hurt others, or that it's actually hurting others? They're not the same thing.

[Tallis]

I guess I'll let you make the decision. The NPC who sent them on the missions exact words were:

"Your probably wondering why I gathered you all here." He sighs leaning back in his chair. He then recites what seems like a rehearsed speech. "I've called you all here because the empire needs you. For more than one reason. The empire needs men like you to do the things that the empire can't be seen doing. To remove the threats to the empire and her people.

So this is basically a black-ops group? That certainly implies that they are expected to use methods that aren't necessarily good. Kind of: do what you need to do, just don't tell me about it.


The empire also needs men like you to stand in front, and be seen by the people of the empire. To serve as a shining example for others to follow. A rallying cry for the people. What do you say, will you be my trouble shooters? Hero's for the empire?

This confuses the issue a bit, but could just be taken as, keep the bad stuff secret. Play the hero in public.


This business at hand in rather... sensitive. This is Petre Thanos, a cobbler turned holy man, known to many as the "Shoemaker Prophet." He's been preaching that the end is nigh, that the final battle is at hand and the empire is about to crumble. His preaching has been stirring up the people, and so far two riots have started. We think he might also be connected with the death of ambassador Abbadi of Marukan. He's almost always surrounded by his followers, and any attempt to apprehend him has been met with violence."

This says you're going into a dangerous situation. You will be attacked by his followers when you try to take him. They may try to kill you, since we think they've done it before.


We need to apprehend him quietly so the church can do a full inquiry. We also can't let him die, certainly not in public. His followers are bothersome now, but if he's made into a martyr, they could become more fanatical.

That's where you come in. Do you think your up to it?"

At this point keeping it quiet requires them to either arrest everyone secretly, which probably isn't possible, or kill them all to keep it quiet.

You presented this cult as being a danger to the PCs and the Empire. Killing them while the PCs have the advantage is not evil, it's just good tactics. As others have said the biggest problem in this encounter was lack of group cohesion.
Grave robbing and looting bodies is standard fair in D&D. If your players have played in other campaigns they probably see it as normal. Many dungeon crawls are in ancient tombs after all.

It may be helpful if you sit down with your players and explain how things work in your world. You may think it's obvious, but that's because it's your world. Everyone comes in with their own ideas of how things are.
I tend to run a more historical medieval setting, at least as far as attitudes go. It seemed obvious to me, based on the setting, but it wasn't as obvious as I thought to my players. This has caused problems with players that came in expecting a more modern mindset. So now I make a point of telling people what to expect.

[Thatguyoverther]

This might help things. (Don't look if you're in the game.)
Seriously, don't look. Not even a little.I'm watching you!
The NPC that sent the characters on the mission isn't supposed to be a good guy, morally neutral at best. The missions point was to kind of let the players know that the NPC wasn't a good guy. The "Shoemaker Prophet" is supposed to be the good guy.

Later they'll have to choose between supporting his regime and putting down a rebellion, or helping the Lawful Good type leader of the rebellion take the throne even though it will mean civil war.

[Baalthazaq]

1) Yes, "many" doesn't mean all, it can mean some.
So, lets do some math. Lets say you help your group of 5 people selflessly, to destroy the world.

You get 5 good points (Yay) for helping them (who you dubbed "the many").
You get the remaining 7'999'999'995 bad points for screwing over many many many many manys you're for some reason not factoring in when we're discussing the good of the many.

The good of the many is not the good of "that many over there, those three guys with the hats", it is the many. Whoever you're ignoring, you're ignoring, without reason. Factor them back in.

2) You're only factoring in one type of gain. Emotional gain is as much a gain as money, which is only there for emotional gain to begin with.

3) Selflessness and Altruism are synonyms, but don't mean the exact same thing. One is: The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.
The other is: Having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.

One is not caring about yourself, one is caring about others. Both mean "to put others before yourself" so in that sense they are synonyms, but their methodology is opposite.

4) He took the job for money, but why did he take that job for money? Why not a different job for money? Would he violate his own mother for money? Would he not do anything beyond paperwork for money? His motivation is there, fair enough, but I still can't judge his alignment from it anymore than I can judge alignment from his actions if he were motivated by cake.

5) Finally, without a willingness there is no question of alignment, otherwise swords would go to hell for their actions and food would go to heaven, as well as all other inanimate objects.

I really wish people wouldn't disassociate the mind/intent/purpose/willingness of someone to perform an action with the action itself. If you have no intention of doing something, don't forsee it, don't know the consequences, don't act upon evil intent, don't have the power to circumvent it, and only have options that are effectively evil, and yet somehow perform an evil act, you are not (necessarily) an evil person.

Nor is the shoe that brought you on your way, nor is the hat you wore that day for aiding you in your journey. The very reason it is idiotic to talk of the alignments of inanimate objects is the same reason it is idiotic to judge standalone acts without their background. It also means Paladins don't instantly lose their Paladin status for "allowing innocents to die" because they didn't charge for no logical reason to any place they had the potential to be at in any horrifically convoluted sense of the word, but were not.

Day 1: Congrats you're a Paladin.
0.3 minutes later
You have failed your oath, you lose your alignment.
"WTF"
"Were you in paris?"
"Wtf? No... why the f.."
"Two people died there, had you been there you could have stopped it"
"But I couldn't have kno"
"Nope, you could have chartered a ship 6 months ago, you could have talked to an oracle, you could have been saving puppies as you went but you decided instead to quest against a dragon that would have died that year anyway thus allowing a non optimal number of people to die"
"But that's"
"Sorry, alignment doesn't care about your intent, intelligence, knowledge, or realistic capabilities. Only what happens. You are an evil person because something happened in France, thousands of miles away that you full well could have saved through massive amounts of luck and coincidence, and yet you didn't".

Willingness matters. Why is that even a question?

[Devils_Advocate]

This might help things. (Don't look if you're in the game.)
Seriously, don't look. Not even a little.I'm watching you!
The NPC that sent the characters on the mission isn't supposed to be a good guy, morally neutral at best. The missions point was to kind of let the players know that the NPC wasn't a good guy. The "Shoemaker Prophet" is supposed to be the good guy.

Later they'll have to choose between supporting his regime and putting down a rebellion, or helping the Lawful Good type leader of the rebellion take the throne even though it will mean civil war.


Instigating a civil war (or any sort of war) itself tends to be morally dubious at best. Violently deposing a regime isn't generally Lawful Good's style. LG reformers are more likely to engage in civil disobedience, showing respect for authority even while disrespecting some of its uses and some of its users.

But this prophet guy seems to think that things are inevitably going to turn violent anyway, and just wants to manage the violence as well as possible. Which could well turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy...

So, you're setting up a morally ambiguous scenario. There are basically three potential ways to run this:

(A) Good and Evil are based on the expected consequences of actions. There can be Good people on both sides of a war, each doing what they see as doing the smallest expected amount of harm.
(B) Good and Evil are based on the actual consequences of actions. This is actually extremely complicated, because you have to work out a supposedly objective model of causality, rather than just dealing with intuitive models.* It also removes a lot of moral dilemmas. When the paladins fighting on one side fall and then switch to the other side (because they've been shown which side is Good and which is Evil), there's no longer much question of which side is just.
(C) Good and Evil aren't based only on the actual nor the expected consequences of actions, but on an arbitrary list of moral guidelines. For example, bombing the headquarters of the genocidal dictator is Evil because it kills innocent civilians. But it's not Evil to cause even more deaths from lack of food and water when your army besieges his capital, because you're not directly responsible for those. This seems to be the model that the Book of Exalted Dumb uses.

I strongly recommend option (A).

*What does it really mean to say that X caused Y? Does it mean that if X hadn't happened, Y wouldn't have happened? But we can posit multiple alternate histories in which X didn't happen, with Y occurring in some of those alternate histories but not others. There is no "what really would have happened", only what really did happen.

Are the future consequences of an action predetermined? If so, doesn't that imply a deterministic universe in general, meaning that there was no alternative course of events that could have come to pass? If not, can a past action switch between being Good and being Evil as its long-term consequences play out?

And so on and so forth. This is an extremely complicated philosophical issue, which is why I recommend just not choosing (B) so that you don't have do deal with it.


The good of the many is not the good of "that many over there, those three guys with the hats", it is the many. Whoever you're ignoring, you're ignoring, without reason. Factor them back in.
"The many" is a flexible term without a fixed meaning, because that's how the definite article works. Saying that it specifically means everyone is equivocation. If what you're really concerned with is how someone's actions are expected to effect all sentient beings (a standard I endorse), then just come out and say that in the first place.

And you're not ignoring others without reason. You're ignoring them because you don't care about them. (And you don't care about them because they're not like you.)


You're only factoring in one type of gain. Emotional gain is as much a gain as money, which is only there for emotional gain to begin with.
So... what's your point here? Are you defining "selfishness" as the pursuit of personal gain, including good feelings, meaning that helping others is selfish if you do it because you enjoy it?

If not, what do you take "selfishness" to mean?


Selflessness and Altruism are synonyms, but don't mean the exact same thing. One is: The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.
The other is: Having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.

One is not caring about yourself, one is caring about others. Both mean "to put others before yourself" so in that sense they are synonyms, but their methodology is opposite.
OK, so if you're concerned with and devoted to the welfare of your in-group but not your own personal welfare, you're both unselfish and altruistic.


He took the job for money, but why did he take that job for money?
Because he wants money.


Would he violate his own mother for money?
Let's say for the sake of argument that he would, but no one has offered him money to do that yet. Do you then stand by your assessment that he's "Neutral all the way until he starts doing something that actually has alignment implications", or not?

Alternately, let's say that he wouldn't, and that he even has general compunctions against harming innocents, but he also wouldn't do anything to help anyone unless there were something in it for him. Does that reluctance to help others make him Evil, or not?


His motivation is there, fair enough, but I still can't judge his alignment from it anymore than I can judge alignment from his actions if he were motivated by cake.
His motivation is selfish, though. If Evil = selfishness, selfish people are Evil.


Willingness matters. Why is that even a question?
Nice straw man. But of course I didn't ask whether willingness to harm others is is a necessary component of Evil, but rather whether it's necessary and sufficient for Evil. I asked whether you think that Evil is willingness to harm others.

Do you?

[Baalthazaq]

"The many" is a flexible term without a fixed meaning, because that's how the definite article works. Saying that it specifically means everyone is equivocation. If what you're really concerned with is how someone's actions are expected to effect all sentient beings (a standard I endorse), then just come out and say that in the first place.

"The" anything is not as flexible as you think. "The" many, like "The" loch ness monster, or "the" tarrasque, or "the" balkans, suggests a single entity.

You even use it as such when you say "What you met Tom Cruise?" "Yup" "The Tom Cruise?!".

"The" Many is everyone. It has to be.

However, lets concede that it can be as variable as you want.
If you **** over 2 people, to help 1. You have committed two evil acts, and one good one. There is no reason to ignore that you ****ed those people over.

Why would you ignore that? Why would you ever ignore that? There is nothing in any definition variable or non variable, equivocation or not, that allows you to ignore the screwing over of others.

If it's variable, you can't possibly say "They're NOT the many", so what exactly are you arguing here?

You're playing a rewording game, but the answer doesn't change after the rewording. "The" many, "A" many, whatever. You're ****ing people over. You get evil points. More evil points than the good points you get from helping your buddy Carl when he's wiping out the world.

I can see an argument for neutral if you help one group of 5 people beat another group of 5 people, in a closed system, but it is never a closed system.


And you're not ignoring others without reason. You're ignoring them because you don't care about them. (And you don't care about them because they're not like you.)

So... what's your point here? Are you defining "selfishness" as the pursuit of personal gain, including good feelings, meaning that helping others is selfish if you do it because you enjoy it?

If not, what do you take "selfishness" to mean?

The definitions should be self explanatory.
Read up on any philosophy regarding altruism, the big question is "can it exist" because of the very problem you're ascribing to it. Even if you're doing good, you're doing so because you enjoy it, and therefore it isn't altruism.

You are making too many assumptions.

The argument from those who do think Altruism exists is: People do not only do things they enjoy. That's why altruism is specifically sacrificial in some regard when compared to kindness.


OK, so if you're concerned with and devoted to the welfare of your in-group but not your own personal welfare, you're both unselfish and altruistic.

See discussion of the many above. In a closed system yes.


"Why did he take that job for money?"
Because he wants money.

Are you doing this intentionally? Why did he take that job for money? I.e. Why did he not take another job? I'm assuming all jobs pay money. I'm assuming others were available.



Let's say for the sake of argument that he would, but no one has offered him money to do that yet. Do you then stand by your assessment that he's "Neutral all the way until he starts doing something that actually has alignment implications", or not?

Alternately, let's say that he wouldn't, and that he even has general compunctions against harming innocents, but he also wouldn't do anything to help anyone unless there were something in it for him. Does that reluctance to help others make him Evil, or not?

It depends on the severity, but for DnD restrictions I'd say that was evil or neutral. Not good. However, I'd let my players keep him as good until it was demonstrated to be false.



His motivation is selfish, though. If Evil = selfishness, selfish people are Evil.

I suppose if it were evil -> good, but it isn't. It's evil->neutral->good. This is clearly grey enough to fit in neutral.

I don't think doing a job is selfish. Selfish relates to others, and this doesn't. You are doing a job, and you are being paid for the service. You are gaining, nobody else is losing. You're not ****ing people over for you. You're not helping other people without gain. It's in between.



Nice straw man. But of course I didn't ask whether willingness to harm others is is a necessary component of Evil, but rather whether it's necessary and sufficient for Evil. I asked whether you think that Evil is willingness to harm others.

Do you?

Don't overuse the word. It's virtually an ad hominem at this point to make non sequiturs about strawmen, you're just poisoning the well by doing it, and it'll all just end in a slippery slope to doom. :P

What evil is, is separate from who is evil.

1) Your willingness is enough to make you evil.

but 2) I personally am not going to judge a character based on the thoughts I cannot read though, so you rely, as a DM, mostly on the actions and scenarios presented to make a judgement.

This makes a situation where you cannot directly observe evil. You are therefore judging characters on a different criteria from "are they evil", you are judging them on "do they act evil". this might be causing some confusion.

I also think it is why you have a problem with the Mercenary.
And by the way, he is a mercenary.

–adjective
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
–noun
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.

You cannot judge his evilness from the acts he has performed. As a DM I would not contradict the player at all. If the Player says his character is lawful evil, I'll be fine with that, if he says Chaotic good, I'll be fine with that too.

He may very well be evil, but his acts are neutral, and even his stated motivations are neutral. Stop asking me if he's evil. I don't know and nobody should know.

If he does something evil, I would judge him to be evil. He may not be so.
If he does something good, I would judge him to be good. He may not be so.
etc.

There's a difference between what the truth is and my available methods for judging it.

[ondonaflash]

Sometimes that means you gotta do the ugly thing so other people don't have to.?

... Dude. Dibs.

[Xenogears]

I find it quite hilarious that someone with a demonic avatar and someone named "Devil's_Advocate" are arguing over what is and is not evil...

[ondonaflash]

I find it quite hilarious that someone with a demonic avatar and someone named "Devil's_Advocate" are arguing over what is and is not evil...

Well, I mean, that's the definition of Devil's Advocate, its someone who takes the opposing viewpoint for purposes of reasoned debate. Usually the more unpopular viewpoint too.


Elan and Lord Kubota provide a good example of Good behavior.

Oh my god, I would have killed that bastard so hard... But then, I have a specific Rule that states "People who approach my friends with violence die in the most horrific manner I can possibly imagine at the time".

[Xenogears]

Well, I mean, that's the definition of Devil's Advocate, its someone who takes the opposing viewpoint for purposes of reasoned debate. Usually the more unpopular viewpoint too.

Yes but the literal meaning would be "person who represents the devil." Either way it was just an amusing thought. Besides its not just for the purpose of reasoned debate. It should be. But usually its just to make everyone else angry...

[Baalthazaq]

Yes but the literal meaning would be "person who represents the devil." Either way it was just an amusing thought. Besides its not just for the purpose of reasoned debate. It should be. But usually its just to make everyone else angry...

I did notice the name. ;)
Also, the avatar comes from Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6006909&postcount=104).

I think it originally came from a line of Steve Jackson Cards... Battlecards or something... I can't remember. They used to have little scratchy things on em.

Can I just say, I never meant to derail the thread by waxing lyrical on what I think alignment is. I really just meant that the DM should decide and stick to it. Alignment debates change from person to person, and nobody is really going to end up "right" in this regard. They're just going to end up annoyed.

[Xenogears]

Can I just say, I never meant to derail the thread by waxing lyrical on what I think alignment is. I really just meant that the DM should decide and stick to it. Alignment debates change from person to person, and nobody is really going to end up "right" in this regard. They're just going to end up annoyed.

Alignment debates, while pointless, are fun. Besides the guy got a few solid answers before it got seriously derailed and expecting any more than that out of a thread dealing with alingment is absurd.

[Devils_Advocate]

"The" anything is not as flexible as you think. "The" many, like "The" loch ness monster, or "the" tarrasque, or "the" balkans, suggests a single entity.

You even use it as such when you say "What you met Tom Cruise?" "Yup" "The Tom Cruise?!".
"The ball" is a flexible phrase and can refer to different balls in different contexts. Assuming that only Loch Ness Monster exists and only one Tom Cruise is well-known, those phrases are less flexible.

There are multiple different contexts in which one might weigh one's own welfare against the welfare of a larger group.


"The" Many is everyone. It has to be.
No, it doesn't. And even if it does, every one what? Every one human being? Every one sentient being?


There is no reason to ignore that you ****ed those people over.

Why would you ignore that? Why would you ever ignore that? There is nothing in any definition variable or non variable, equivocation or not, that allows you to ignore the screwing over of others.
The reason for ignoring them would be not caring about them.

Do you deny that some people do disregard the negative consequences of their actions for others they don't care about?


what exactly are you arguing here?
:smallsigh: I'm arguing that Good isn't altruism (putting others before oneself) and that Evil isn't selfishness (concern only with oneself). I think that you can put your in-group before yourself and still be Evil. You actually seem to agree with this, but to be insisting on bizarre, non-standard definitions of "altruism" and "selfishness", although I'm not yet sure what those definitions are.


You're playing a rewording game, but the answer doesn't change after the rewording.
"Dear kettle: I'm not quite sure how to put this, but I've been rather concerned of late regarding your current hue."


You're ****ing people over. You get evil points. More evil points than the good points you get from helping your buddy Carl when he's wiping out the world.
That's what I'm arguing.


The definitions should be self explanatory.
Are you kidding me? I still don't know what you think "selfishness" is.


You are making too many assumptions.
What unwarranted assumptions do you think I've made?


The argument from those who do think Altruism exists is: People do not only do things they enjoy. That's why altruism is specifically sacrificial in some regard when compared to kindness.
(1) You seem to be arguing that Good alignment is a matter of both helping others and having a bad attitude about it. That in order to be Good, you need to dislike helping others, but do it anyway. That someone who enjoys helping others isn't Good because he doesn't have a big ol' martyr complex.

I really dislike the idea that a Good person can't find enjoyment in helping others. One of the basic Chaotic Good archetypes seems to be a joyful empathic individual who takes pleasure in spreading pleasure to others.

(2) What about someone who dislikes screwing everyone else over for the benefit of his in-group, but does it anyway out of loyalty to his in-group? That's selfless and altruistic, by normal definitions of those terms.


See discussion of the many above. In a closed system yes.
... Huh?

Do you mean that you were taking "others" to mean "all others" instead of "some others"? Because that's definitely equivocation. "Some" is the default modifier. If I tell you that birds ate the seed I left in the yard, I'm talking about some birds, not all birds. Obviously not all of the birds in the world were in my yard!


Why did he take that job for money? I.e. Why did he not take another job? I'm assuming all jobs pay money. I'm assuming others were available.
hamishspence didn't specify that (but did refer to "selfish motivations"). My guess would be that the other available jobs didn't pay as much, or involved more risk, or involved doing things that he dislikes. There are other possibilities. Is this really relevant?


I suppose if it were evil -> good, but it isn't. It's evil->neutral->good. This is clearly grey enough to fit in neutral.
Selfish people aren't ambiguously Evil if Evilness is the same quality as selfishness. They're definitionally Evil in that case.

Were you saying that an individual can have selfish motivations without being generally selfish (because the same individual might also have non-selfish motivations)?


I don't think doing a job is selfish. Selfish relates to others, and this doesn't. You are doing a job, and you are being paid for the service. You are gaining, nobody else is losing. You're not ****ing people over for you. You're not helping other people without gain. It's in between.
One dictionary's definition of "selfish" is "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others; characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself". Selfishness isn't about actively relating to others in any particular way; it's about your attitude towards them. Or rather, it's about lacking an attitude towards others; specifically, it's about lacking concern for their welfare.

You can be selfish without exploiting others. This is why Evilness and selfishness aren't the same thing in the D&D 3.5 alignment system as written. Evil is consistently described as hurting others. I'm pretty sure that one of the Fiendish Codices even says that you aren't Evil until you make the choice to hurt someone.


Don't overuse the word. It's virtually an ad hominem at this point to make non sequiturs about strawmen, you're just poisoning the well by doing it, and it'll all just end in a slippery slope to doom. :P
Eh? You said "Willingness matters. Why is that even a question?", implying that you were responding to me questioning whether willingness maters. Which I never did. I most certainly think that willingness does matter; you have to be willing to hurt others in order to do it.


And by the way, he is a mercenary.
Ah, I had been unaware of that definition. Thank you for clarifying.


I personally am not going to judge a character based on the thoughts I cannot read though, so you rely, as a DM, mostly on the actions and scenarios presented to make a judgement.

This makes a situation where you cannot directly observe evil. You are therefore judging characters on a different criteria from "are they evil", you are judging them on "do they act evil". this might be causing some confusion.
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that motivation determines alignment, but alignment should be judged based on actions. One upshot of that seems to be that you recommend judging alignment incorrectly by your own standards in several cases.

If you take the stance that alignment is about motivation, why not judge it based on motivation? The player should know his character's motivation, and if you ask the player about it and the player responds honestly, then you know too.

It just seems a bit hypocritical to have one standard of what you claim to take alignment to be and a different standard that you use to actually assign alignments to characters. The second standard is how you actually run alignment.


I don't know and nobody should know.
The player should know. Of course, this assumes that the player is actually roleplaying and not just using the character as a puppet.

[Baalthazaq]

Ok. You're making some good points, but I still feel you seem to be talking past me rather than to me, which makes me feel like our wires have gotten crossed somewhere.

I'll start by laying out all my cards on the table.

Point 1: In DnD definitions, there are paradoxes in the alignment system, specifically with regard to Lawful and Chaotic, as they are not by DnD definitions, mutually exclusive, you can be both.

Point 1b: One way around this, is to stick to the definition of one side, and make the opposite of that the other.

Point 2: The only thing stated about the good alignment is that they make personal sacrifices to help others. Everything else is "implied" not stated:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Point 2b: Without the sacrificial aspect, you are Neutral.
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.

I know a lot of people don't like the idea of needing personal sacrifice to be good. I also tend to think most people are Neutral, not good, in a DnD sense.

The Martyr complex seems to be a necessary component of goodness in DnD. How far you take that, whether it be inclusive of emotional gain or not, is up to the DM, but it has a big impact on the next point.

Point 3: Good/Evil people vs Good/Evil acts.
They are not the same.
Good people can sometimes do evil things.
Evil people can sometimes do good things.

How you judge what constitutes an evil act and how you judge what constitutes an evil person is usually subtly different, but always open to interpretation.
Do you judge a character based on his acts, his intentions, or his mindset? These too are overlapping but different.
Do you punish a player based on the characters acts, intentions or mindset?
These too are overlapping but different, as are punishment and judgement.

It is not hypocritical to use a different method for each. You may create a world where the Gods judge on intention come judgement day, but still allow their followers some leniency until they act on these intentions. (I.e. you only lose your Paladin/Druid abilities with an evil act, not with evil intention).

You could just as easily judge and punish all on mindset alone.
You could just as easily punish acts even with good intention. (That seems to be common western theology)
You could just as easily punish on intention alone irrespective of acts. (Middle Eastern Theology).
You could say both are required for punishment.
You could say either are required for punishment.

It is not hypocritical to judge one way or another. If I were running a Middle Eastern/Arabian style campaign I would likely run it on Intention alone. If I did Arthurian Legend I tend to punish acts in keeping with the setting.

I still don't think you quite understand the distinction, which is why you say things like: I think that you can put your in-group before yourself and still be Evil, as if I disagree. (Cough, strawman, cough, implying I disagree, cough).

Of course you can. It's a (small) Good act by an Evil person. You are not altruistic, you are performing a (partially) altruistic act.

I'd give you far more leeway if you acted in favour of one group who was not your in group, but you aren't. You're acting in favour of your own group. As a group you are selfish, not altruistic.

I'd be far more lenient if you weren't helping your in group, but potentially someone else. That way your selflessness is not contradicted by helping yourself.

A plural "you" is still a "you".

************************************************** ***

Specifically in addressing your points.
1) I have provided dictionary definitions for both Altruism and Selfishness.

1b) I don't think my definition varies from this. Please explain how it does.

1c) Otherwise I cannot possibly explain to greater detail than the dictionary already does. If you still don't know what I mean, I do not have the skill to aid you in this particular endeavor.

2) DnD I'd say implies who the Altruism is towards. from the description of Good, " concern for the dignity of sentient beings". So sentient beings.

2b) I'd also say this is a DM call though. Playable races might be the mark. Sentient. Intelligence >3. You also have to decide what constitutes sentience so that in itself is debatable.

2c) What your opinion is, doesn't necessarily dictate how you treat your players. You may think you should include animals, you may not want to impose this restriction on your players and force them to all be vegetarians to maintain their good alignment. You may apply this to conclude abortion is right or wrong, but not want to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole with your players.

3) Assumptions you've made:
Either a) Altruism means you cannot enjoy helping people.
Or b) I say altruism means you cannot enjoy helping people. (STRAWMAN!)
People (only) do things they want to do.

3b) You can enjoy helping people. You are not good unless you would also do it if you didn't, or would do good to the extent where you wouldn't enjoy it.

You enjoy giving puppies to kids. Great. Good. Who doesn't. Yay.

This is not the same as you enjoy being tortured for all eternity in order to give that kid a puppy. The more sacrificial the act, the more good it becomes.

4) Some others vs all others.
4a) You seem to be missing my point here, but I really don't understand how I can even explain it any clearer. I also don't see why you're saying the default modifier is some. Is this a grammatical rule or something you've come up with yourself?

"Americans are Plumbers" and "Americans are not plumbers" are contradictory and both false, not both correct because they "both mean some". Give me some reason to believe you other than repetitive pleading.


What about someone who dislikes screwing everyone else over for the benefit of his in-group, but does it anyway out of loyalty to his in-group? That's selfless and altruistic, by normal definitions of those terms.

That could be construed as Lawful Neutral.
Also you misspelled "My Definition" as "Normal Definition".


"Devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others"

This is a perfect example of where you just don't seem to care what definitions say and you just go on about how it doesn't fit. This fits PERFECTLY.

The bold clearly says you're selfish if you do X regardless of others.
I said: If he wouldn't do X regardless of others, you're not being selfish and therefore not evil.
If you would do X regardless of others, you are being selfish and therefore evil.

It is even the same sentence structure as the dictionary, and somehow you're confused. I cannot even begin to give you a clearer explanation.
You seem to be wanting me to call the mercenary evil, because he's selfish, even though you personally provided a definition, that agrees with my definition, specifically in the cases I have provided, that demonstrate it has no bearing on his selfishness.

How are they not the same?

I genuinely cannot even see how you agree with yourself at this stage.

[Baalthazaq]

Alignment debates, while pointless, are fun. Besides the guy got a few solid answers before it got seriously derailed and expecting any more than that out of a thread dealing with alingment is absurd.

I suppose you're right, still, I can't help myself when it comes to debates of any kind, so I feel partially responsible.

[Sebastian]

Meh. It's no fun being the hero if you can't slaughter the bad guys.

William Wallace killed some of the corrupt nobles in their sleep or when they were barely awake, and the Scottish consider him a God. ;p

But not a lawful good one :smallsmile:

I say, change alignment, maybe not straight evil but why can't you just switch them to neutral? Of course a single act is -usually- not enough but if they keep it on make them switch.

Also, looting, stealing or greed in general, is more on the chaotic side of the alignment rather than the good/evil one.

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't see changing a character's alignment as "punishment". It may effectively be a punishment if it causes the loss of class abilities. But I think it makes more sense to eliminate that by removing alignment than by treating characters as having alignments different from their actual alignments.


In DnD definitions, there are paradoxes in the alignment system, specifically with regard to Lawful and Chaotic, as they are not by DnD definitions, mutually exclusive, you can be both.
It's also possible to be both Good and Evil (to different people).


The only thing stated about the good alignment is that they make personal sacrifices to help others. Everything else is "implied" not stated:
Not true. There's also "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."


The Martyr complex seems to be a necessary component of goodness in DnD.
Not if you go the other way around and make Good the opposite of Evil. Simply decree: Evil is consistently described as hurting others; Good is the opposite of Evil; therefore Good is helping others. There, easy! :smallsmile:


I still don't think you quite understand the distinction, which is why you say things like: I think that you can put your in-group before yourself and still be Evil, as if I disagree. (Cough, strawman, cough, implying I disagree, cough).
I don't think that you disagree. That's why I wrote "You actually seem to agree with this".


Of course you can. It's a (small) Good act by an Evil person. You are not altruistic, you are performing a (partially) altruistic act.
Ugh. OK, what about someone who consistently puts the needs of the others in his in-group ahead of his own all the time? Can such an individual still be Evil? He definitely has altruism, "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others", in this case the rest of his in-group.


I'd give you far more leeway if you acted in favour of one group who was not your in group, but you aren't. You're acting in favour of your own group. As a group you are selfish, not altruistic.

I'd be far more lenient if you weren't helping your in group, but potentially someone else. That way your selflessness is not contradicted by helping yourself.

A plural "you" is still a "you".
So, a group can be Evil, even though it's individual members are Good?

I don't think that you actually think that, which is why I'm saying it. I'm trying to illustrate why I think that what you're saying is wrong. (This is called "an argument".)


I don't think my definition varies from this. Please explain how it does.
I gave the definition of "selfish" as "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others; characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself". Yet you would seem to agree that someone can be Evil and still care for some others more than himself.

If that was not the definition you were referring to, please clarify.


2) DnD I'd say implies who the Altruism is towards. from the description of Good, " concern for the dignity of sentient beings". So sentient beings.
"The" altruism? Saying that Good is a specific type of altruism is very different from just saying that Good is altruism.


Sentient. Intelligence >3. You also have to decide what constitutes sentience so that in itself is debatable.
At the very least, anything with an Int score is sentient ("responsive to or conscious of sense impressions; aware").


Assumptions you've made:
Either a) Altruism means you cannot enjoy helping people.
Or b) I say altruism means you cannot enjoy helping people. (STRAWMAN!)
More like "Altruism means disliking helping people sometimes, but still doing it." You're allowed to also like helping people other times.


You can enjoy helping people. You are not good unless you would also do it if you didn't, or would do good to the extent where you wouldn't enjoy it.
Ah, but what about someone whose nature is to always enjoy helping others? A hypothetical scenario in which she dislikes helping someone is contradictory, since someone who dislikes helping by her nature isn't her. But then, that's a questionable view of what constitutes identity.

So let's take the opposite view, that an alternate version of someone with different feelings about things can still be considered the same person. Let's say that I help someone, anticipating that I will enjoy it. There are multiple alternate, hypothetical, possible worlds in which I anticipate disliking helping the person. In some of these worlds, I help anyway. But in others, I don't!

So what, if anything, does it mean to say that "I would have helped even if I had thought I'd dislike it"? There's only one real world, in which I actually thought that I'd like helping. And that's the problem with "would have".


I also don't see why you're saying the default modifier is some. Is this a grammatical rule or something you've come up with yourself?
When I say that [noun]s [verb], I don't necessarily mean all [noun]s, as my example with birds illustrated. I do mean one or more, though, not zero. Even if I were fully confident that no unicorns exist, I would not say that unicorns are in my bedroom. Even though all unicorns would indeed be in my bedroom in that case, I would consider that statement false.

So, by default, when I use a noun, I just mean one or more of that type of thing. The word for one or more is "some". It covers the possibility of "all" in the case that there are more than zero of something.

This seems fairly natural to me. It certainly seems to clear that "some" is the implied modifier in dictionary definitions of "altruism". One definition is "behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species". It seems obvious that this isn't about the far-out notion of an animal benefiting every member of its species but itself! Note too that this definition specifically deals with an in-group.


"Americans are Plumbers" and "Americans are not plumbers" are contradictory and both false, not both correct because they "both mean some".
I disagree, and take both to be true. I take "Americans" to simply mean "some Americans" as it is used in those statements, taken literally. That's how I parse them. Granted, I'm unusually pedantic, but that strikes me as being helpful in a discussion like this. I don't think that we're going to get anywhere unless we clarify our meanings.


Also you misspelled "My Definition" as "Normal Definition".
No, I didn't. I'm fairly confident that I'm the one using the words in the standard ways, and that's what I meant. It may be that I am wrong, but I really don't think so.

"Selfishness" in particular is specifically spelled out as referring to concern only for oneself. (And a self, in turn, is one individual person, not a group.)


It is even the same sentence structure as the dictionary, and somehow you're confused.
What are you saying I'm confused about?


You seem to be wanting me to call the mercenary evil, because he's selfish, even though you personally provided a definition, that agrees with my definition, specifically in the cases I have provided, that demonstrate it has no bearing on his selfishness.
What has no bearing on his selfishness?

Why do you think that I want you to call the mercenary Evil?


How are they not the same?
How are what not the same?


I genuinely cannot even see how you agree with yourself at this stage.
If you perceive inconsistency in my arguments, please point out where.

More specifically, could you quote what you're responding to? I find myself having a hard time figuring out which parts of my posts you are replying to.