PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Ways to Play Alignments



ondonaflash
2009-07-11, 04:40 PM
I thought I'd start a thread where people can propose ways to play the alignments in 3.5 D&D in an intelligent manner which furthers the plot of the game, doesn't provoke the other player's (not necessarily their characters) into wanting to kill them, and keeps the roleplaying intriguing. In that spirit I thought I'd propose methods of playing the two I feel are the most difficult, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil.

Chaotic Neutral: You're selfish. Good and Evil are irrelevant, its only what you want that matters. This attitude can be brought about through some sort of disillusionment, or maybe an inbred cynicism, usually found in thieves or corporate executives.
The line drawn by a chaotic neutral person is that they don't want to attract the attention of anyone else stronger than them, so in general they'll stop short of murder, or committing crimes which will get them noticed. They're apathetic about tasks which don't benefit them directly in some way, and a lot of what they do can usually be summed up with a cost-benefit analysis.

They might tag along with a party because they want the gold they'd get, but don't want to risk going alone. They might not go out of there way to help someone else, but if its easy enough to help them without putting themselves at risk, why not?
Chaotic Neutral characters resent being told what to do, they'll often rebel against lawful characters, sometimes going so far as to do the opposite out of spite, but they won't do anything that would seriously endanger them or their party.

Chaotic Evil: These people are sick, they are cruel, malicious, and sadistic. They like to see other people squirm, and will go out of there way to make that happen. People who are chaotic evil, but have low intelligence, may just be random serial killers, brutally murdering people in ritualistic manners. They may keep parts of bodies out of sick fascination.
Of course even the worst serial killer knows better than to go out and butcher people in broad daylight with witnesses, usually they'll do their work at night, or in private, often there will be elements of sexual violence involved, and they may even take some sort of erotic pleasure from their acts.
Of course the more intelligent chaotic evil character may position himself where he can do what he likes legally, as a torturer, or a soldier, or even in an adventuring party. Just because someone is evil does not mean they specifically target good people.
Chaotic evil adventurers often prefer to go out and engage their foes in a repulsive and gory manner. They may stop mid-battle to butcher, or rape the corpse of the goblin they just killed. They may say things that disgust and revolt their companions, whom they might be inclined to kill. To offset this factor there should be someone in the party that they are afraid of, someone preventing them from turning on the party, perhaps someone more dangerous than they are. If so, this dynamic should be set up in advance.
In battle a chaotic evil character is just as likely to fight as he is to ignore the battle. He will likely ignore party tactics and do what he chooses, perhaps going after specific targets of his own. If he spots an opportunity to coup de grace the one holding them in check, they will, but not unless its a flawless opportunity.

Note: Feel free to pose multiple methods of playing the same alignments, because there is never just one way.

Tengu_temp
2009-07-11, 04:44 PM
Intelligent way to play CE?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Heyes.jpg

Moriato
2009-07-11, 04:47 PM
Chaotic Evil: People who are chaotic evil, but have low intelligence, may just be random serial killers, brutally murdering people in ritualistic manners. They may keep parts of bodies out of sick fascination.

Of course the more intelligent chaotic evil character may position himself where he can do what he likes legally, as a torturer, or a soldier, or even in an adventuring party.

Actually most serial killers are of well above-average intelligence. Your second example (Doing evil, within the law) is pretty much a textbook case of Lawful Evil, not chaotic evil.

ondonaflash
2009-07-11, 04:53 PM
Actually most serial killers are of well above-average intelligence. Your second example (Doing evil, within the law) is pretty much a textbook case of Lawful Evil, not chaotic evil.

Well my focus was on the brutal sadism they'd execute, but I encourage you to propose your own idea.

Blackjackg
2009-07-11, 04:54 PM
While we're at it, there's a way for Lawful (very) Good and Lawful (very) Evil to work together.

http://www.daemonstv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/dexter_209_0021.jpg

Knaight
2009-07-11, 04:57 PM
The issue with this thread is that you don't play alignments. You play characters who happen to have them and more or less just ignore things and let the GM determine where you fall.

L'intrigant
2009-07-11, 05:05 PM
Taking off from what Knaight said...a character alignment is like a political party. If you're a bad player or an uneducated simpleton, it defines everything you are. Some people live and breathe everything that comes out of their political party without ever stopping to consider that it may be wrong, or contrary to their own beliefs at the very least. The same goes for certain players and alignments.

The alignment system is not meant to be concrete in anything short of kick-in-the-door. Monsters are evil and adventurers are good in there, but everywhere else there are shades of gray. "Evil" means you're more selfish than the average and have few compunctions about hurting others to get what you want. Evil doesn't mean you're an unfeeling sociopath with no soul. Mr. Freeze was evil, but his actions were driven by love for his wife. Batman was good, but he frequently did things that would make a paladin balk.

All in all, the alignment system is there for two things - guidelines for those without a clear character concept, and alignment-based spells (which I rarely use in my games). Alignment is fun to debate, but all in all it's a rather useless facet of the game. No character is 100% any alignment, no race is 100% wicked or benevolent. When thinking up ways to play the alignments "right", remember that.

ondonaflash
2009-07-11, 05:11 PM
The issue with this thread is that you don't play alignments. You play characters who happen to have them and more or less just ignore things and let the GM determine where you fall.

Well in that case, give an example of well played characters, and then afterwords describe which alignment you feel they best identify with.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-11, 05:54 PM
Chaotic Evil: Nature is run on one law. Maybe you were educated or you weren't, but everyone learns this sooner or later: survival of the fittest. The strong dominate the weak, and nothing will ever change that. So-called "society" and "civilization" are just ways by which the weak can try to dupe and take advantage of others, either themselves weak or too foolish to understand what's going on. But you? You're different. You're strong. And unlike fools who bind themselves to arbitrary codes and the values of a weakling's education, you understand what that means.

You're free to be your own man, and you take what you want when you want and how you want it. Sniveling little bureaucrats and pompous weaklings with a meaningless title think they can order you around? Too bad you're not playing the same game they are. You owe the world nothing, you're free to take from it everything.

You're not concerned about the freedom or the comfort of others. When you see strength in others, you respect it, but you don't respect fools who put their strength at the disposal of the weak, and you certainly don't respect the helpless weaklings that make up the bulk of society. If they get in your way, you'll deal with them in the most expedient way possible, but for the most part commoners are beneath your notice.

You don't go looking for trouble. You just do what you feel like and take what you want, and if someone challenges you---well, you're ready to leave your fate up to Fortune, since that's what it means to be free.

Callista
2009-07-11, 07:04 PM
Yeah. You make your character and then you give them an alignment tag.

BTW, the first paragraph isn't a description of intelligently played CN; it's intelligently played CE. Someone who "usually" doesn't commit murder is CE because it's on his list of possible strategies. (I am assuming that murder is not just "killing", as you might do in war or self-defense or as a bounty hunter, but "murder" as in killing someone who didn't deserve it.)

CE doesn't have to be a serial killer. If it was, there'd be too few options for people who wanted to make a character who fit that alignment. I have met people who are chaotic evil and have never committed murder at all. It isn't because they have the morals not to commit murder; it's because they know that there are better ways to get what they want, and are afraid of the law. Some CEs are quite "law-abiding", in their way; they will only break the law when they know they won't be caught, and will only take advantage of other people in such a way that they know they won't be inviting general hatred from everyone around. A typical drunk who beats his wife is CE.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-07-11, 07:14 PM
Don't pick an alignment, pick a personality and then assign it an alignment. Forget trying to play your alignment, and just play your character. The mechanics of alignment only serve to stifle RP and arbitrarily penalize players. They aren't even necessary, the whole alignment system is just a holdover from previous editions that should have been retired long ago.

Blackjackg
2009-07-11, 07:18 PM
Don't pick an alignment, pick a personality and then assign it an alignment. Forget trying to play your alignment, and just play your character. The mechanics of alignment only serve to stifle RP and arbitrarily penalize players. They aren't even necessary, the whole alignment system is just a holdover from previous editions that should have been retired long ago.

I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think alignment has become increasingly necessary with each new edition (up to 3.5. I don't know what role it takes in 4e). At least as far as its mechanical application.

Logalmier
2009-07-11, 07:37 PM
I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think alignment has become increasingly necessary with each new edition (up to 3.5. I don't know what role it takes in 4e). At least as far as its mechanical application.

This. There are classes that depend on the alignments, such as the paladin. They don't "Smite the person who's personality makes it such that the are likely to commit evil acts." They smite evil. I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you're right. But WotC apparently didn't want to create a new system that would require them to redo many of the classes that rely on alignments.

Just my two copper pieces.

Callista
2009-07-11, 07:55 PM
I think alignments are important because they make moral/ethical concepts have testable effects in the game world. It does create the problem of people trying to play an alignment instead of a character, but those same people would be trying to play a class or a bunch of numbers if alignment weren't around. You'll get bad RP whatever system you use, and having alignment doesn't make RP any worse. I mean... if your character's alignment doesn't fit his personality, change it! If you're a paladin, there are non-LG options to convert your levels to. If you're a cleric, you can find a new god. Bards, monks, and barbarians don't have requirements so strict as to make it impossible to stay within them and stay true to the character concept. And most DMs will let you change a character's alignment without much fuss. I would. If your true neutral guy is suddenly taking an interest in the welfare of the peasants, you're well within your rights to switch him to Good; if he starts taking an interest in the entrails of the peasants, you're probably switching him to Evil. Alignment's like a label on the character's system of morality, a nice shorthand way of saying "this is what my character believes in". And based on what he believes in, things are different.

Alignment really adds to the game because it makes Good/Evil/Law/Chaos a (meta?)physical fact of life, like fire or magical energy or physical force. It creates natural dividing lines. It allows for races to be bound to an alignment and entire planes to be devoted to one. It allows creatures to be pretty much made of the essence of an alignment. And, at least for me, the moral dilemmas it allows make the game a lot more interesting. Playing a hero (or antihero) shouldn't be without at least minor moral dilemmas. Maybe I've got Elan's sense of drama or something of that sort, but it's just viscerally satisfying to see the Good Guys win.

ondonaflash
2009-07-11, 08:01 PM
I think alignments are important because they make moral/ethical concepts have testable effects in the game world. It does create the problem of people etc.

Wrong thread, this is just a place where people can describe how they think the different alignments should be characterized. Anything meta-physical, or philosophical should be moved elsewhere. I'm not interested in debating the relevance of an alignment system, I'm just interested in developing interesting characterizations built around alignments. (Which I will acknowledge is the subversion of the norm, but should be equally valid in its own way.)

Yukitsu
2009-07-11, 08:07 PM
Chaotic: Tends to favour unregulated approaches to things.
Neutral: Will use either as convenient, but tends towards law in a dillema.
Lawful: Follows general patterns and modus operendi.

Good: Intends good, or does good, and generally must mostly strive for both. View of what good is may vary, but generally must fall in the realm of helping at least one person other than self.
Neutral: Actions don't have any particular moral meaning.
Evil: Either vastly evil intentions or actions (which override a good opposite) or an act that is both evil in intent and action.

Ellye
2009-07-11, 08:11 PM
Intelligent Ways to Play AlignmentsDon't play them.
Don't play alignments, play characters.

Alignments are consequence, not cause.
Your character is X alignment because he does Y thing.
He doesn't do Y thing because he is X alignment.

ondonaflash
2009-07-11, 08:13 PM
Good: Intends good, or does good, and generally must mostly strive for both. View of what good is may vary, but generally must fall in the realm of helping at least one person other than self.


I find this line interesting, because one of the things I always have my good characters believe is that the long term effects of helping people are largely irrelevant in the face of helping those who are in need of help (CG, naturally). They don't pause to think "What if killing this person served the greater good" because as far as they are concerned any "Greater Good" built on the suffering of anybody is a misnomer. "There is right, and there is wrong, and any act that would harm those who can not defend themselves Is Wrong!"

Simplistic? Yes. Provincial? Yes. Good? Without a doubt.



Alignments are consequence, not cause.
Your character is X alignment because he does Y thing.
He doesn't do Y thing because he is X alignment.

I disagree, and I'm bored of people coming to argue the semantics of my post, rather than adhering to the request previously presented, get lost.

I feel that it is a perfectly acceptable methodology to create a character off of a specific moral system. The creative challenge comes from insuring that the character adheres to the moral code while remaining interesting and realistic and without impeding on the fun of the other players. Coupled with improbable class selection and you have an exciting opportunity to create a detailed and intriguing back story.

Why would a Lawful Good individual become a Rogue?

What happened to cause your Lawful Evil Paladin-turned-fighter's fall from grace?

It helps if you consider it less of a "Easiest method to roleplay" and more as a creative challenge. What are some methods to play characters in the confines of a specific alignment.

Indon
2009-07-11, 08:27 PM
Regardless of the alignment, your character can still have friends. So long as you aren't playing with an alignment-oriented class, you can get along with whomever you want - you can still be evil and yet, say, turn back towards a burning building to save your friend - you'll just do so with a resigned sigh.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-07-11, 08:49 PM
I've found that the best way to attempt to convert the abstract alignment terms used by the simple-minded/lazy folks at WotC into something that actually works is to mentally rename the traits as follows:

L/C Axis:
Lawful = Proactive
Neutral = Adaptive
Chaotic = Reactive

G/E Axis:
Good = Idealist
Neutral = Realist
Evil = Pragmatist

Classes, special abilities, and spells based on alignment all are, for the most part, painfully stupid given how the base terms they play off of are so subjective and open to interpretation.

HamHam
2009-07-11, 09:53 PM
If I'm going to play alignment, I think it is most interesting to use the Planescape idea of alignments as physical forces of nature that you in some small way embody. Obviously mortals will have a far more imperfect connection to their alignment than planars, but still.

CE: The weak are food for the strong. Take what you want, and burn what you can't take. Pain, suffering, and torment make you happy, and the more you cause the better.

CN: You do what you want. You don't want to hurt people, but if they get in your way, or try to impose their rules one you, they better watch out.

CG: Rules stifle people's inherent goodness. Freedom, justice, and the American way!

NE: You like evil. Plain and simple. You are inherently sadistic and deprived, but you can work within a system if you have to, or not. Depends how the wind is blowing.

N: The default for people who just don't care. Conversely, if you are a fanatic of true neutrality, you are dedicating to keeping the balance between the various forces. There can be no light without shadow and all that.

NG: You are just a nice guy. You care about others. You'll follow the rules, but you aren't invested in them.

LE: You seek to dominate others. The tools of evil are tools of domination. You fear those above you, and make sure you are feared by those below you

LN: The rules exist for a reason. Nothing is more important. Everything has a place, and it should stay there.

LG: Civilization and society are the only safeguard for goodness against chaos and evil. To attack them is to attack goodness itself.

Steward
2009-07-11, 10:04 PM
G/E Axis:
Good = Idealist
Neutral = Realist
Evil = Pragmatist

I think you could play a Good character as a pragmatic. Like an example of a Lawful Good pragmatist could be the head of a community organization or a police force. They try to make the community a better place by intelligently using their resources (cohorts, magic, whatever) and recognizing their limitations. They're not fighting for Truth or Justice but for real people in their community. This type of character might be hard to fit into a dungeon-crawl campaign but it would be great if the campaign is set in a single location like a city under siege. A Lawful Good watch commander, mayor, fire department chief, or someone of that nature could be a vehicle to portray a pragmatic good character.

thegurullamen
2009-07-11, 10:06 PM
LG: Upstanding citizen. Only breaks laws when it benefits the society/collective body to do so. Will not harm others except under certain circumstances, will never harm innocents, barring a severe philosophical dilemma.

NG: As above, but has no qualm with or investment in higher social powers. Wil break laws but only with good reason to do so.

CG: Freeform individualist with preservation of life and well-being of others taking precedence above all else. Usually self-motivated, won't take action that harms others if it can be avoided (or if the victim isn't a jerk.)

LN: Devoted to an ideal. Individual well being and happiness is secondary to the health of that ideal; lives are expendable in pursuit of the ideal's goal.

N: Emperor Kuzco.

CN: Kuzco without the crown.

LE: Plays the system in order to impose brutality or some other social ill onto a person or populace. Actively seeks to profit at others' expense.

NE: Jerkass What Crosses The Moral Event Horizon Twice

CE: A truly unspeakable monster. Pure, refined sadism. Rarely does things that don't bring, pain, misery and bleakness to the lives of others.

Blackjackg
2009-07-11, 10:14 PM
I find this line interesting, because one of the things I always have my good characters believe is that the long term effects of helping people are largely irrelevant in the face of helping those who are in need of help (CG, naturally). They don't pause to think "What if killing this person served the greater good" because as far as they are concerned any "Greater Good" built on the suffering of anybody is a misnomer. "There is right, and there is wrong, and any act that would harm those who can not defend themselves Is Wrong!"

Simplistic? Yes. Provincial? Yes. Good? Without a doubt.


Interesting. The character in the scenario you describe strikes me as much more lawful good than chaotic, because he is sticking to a predetermined "code" rather than evaluating each situation for the greatest good. The way I've always played CG is basically "you do what you gotta do." "I would never harm an innocent for any reason" is much more Lawful.

BloodyAngel
2009-07-11, 10:16 PM
L/C Axis:
Lawful = Proactive
Neutral = Adaptive
Chaotic = Reactive

G/E Axis:
Good = Idealist
Neutral = Realist
Evil = Pragmatist



While characters might TEND towards those traits based on alignment... that's not really spot on. I mean, proactive and reactive are highly situational. The police often REACT to crime... that hardly makes most cops chaotic. And plenty of pragmatic people have still been good or at least neutral. Bruce Lee, perhaps... and his entire fighting style based on "whatever works". So... Bruce was Neutral Evil?

I personally use alignment lightly, if at all. It's all highly cultural anyhow. Things are evil or good based on people's perspectives, not based on universal truths. But down that road lies madness.

L'intrigant
2009-07-11, 10:30 PM
Seconded. I've had some very proactive chaotic characters.

I'd say something here, but Callista has covered just about everything I could say. :smalltongue:

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-07-11, 10:40 PM
Po Po: The job description for police officers has everything to do with law with little to no concern for 'good' save as a side effect of maintaining the former. Yes, the job demands that they respond to the actions of other, but they are supposed to do so according to rather strict guidelines. Thus, the concept of this particular 'civil servant' is firmly LN.

Jeet Kun Do: This fighting style, much like Krav Maga and the trope'd-to-death Nin-Po/Jutsu, would no doubt be considered 'evil' if inanimate, nonsentient concepts can be given such a title. They are all about getting the job done by whatever means. Bruce Lee the man however (I visited his and his son's graves not but two weeks ago or so), I have no idea about.

Using the terms I've listed, I'd call myself a Reactive Idealist that aspires towards Adaptive Realism without becoming a Proactive Pragmatist in the process.

Brauron
2009-07-11, 10:50 PM
I'm going to toot my own horn for a moment here, as I feel that I did a pretty good job playing a lawful evil character the only time I've done so.

The character was Khorsal Rho, LE Fighter 6/Thayan Knight 2. His backstory was that he'd worked his way up from the ranks of the Thayan Army to a commanding position, just in time for Thay to change tactics from military to economic expansion. So he was reassigned to serve as bodyguard for one of the Red Wizards (another player's character in this particular one-shot). He was somewhat unhappy about this, but considered it a matter of serving his country.

Personality and personal philosophy-wise, he was based heavily on Sgt. Charles Zim and Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois in the novel Starship Troopers. Specifically, two quotes from Zim formed the main basis of the character:

"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men."

and

"If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people—'older and wiser heads,' as they say—supply the control. Which is as it should be."

With these two quotes from Dubois backing them:

"Morals— all correct moral laws— derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

"Correct morality can only be derived from what man is—not from what do-gooders and well-meaning aunt Nellies would like him to be."

For Rho, "correct moral behavior" was to uphold the laws of Thay and the will of the Red Wizards. There was little room in him for things like altruism or mercy; mercy for him or any other Thayan soldier was as much a hindrance to fulfilling their duty as blindness or legs severed at the knees would be. In a sense I took the characters of Zim and Dubois and took them as far into the extreme as I could.

For Rho (and probably any other lawful evil character I might play in the future) fulfilling his duty comes first and foremost. I guess this would fall under the concept of "banality of evil" but in a sense it really is a job for him. If he allowed himself a personal life, he could be a devoted family man, an avid golfer, etc., but he's perfectly content to live his life as a loyal and selfless aspect of something larger (the Grand Army of Thay).


And in the one-shot I used Khorsal Rho for, I almost talked two Paladins into falling (I had them almost convinced that the only difference between them and myself was perspective) and convinced a young adult Black Dragon that there were endless opportunities for it to enrich itself AND devour innocents awaiting it in the Grand Army of Thay. I enlisted the Black Dragon.

Riffington
2009-07-11, 10:52 PM
Classes, special abilities, and spells based on alignment all are, for the most part, painfully stupid given how the base terms they play off of are so subjective and open to interpretation.

Aren't your replacement words even more subjective and open to interpretation?

Xenogears
2009-07-11, 11:11 PM
Interesting. The character in the scenario you describe strikes me as much more lawful good than chaotic, because he is sticking to a predetermined "code" rather than evaluating each situation for the greatest good. The way I've always played CG is basically "you do what you gotta do." "I would never harm an innocent for any reason" is much more Lawful.

It could just as easily be argued as CG because of the line of thought "As long as I do Good NOW everything will work itself out. No need to plan for the future." Basically it sounds like his CG character is a follower of Kantism. According to him one should ALWAYS do the good thing regardless of what you think might happen because of it. The example I was given in Philosophy was:

Suppose someone comes in with a knife and asks if Person A is in the room. Now it is immoral to lie so you must tell them that Person A is (assuming they are). Now this is the good thing to do because if you lie(which is immoral) they might turn around and find that Person A had snuck out and is now behind them. Thus now your immoral act caused someone a negative result. Or maybe the guy with the knife was trying to help them. You can't know so you have to tell the truth because it is the moral thing to do.

Atleast according to Kant...

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-07-11, 11:13 PM
Aren't your replacement words even more subjective and open to interpretation?

I don't think so, but that's just my view on the matter. :smalltongue:

However, even if that were the case, I'd never suggest basing any mechanical effect upon the terms. :smallbiggrin:

Blackjackg
2009-07-11, 11:24 PM
I've never cared much for Kantian moralism. More in the Mill school, I suppose. Greatest Happiness Principle and all that. At least as far as D&D goes. In real life, I'm more of a determinist, but that's less fun to roleplay.

ashmanonar
2009-07-11, 11:34 PM
Intelligent way to play CE?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Heyes.jpg

I'm not sure if Hannibal Lecter counts as CE. He's awful methodical and...maybe not lawful, per se, but he's not the type to trust to randomness.

Yukitsu
2009-07-11, 11:35 PM
I've found that the best way to attempt to convert the abstract alignment terms used by the simple-minded/lazy folks at WotC into something that actually works is to mentally rename the traits as follows:

L/C Axis:
Lawful = Proactive
Neutral = Adaptive
Chaotic = Reactive

G/E Axis:
Good = Idealist
Neutral = Realist
Evil = Pragmatist

Classes, special abilities, and spells based on alignment all are, for the most part, painfully stupid given how the base terms they play off of are so subjective and open to interpretation.

Let's stress test this. My character in a campaign currently running is a rebel leader. I am a proactive agent of change, desiring discord, anarchy and complete and utter independance from any rule. I fight using relatively standard methods to achieve an idealistic goal rather than a pragmatic cause, and will do incredibly dangerous things, possibly at the cost of my or others lives to achieve my idealistic goal. (I will do anything for the ideal of freedom). Since I'm a leader (Leading an undead army), I plan meticulously, acting to prevent enemies from acting against me (usually diplomatically) while manuevering to strike them down one by one (usually ambush and surprise.) By D&D definition, I am chaotic, and due to the methods I use, which are evil, but not pragmatic, I am an idealistic proactive, which you have associated with lawful good.

Xenogears
2009-07-11, 11:37 PM
I've never cared much for Kantian moralism. More in the Mill school, I suppose. Greatest Happiness Principle and all that. At least as far as D&D goes. In real life, I'm more of a determinist, but that's less fun to roleplay.

I'm not a real fan of Kantism either but I think it'd be fun to play in DnD. Whenever you're faced with a tough moral decision like: Do you kill the baby to seal the demonic portal? You just do what is moral in the here and now and damn the consequences. So you spare the baby and when the rampaging forces of hell and the abyss threaten to overrun the world you say you did what was right and although you are saddened by what happened you would do it again. Then run from the lynch mob prolly.

ondonaflash
2009-07-12, 12:01 AM
Well the problem with ethics riddles like that is they disregard the possibility of further investigation. Hell, what I'd really do is position myself right between Knife Happy, and Individual A and ask "Why are you looking for him?" I then act based off of his answers and the reactions of A.

And as for that demons thing? You stand your ****ing ground and hold those bitches back until there's nothing left of you but your boot.

That is the goddamn Right Thing to Do!

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-12, 12:14 AM
So nobody thought my take on CE was good, or worth remarking on? It's my favorite alignment to roleplay, actually, so I've given it a lot of thought.

ondonaflash
2009-07-12, 12:32 AM
So nobody thought my take on CE was good, or worth remarking on? It's my favorite alignment to roleplay, actually, so I've given it a lot of thought.

Very Shishio Makoto. I very much approve, my focus just got derailed by the next post. Sorry.

Yahzi
2009-07-12, 01:19 AM
I mapped the alignments to moral stages of development, so I can calibrate an NPC's behaviour based on how he interacts with others.

NG - Universal rights
LG - Social contract
CG - Peer approval
LE - Desire for reward
CE - Fear of punishment
NE - Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD - look it up, it's just plain scary)

Also, I have the gods engaged in a cosmic campaign which gives alignments a reason to be significant features of the environment.

Check out my sig for my world-book download (it's free. :smallsmile: )

Xenogears
2009-07-12, 01:35 AM
Well the problem with ethics riddles like that is they disregard the possibility of further investigation. Hell, what I'd really do is position myself right between Knife Happy, and Individual A and ask "Why are you looking for him?" I then act based off of his answers and the reactions of A.

And as for that demons thing? You stand your ****ing ground and hold those bitches back until there's nothing left of you but your boot.

That is the goddamn Right Thing to Do!

Yeah I didn't think it was a good example either (The teacher only brought it up because right before that the class brought it up as an example of when lying WOULD be a good thing).

Also Hannibal Lector is very confusing to analyze. Most of the time when he kills someone its because he thinks its for the betterment of society (The bad musiucian, the..... inmate, etc.). But then he also kills for his own advantage. So evil is definately there (though maybe not with a capital E). On the Law/Chaos aspect I'd lean towards Chaos as what he wants most is to basically be left alone to enjoy himself.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-12, 04:34 AM
I thought I'd start a thread where people can propose ways to play the alignments in 3.5 D&D in an intelligent manner which furthers the plot of the game, doesn't provoke the other player's (not necessarily their characters) into wanting to kill them, and keeps the roleplaying intriguing. In that spirit I thought I'd propose methods of playing the two I feel are the most difficult, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil.

Why are these any more difficult. People can play almost any alignment in an annoying way. Alignment is not the issue, it's that the player is playing in an annoying way.



Chaotic Neutral: You're selfish.

No. Wong. You could play a selfless but freedom loving individual. Think hippie or surfer.



Good and Evil are irrelevant, its only what you want that matters.

No Wrong again. A chaotic neutral individual could be devoted to a cause outside himself. Think freedom fighter or rebel.



This attitude can be brought about through some sort of disillusionment, or maybe an inbred cynicism, usually found in thieves or corporate executives.

No. Wrong again. Chaotic neutral is not a bad or negative attitude. And thieves and especially corporate executives don't have to be though of as chaotic. Thieves in a mafia type organization are best described as lawful evil. Corporate types are most naturally though of as lawful and good, neutral or evil depending on the corporation and your view of corporations. But even amongst these lawful organizations you can have chaotic individuals, think Sonny in the Godfather.

I'll stop here. I know you are well intentioned but you are creating a straightjacket for alignment which is not that different from what the annoying players you complained about do.

Alignment is two things in D&D. A label for certain spells and supernatural creatures and a character description. To top it off the alignment labels, law, chaos, evil, order, also carry real world meanings. The three things, label for the supernatural, character description and real world meaning are related but are also distinct.

In game, the use of supernatural label should be to play up certain things. Demons and Devils are Evil with a capital E. They should be used with relish or horror as you see fit.

The supernatural label affects players too and that helps ties the players to the supernatural world. But for PCs, even those that play supernatural representatives of alignment, the label is more of a descriptor. That is, alignment is not the motivator of action but simply a description of the general areas of action that the player will act in.

So a chaotic neutral character need not be any more or less selfish than a character of another alignment. A lawful good character could for example also be selfish. He could, for example, always want the spotlight. You can think of selfishness as a flaw. Obviously, if selfishness leads a lawful good character to break the law or commit an evil act, then the alignment description of the character may change. But it was selfishness, and the willingness to commit unlawful and evil acts, that led the the alignment change. Selfishness could be a flaw for a chaotic neutral character too. For example, it could lead to predictability in that the character will always make the selfish choice or it could lead to alignment change if the character was willing in his selfish desire to compromise with some "lawful" authority.

Likewise a chaotic evil character does not have to be "sick, they are cruel, malicious, and sadistic". The character could be completely dispassionate and have none of those traits, think of your stereotypical James Bond villian.

In summary, alignment should rarely be used as the motivator of character action. There are examples of when it is, that is when your character chooses an alignment as his main motivation, the evil character who chooses to be evil for its own sake. But even in such cases the character has to determine how he will uphold the alignment. One paladin might be sacrifice one for the good of the many while another might not risk the life of even one innocent.

hamishspence
2009-07-12, 04:41 AM
Or, you could have a Chaotic counterpart of the "results justify the means" school of brutal but Well Intentioned Extremists, for CE.

V in V for Vendetta comes pretty close- he wants to overthrow the tyranny, and he doesn't care that much about who gets hurt in the process.

Yrcrazypa
2009-07-12, 06:23 AM
I generally play things on the Law - Chaos axis as the way the characters run their lives. While a Lawful person would be very structured, do things in a specific way all the time, a chaotic would be spontaneous, he would do things as they come to him, and be bored by routine. Neutral would be a bit in the middle, not particularly rigid in his everyday life, but not extremely spontaneous.

Good - Evil, I would play based on what they strive for. Good would be helping people, doing their best to make the world as 'good' as they can. Neutral would either not particularly care one way or the other, just helping out who they became friends with without making a big deal of the Good or Evil aspects of it. Evil would go towards their goals irrespective of what they may have to do. If they wanted to get revenge against a powerful foe, they wouldn't care who they stepped on to do it. Or they would be the typical, mustache twirling, Evil guy.

There are a lot more ways to play than what I listed, but I feel it is a pretty good guideline, and no, I don't buy into the "Lawful people ALWAYS follow the law, and consider breaking it an atrocity regardless of alignment." Unless you want him/her to be that way anyway.

Riffington
2009-07-12, 08:04 AM
Well the problem with ethics riddles like that is they disregard the possibility of further investigation. Hell, what I'd really do is position myself right between Knife Happy, and Individual A and ask "Why are you looking for him?" I then act based off of his answers and the reactions of A.

The question Kant was answering was just slightly different. It was an axeman, for example, and the person he was looking for is hiding in your house. You happen to be weaker than this axeman, but he is asking you politely whether his quarry happens to be hiding in your house. You can certainly lie to him directly, but if you start asking strange questions about why he wants to know, he'll probably decide to go have a look.
Kant's claim was that you must respect human rationality enough to give crazy people with axes the benefit of the doubt, and tell them the truth.

Had he lived 140 years later, he would never have said such foolishness.

Serpentine
2009-07-12, 09:04 AM
I like the alignments. I think that they are an excellent guide for character-making. It also makes sense to have something like this for a world in which most people worship a very immediately real deity with solidly defined moralities. That said, it's more flexible in my game than RAW, and I'm thinking of ruling that alignment-oriented spells and abilities only work on "Always [alignment]" creatures, or individuals who are such paragons of their alignment that it has become part of the very essence of their beings. I'm undecided on how this would effect creatures such as celestials and fiends, who have an alignment as part of their type, who change their alignment (possible but rare). Probably it would either still effect them, or (at least if they end up right at the opposite end of their alignment) they may actually become their [opposite alignment]'s equivalent - i.e. a devil may become an angel if it does so much good.
Incidentally, I ask characters to consider not only their alignment, but also the emphasis or priority of it. For example, to my Lawful Good dwarf Knight, Good is more important than Law - saving her brother from excessive punishment is more important to her than the strict adherence to tradition.

Now, my own takes on the alignments (note: These are all tendencies or trends and suggestions, not rules or anything like the only options, and are by necessity over-simplified, and sometimes overlap or repeat):

Chaotic Good: Individuality, personal freedoms, creativity, progressiveness, sponteneity, short attention span, fresh thinking, short-term thinking, personal concience, Humanism, personal responsibility, self-government, generosity. A Chaotic Good may well have a moral code, but it is one that they themselves chose, based on their own experiences and concience. They are always willing to help anyone in need, though generally on a case-by-case basis.
The Free Spirit: This character believes in all people doing what makes them happy (so long as that doesn't involve making someone else unhappy). Laws that are made to stop people doing things that make other people unhappy are silly, because a person's own concience should be enough, and if it's not they'll probably do it anyway. These people are likely to chafe under what they see as unfair laws or out of date traditions and may break them whenever it's convenient for them, or possibly as a matter of principle. Probably mostly little ones, though. They will help others to the best of their abilities, especially if that means subverting an unfair law or tradition. They are generous and spontaneous, and will fight for every person's right to happiness.
The Freedom Fighter: This character believes laws and traditions (not necessarily all of them) are oppressive and unfair. Authority figures have no true authority merely by virtue of their position: If they want to tell her what to do, they will have to first demonstrate their worthiness to hold that authority. Any person of authority who forgets that they have that authority only according to the goodwill of their subjects has forfeited the right to that authority, and is an enemy of the people. This character may fight to overthrow an entire dynasty if that power has forgotten its responsibility to its people and has become too oppressive, or may just watch her authority figures carefully for signs that they are abusing their powers or gaining them through dishonest or unfair means. These will be the first voices against injustice, and its most violent opposition. They may fight hard, but never at the expense of what they feel is right*. They may break any rule they deem unjust at every opportunity, as a matter of principle.
The Progressive: The people of the past didn't know any better than the people of the present, and times change - circumstances must change with them. This character is constantly reviewing the way things are done, pushing to modify them as necessary or replace them with new systems or procedures. No tradition is sacrosanct, and should be retained only so long as it is the most useful and beneficial option. These characters are suspicious of anyone who justifies something because "it's just the way it's done". If they cannot change something, they may attempt to subvert it.
The Idealist: All people are Good and true at heart. All know what is best for themselves, and want the best for everyone else. All laws and traditions do is fetter the ability of Good people to do what is good and right. The world would be a much better place if we weren't all telling each other what to do, if people on high didn't try to control everything and everyone. If this character does not break a law, it is only because he would have done it anyway - though it would be vastly preferable if there wasn't a bit of paper in a palace saying he had to do that thing.
The Well-meaning Scoundrel: This character generally means well and does good when he can. But for his day-to-day life, the law and its enforcers are an inconvenience and obstacle that must to be overcome if he is to get things done. He probably wishes no ill on authorities and law-abiding citizens, but has few qualms about working around them, through them, or defending himself (preferably non-fatally) against them.

Neutral Good: Moderation, pragmatism, considerate. Authority figures are there for a reason, but they are still just human (or whatever). These characters are only care that Good is done, not how. As long as what someone is doing is right and just, it makes no difference whether a government says they can do it.
The Moderate: As the Chaotic Good Progressive, except is more likely to be less critical or a law or tradition, and more likely to try to repair rather than replace it. Things are done for a reason, and one must consider carefully before changing it, but that does not mean it should not be changed. Furthermore, a law may be perfectly just most of the time, but few are all the time - and in such cases, the law must be able to bend.

Lawful Good: Traditionalism, community welfare, ponderousness, caution, planning, long attention span, restrained thinking, long-term thinking, peer judgement, responsibility to and for one's peers, "teach a man to fish"*, "good of the many"*, justice, restraint, narrow-mindedness. People are happier and more secure in a well-ordered society, and a well-ordered society needs time-tested laws and traditions and unquestioned authority. Governments must work for the benefit of all their subjects, and the subjects must in turn obey their government, and all will be well and happy and just.
The Judge: The happiness and wellbeing of all people depends on a secure and well-ordered society, and the security and order of a society is only as strong as its laws and traditions. Anyone who questions or does not adhere to these laws and traditions threatens their society, and therefore the happiness and wellbeing of all its people. The system may sometimes fail, and such cases must be avoided where possible. However, it is more important that the system stay strong for the people than be weakened for the sake of a single individual. The ancestors knew best, and to question them is to risk destabalising the entire society. If the system must be changed, it must be as slight and as slow as possible. The government knows what is best for the people, and the people must be governed or there will be chaos and, therefore, misery. Chaos is the great enemy of civilisation, and must be eliminated at every opportunity.
The Crusader: Spreading law, order and [government system of choice] to people across the world, whether they want it or not! People can only be happier and safer under the rule of this character/her government, even if they don't know it yet, and she will do everything she can to bring as many under it as possible. Anyone who would threaten this security and her cause must be destroyed, for the sake of all her people, including the ones who aren't yet.
The Rebel: You heard me. A good government must care for its people. If it fails to do so, it loses it right to govern. Without proper government, a society will start to decay. Evil will gain a hold, and the security and wellbeing of the people will be threatened. In such a case, it is just that the people should rise up against its government in the defence of justice. It is best if such an uprising should be led by a responsible leader who seeks to reinstate the natural order and can direct the people to right deeds and minimise bloodshed. The rebel believes that good government is the best thing for the people, but knows that even a good government must be watched lest it turn bad. Law is best, but sometimes a period of chaos is needed to restore it.
The Law-abiding Citizen: The ordinary person. Believes that a well-ordered society is best for them and their interests, and for their family and neighbours. Will not actively pursue the cause of Law and Order, but may report any law-breaking he sees (particularly those that actively harm others) and generally avoid breaking any rules himself - unless he's sure he can get away with it, and then he'll probably feel bad about it.

Erm. So that's Good... I'll do the rest some other time.

*Can't think of the right word or phrase right now. Hopefully you get the gist.

Satyr
2009-07-12, 09:53 AM
First of all, the alignment system should always be seen as a subjective and cultural-based; any form of moral categorisation should thereforebased on the ingame culture and the morals and values of the characters, not the players. This is a basic form of transfer, and one of the elemental abilities any good roleplayer should have. Transfering the own morals as a general standard, is not only incredible short-sighted, it betrays a cetain and very pretentious world view.
In a campaign based on imperial Rome, slavery is not evil. It is a matter of fact. A landowner who neglects and abuses his slaves may be condemable (and mostly stupid because his slaves will work worse than those who feel treated well). The depiction of slavery may be very different when the campaign is based on the Haitian Rebellion.

So, the first and most important rule of playing with morals is, Use the ideas of the setting as a base.

The next step would be to regard the actions or person you want to categorize in the context of the environment and not detached from it. The circumstances and context of pretty much every situation often dictates the behaviour; in this context, you have a reliable base line at hand for what is "neutral" - it is the usual socially accepted behaviour in the specific context. Any action or intention that is an extra efford to improve or worsen the lot of other people tip the balance in the one or other direction.

Problems appear when either the moral ideas of individuals or societies clash - and in this case, there is a very simple rule- if you as a player can believable show that your character sees a specicifc action as the "good" one, and firmly believes in this, as long as there is a possible ambivalence in this. just remember that in any moral questions, there is never the one true way, but always a various number of different positions and perspectives and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that your conventions are better than those of other people.

L'intrigant
2009-07-12, 10:46 AM
I like the alignments. I think that they are an excellent guide for character-making.

You've got it backwards. The alignment doesn't make the character. The character makes the alignment. You can start making a character by saying "I want to make a chaotic neutral human fighter", but then you're limiting yourself outright. Instead, start thinking about what character you want to make instead of what alignment you wan to play.

Instead of "CN human fighter", you can start by thinking "I want to play a man who lives according to his own laws, his own moral code. He fights only for what he wants to, but strictly maintains his beliefs and never violates them to any degree. He generally fights for money, but has been known to champion the disadvantaged or strike out in revenge." After hearing that, you go "hey, that's a perfect fit for chaotic neutral".

Milskidasith
2009-07-12, 10:52 AM
One thing I've seen: If you play chaotic, you don't have to hate every system of law and order, ever. If you are chaotic good, it makes no sense to turn down the help of a king because he is a king.

Riffington
2009-07-12, 11:23 AM
First of all, the alignment system should always be seen as a subjective and cultural-based; any form of moral categorisation should thereforebased on the ingame culture and the morals and values of the characters, not the players. This is a basic form of transfer, and one of the elemental abilities any good roleplayer should have. Transfering the own morals as a general standard, is not only incredible short-sighted, it betrays a cetain and very pretentious world view.

Are Drow, orcs, and demons evil? After all, in their societies, slavery, torture, rape, and betrayal are considered culturally acceptable (well, betrayal may not be culturally acceptable for orcs, but it is for the others).
If Hextor becomes chief deity of a nation, does he become LG? Does freeing a slave become a CE act there?

ondonaflash
2009-07-12, 11:30 AM
You've got it backwards. The alignment doesn't make the character. The character makes the alignment. You can start making a character by saying "I want to make a chaotic neutral human fighter", but then you're limiting yourself outright.

That's... goddammit! That's the friggin' point! Limitations inspire greater creativity! By choosing outright "I'm Lawful Neutral" you are forced to stretch your creative muscles in order to create an exciting and interesting character. That is the point of this thread, to stretch those muscles within the confines of a specific limitation IE their Alignment.


Long Post

I'm not presenting those as absolutes, I presenting those as fun and interesting methods of playing those alignments.

HamHam
2009-07-12, 11:46 AM
First of all, the alignment system should always be seen as a subjective and cultural-based

This is completely the wrong way to think of DnD alignment. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil have already been determined, where determined eons ago in the creation of the world. They are each primal forces, and are absolutely, objectively, irrevocably true and present regardless of the actions or opinions of mortals. The alignments pre-date the majority of the gods for that matter.

L'intrigant
2009-07-12, 12:16 PM
That's... goddammit! That's the friggin' point! Limitations inspire greater creativity! By choosing outright "I'm Lawful Neutral" you are forced to stretch your creative muscles in order to create an exciting and interesting character. That is the point of this thread, to stretch those muscles within the confines of a specific limitation IE their Alignment.

To stretch your muscles within a confine is a contradiction of terms. No matter what, you can't stretch to your fullest because those limitations are always there to stop you. Without that confine, you can stretch so much farther and into much more interesting shapes. Your creative muscles get a better workout from having no restrictions than from having a set parameter that that you have to conform to.

I don't speak against alignment as a theory, but in practice I've found that the alignment comes after the character, not before it. This isn't dogma, so please don't take it that way. This is personal practice and opinion. I like the alignment system and I think it's a hoot to try to find alignments for my characters and those I read about, but they don't dictate my choices when I make a character.

Superglucose
2009-07-12, 12:19 PM
That's... goddammit! That's the friggin' point! Limitations inspire greater creativity! By choosing outright "I'm Lawful Neutral" you are forced to stretch your creative muscles in order to create an exciting and interesting character. That is the point of this thread, to stretch those muscles within the confines of a specific limitation IE their Alignment.
What? No.

Huh?

Ok, you make a character. Some people start with morality and move to motivation, others start with motivation and move to morality. NEITHER OF THEM ARE WRONG AND NEITHER ARE BETTER THAN THE OTHER. They are equal.
EDIT:

I thought I'd start a thread where people can propose ways to play the alignments in 3.5 D&D in an intelligent manner which furthers the plot of the game, doesn't provoke the other player's (not necessarily their characters) into wanting to kill them, and keeps the roleplaying intriguing. In that spirit I thought I'd propose methods of playing the two I feel are the most difficult, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil.


1) Your chaotic evil character DOES provoke players. See, there are a few "problem" alignments. Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Evil (how did CN get in there? It's like, the single most amusing alignment ever and easy to play. You can do *anything* and handwave it as "it seemed like a good idea at the time) for the following reasons:

Lawful Good (esp. paladins): Players tend to enforce their alignment on other people.

Lawful Neutral: see Lawful Good

Chaotic Evil: A destructive and dangerous influence, see Belkar. Chaotic Evil characters don't have to be full of rampant murder and sadism and sexual assaults to be evil or chaotic, so drop that stance right now. That's not a way to endear yourself to the party, that's a way to have the party wonder, "Is this guy really all there?" and hate your character for taking up screen time with your graphic rape scenes. In short: everything you described is everything that makes Chaotic Evil characters suck to be around.

An example of a chaotic evil character (actually two):
Recently we had a party with a LN fighter, a N wizard, a CE rogue, and a CE fighter. We ran around running errands for the empire without problem with our alignment. Why?

The CE rogue, aside from keeping the party loot sheet (so much money was embezzled by the end of that campaign), found ways to be sociopathic that weren't inherently cruel. Whenever someone was even the least bit of risk to her, she killed them. In order to rob a temple's collection plate, she blew up a tavern as a distraction. For the most part, she didn't go out of her way to cause pain or take erotic pleasure from it (seriously?), she just did it because she held no regard for the lives of the people around her: she was the daughter of a king of a place that looked down its nose at outsiders.

The CE fighter spent his time pretending to be a Lawful Good paladin. He emulated Paladin casting by taking levels in Cleric and simply claimed his charisma was too low to use lay on hands. In the mean time, he had full ranks (I forget how) in Sleight of Hand and Bluff, which meant that pretty much of the time he was lifting small valuables off every member of the party.

Now this party, because of the players involved, had a really interesting dynamic. The guy playing the LN fighter is not a leader of any sort (just not in his personality), everyone playing and running hated the N wizard but we were too nice to tell him to GTFO (gobble those french onions), and that left two CE characters, one of which would have to be party leader. So the rogue ended up being the party's leader, DPS, and face. It also worked out really well: no one in the party died (though a lot of people OUTSIDE the party died).

Xenogears
2009-07-12, 12:29 PM
To stretch your muscles within a confine is a contradiction of terms. No matter what, you can't stretch to your fullest because those limitations are always there to stop you. Without that confine, you can stretch so much farther and into much more interesting shapes. Your creative muscles get a better workout from having no restrictions than from having a set parameter that that you have to conform to.

That doesn't make sense. Thatd be like saying that lifting weights won't help because you are limiting yourself. Forcing yourself to play in a specific alignment (atleast in the way he means...I think) is like giving yourself a handicap top improve your overall skill. Like say "Sure I can beat Super Metroid any time. But how bout if I beat it without getting any missiles, super missiles, power bombs, etc." Sure youre making it much harder on yourself but once you CAN do that then you are much better at Super Metroids than before. The same should go for RPing and Character Creation.

Satyr
2009-07-12, 12:31 PM
Are Drow, orcs, and demons evil? After all, in their societies, slavery, torture, rape, and betrayal are considered culturally acceptable (well, betrayal may not be culturally acceptable for orcs, but it is for the others).
If Hextor becomes chief deity of a nation, does he become LG? Does freeing a slave become a CE act there?

I won't say much about the Drow, because their society just doesn't work in the way it is described and would be so unstable that it would shift into a more stable form or fully collapse pretty quickly - the typical case of bad writing without investing enough thought into it before.

Demons and the like are a tricky matter as well, becuase they seem to be hard-wired into a certain niche; they are not as much senrient beings who are able to make moral decisions as they are pretty much incarnations of the morals. The base of any form of moral judgement is the ability to make decisions; and act out of more than pure urge. This is not the way, sentient people work, however.

But the Orc tribe as an example works quite well- the tribe has a social order and structure, more or less clear roles of social order, and we assume that it is a stable, working society. This tribe works after an inherit culture with self- imposed rules to keep the status quo. There is no reason to assume that these rules intrinsically worse or better than those of any other society. It is in most cases impossible to morally judge socieities as a whole, only the individuals within it. So... the individual orc who lives by the rules of his society is pretty neutral. The orcish vanguard hunter who regularly endanger himself to hunt food for his people or defend his tribe against intruders, is perhaps a good man, while the other who sell his clanmates to slavers is probably not.

Now, socieites change, and their moral values chagne with them. This includes religious shifts as well; the majority of the society as the status quo remains the neutral baseline, despite the shift. (This is the base of many tales of people who wittness this shift and are unable to follow it, remaining in their old parameters and become social outsiders or dissidents in the following; the traditional problems of resocialisation of soldiers or inmates is an example, albeit a very real one).

Now, the moral decision happens on the individual level easured on the standards of the society and the intention of the perpetrator, as much as the following effect (even though stupidity is not a moral concept, it is often ineterchangeable, when the best intentions lead to the worst results.


This completely the wrong way to think of DnD alignment. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil have already been determined, where determined eons ago in the creation of the world. They are each primal forces, and are absolutely, objectively, irrevocably true and present regardless of the actions or opinions of mortals. The alignments pre-date the majority of the gods for that matter.

You are probably right in the D&D context, but this thread explicitely asked for an intelligent way to play allignments. Objective Morality is a paradox.

Mando Knight
2009-07-12, 12:33 PM
You are probably true, but this thread explicitely asked for an intelligent way to play allignments.

And an intelligent way to play alignments does not have to explicitly deny objective morality.

Superglucose
2009-07-12, 12:42 PM
Why is everyone going on about how much of a sadist all CE characters have to be?

Belkar is NOT how a CE character should be played.

CE characters are, on some level, sociopathic, but not necessarily sadistic.

hamishspence
2009-07-12, 12:46 PM
Evil can be anything from malevolent sadist to coldly indifferent to other's suffering, to well intentioned but very very extreme extremist- the Evil aspect of a CE character, because of this, means that CE character doesn't have to be a villain- they could be an antihero.

CE seems to be the alignment of choice for bar-room thugs in FRCS- so they don't have to be utterly malevolent- just being a bullyboy is enough.

HamHam
2009-07-12, 12:54 PM
You are probably right in the D&D context, but this thread explicitely asked for an intelligent way to play allignments. Objective Morality is a paradox.

Not if magic and divine beings actually exist. And even if it is, so are infinite plains and Sigil but you don't see them complaining,

To put it another way, Good is not necessarily right. In fact, all the alignments think that their way is the right way. But the Evil side considers itself Evil, not Good, and everyone has one set playbook as to what is Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic.

hamishspence
2009-07-12, 12:56 PM
Yes- relative morality is a massive change to the standard D&D system- and one suggested only in BoVD as an optional variant.

Intent and context mattering for most (not all) acts, is, however, par for the course.

Yahzi
2009-07-12, 01:04 PM
Morality is about interaction with others. What you want from an alignment is how the NPC/PC is/should going to react to others.


Drow
I haven't read the books, so I can't say. But I do have a society of creatures in my world that are NE, just plain sociopathic evil. They exist because their biology is different (they live thousands of years, have immense spell-power, and reproduce parthenogenitically). They don't really need society, other than their dominated slaves. They certainly don't need each other, and only cooperate when it looks profitable.

This alignment causes destruction and pain for the momentary amusement it provides. They couldn't care less about other people, and even have trouble caring about their own future selves.


Demons/Orcs
CE and LE are easier.

Any society that allows the strong to take from the weak, simply because they're stronger, is CE. If you beat up a CE and take his stuff, but allow him to live if he'll give you more stuff, he won't be morally outraged. Outraged, sure, in that he'll want to beat you up - but not morally outraged. He won't think there's something fundamentally wrong with the universe because it happened. And if he can't beat you up, he'll just respect you for your strength. That's CE.

If you trick a LE person into a bad contract, and cheat him while still remaining inside the letter of the law (and holding fast to your agreement with him), he'll just blame himself for not being smarter. He won't be morally outraged that you tricked him; just personally humiliated that he was trickable. And of course, when he tricks you, he expects you to feel the same way. That's LE.

It's hard for societies like this to get very far. Cooperation is necessary to a greater and greater extent the larger and more sophisticated your society grows. So E groups are limited to some extent, especially in size.

But then, D&D is just plain schizo on that whole point. There can't be huge human kingdoms with millions of people, engaged in careful detente with other huge kingdoms, like France and England in the Middle Ages. The magic system simply does not allow this world to develop. Instead, you have at best city-states, where a single throne dominates a city and perhaps some colonies, but the entire population is expressed in tens of thousands. Surrounding them are implacably hostile monsters (i.e. city-states of different races). And violent, dysfunctional tribes can actually survive and compete with these kinds of political entities.


Speaking from the Orc's point of view:

the individual orc who lives by the rules of his society is pretty neutral.
He's CE, because beating people up and taking their stuff is what he considers acceptable behaviour.


The orcish vanguard hunter who regularly endanger himself to hunt food for his people or defend his tribe against intruders, is perhaps a good man,
He's respected because he wins fights and kills things, not because of anything he does for the tribe. Other orcs want to emulate him because he's a winner, not because he's a socially conscientious individual.


while the other who sell his clanmates to slavers is probably not.
He's not a bad Orc - just a scary one. But if you're weak enough to be captured and sold to slavers, then you deserve to be a slave.

By anybody's lights, the Orcs are CE. Even the orcs proudly think of themselves as CE. To them, the lesson of history is clear; the weak die, and the strong survive. Being strong is necessary, and the Orc way raises lots of strong Orcs. Those pansy elves and their wispy "good" only survive because they have special powers - put them on equal terms with an orc tribe, and the orcs will win every time. (At least, that's what the Orcs think...)



Objective Morality is a paradox.
No, Absolute morality is a paradox. Objective morality is not. (I realize this difference between those two terms might be a bit too technical for this board, though. :smallredface: )

Blackjackg
2009-07-12, 01:52 PM
To stretch your muscles within a confine is a contradiction of terms. No matter what, you can't stretch to your fullest because those limitations are always there to stop you. Without that confine, you can stretch so much farther and into much more interesting shapes. Your creative muscles get a better workout from having no restrictions than from having a set parameter that that you have to conform to.


I can't help myself. I must post poetry. Spoilered, emphasis mine.


Nuns Fret Not at Their Convent's Narrow Room,
by William Wordsworth.

Nuns fret not at their convent's narrow room;
And hermits are contented with their cells;
And students with their pensive citadels;
Maids at the wheel, the weaver at his loom,
Sit blithe and happy; bees that soar for bloom,
High as the highest Peak of Furness-fells,
Will murmur by the hour in foxglove bells:
In truth the prison, unto which we doom
Ourselves, no prison is: and hence for me,
In sundry moods, 'twas pastime to be bound
Within the Sonnet's scanty plot of ground;
Pleased if some Souls (for such there needs must be)
Who have felt the weight of too much liberty,
Should find brief solace there, as I have found.
Alignment is only as constraining as you and your DM want it to be. Used properly, it is absolutely no impediment to full character development, and can serve as a useful gauge of the same.

Yora
2009-07-12, 02:23 PM
Re: Intelligent Ways to Play Alignments

Don't. Play a character. After you played him for some time, his current alignment should become easy to discern.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-07-12, 02:40 PM
Let's stress test this. My character in a campaign currently running is a rebel leader. I am a proactive agent of change, desiring discord, anarchy and complete and utter independance from any rule. I fight using relatively standard methods to achieve an idealistic goal rather than a pragmatic cause, and will do incredibly dangerous things, possibly at the cost of my or others lives to achieve my idealistic goal. (I will do anything for the ideal of freedom). Since I'm a leader (Leading an undead army), I plan meticulously, acting to prevent enemies from acting against me (usually diplomatically) while manuevering to strike them down one by one (usually ambush and surprise.) By D&D definition, I am chaotic, and due to the methods I use, which are evil, but not pragmatic, I am an idealistic proactive, which you have associated with lawful good.

Once again: I use my terms to describe methods a character uses to reach their goals, not the goals themselves. I'd say the character was a Proactive Pragmatist. He takes the initiative by setting the rules by which others must play and is more than willing do whatever it takes to reach his goals. By placing his own freedom over even the very lives of others, he has become the very worst possible aspect of the structure he is fighting against. He's a painfully deluded LE character.

hamishspence
2009-07-12, 02:46 PM
But is it his own freedom, or freedom in general?

In Fiendish Codex 2, the people at the top are assumed to be excempt from all the rules they enforce on those "below them" and in this sense, the character is similar, in enforcing their views on others, while not abiding by them himself- "force others to be free, even if it kills them"

CGs, at least in D&D, according to Champions of Valor, are willing to accept that other people may choose to live a different way, even if its a conformist way.

L'intrigant
2009-07-12, 03:08 PM
Alignment is only as constraining as you and your DM want it to be. Used properly, it is absolutely no impediment to full character development, and can serve as a useful gauge of the same.

And hence another good point. Nothing, barring the player's own ineptitude, can bar full character development. Alignment, class, race, whatever. Character development will happen, gameplay factors be damned.

The problem is that many people base their character off of a certain alignment instead of basing their alignment off of their character. A character is not what you write on a sheet of paper, but what you develop in your mind. Write down mechanics and guidelines, sure, but the character goes beyond those. The alignment, as you said, has only as much importance as the player (and occasionally railroad GM) gives it.

I simply choose to give it a back seat to the character in question.

Yukitsu
2009-07-12, 03:38 PM
Once again: I use my terms to describe methods a character uses to reach their goals, not the goals themselves. I'd say the character was a Proactive Pragmatist. He takes the initiative by setting the rules by which others must play and is more than willing do whatever it takes to reach his goals. By placing his own freedom over even the very lives of others, he has become the very worst possible aspect of the structure he is fighting against. He's a painfully deluded LE character.

Nothing about this character can be described as pragmatic however. The methodology as well follows a certain ideal, as opposed to pragmatism, in that the undead this character uses are not creatures with a will of there own, and as such can be morally commanded. My character could lead humans, who can act on there own initiative making them pragmatically, better freedom fighters. It is a classical idealistic character (in fact, it's the old "gone too far" style of idealistic.)

As well, lawful is impossible to defend. While they are certainly proactive measures, they do not follow any set style, don't follow an honourable code of conduct, and often break the law, which is the definition of D&D chaotic. Obviously, proactive and lawful are not in any way equivalent.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-07-12, 04:20 PM
:smallconfused: We are having a communication error here, and I'm pretty sure at least part of the problem is somewhere on my end.

Yet again: I don't care about the Hell a character is going towards with his intentions. The terms are used to describe the road taken to get there.

Using the living is the opposite of pragmatic given that they either need time invested in their training in addition to being reconditioned NOT to think as an individual (as in real world armed forces) or they are to be limited to small strike teams with an invested interest in one another (as in groups like the IRA). Using the 'mindless' dead as soldiers, and giving them orders directly, is pretty much a fantasy version of the Skynet scenario. It's all about personal control. He's LE with delusions of CN/CG.

hamishspence
2009-07-12, 04:27 PM
I've seen CE's with delusions of Lawful Goodness (the ex-paladin in the 3.5sourcebook Waterdeep: City of Splendors who never tells a direct lie but often misleads- and won't admit to himself he's fallen)

so LE with delusions of Chaotic Goodness isn't impossible.

Yukitsu
2009-07-12, 04:38 PM
Yet again: I don't care about the Hell a character is going towards with his intentions. The terms are used to describe the road taken to get there.

I never mentioned intent. The road taken is neither pragmatic nor is it lawful. It violates every law, and more importantly, it's not a pragmatic road, even if it has been planned out. The steps taken are often dangerous on a personal level, and have no gain to the long run. (For instance, risking life and limb, while alone and in hostile territory to save a band of slaves whom I knew would not help my cause.)


Using the living is the opposite of pragmatic given that they either need time invested in their training in addition to being reconditioned NOT to think as an individual (as in real world armed forces) or they are to be limited to small strike teams with an invested interest in one another (as in groups like the IRA). Using the 'mindless' dead as soldiers, and giving them orders directly, is pretty much a fantasy version of the Skynet scenario. It's all about personal control. He's LE with delusions of CN/CG.

You have startlingly little control over undead. They can't be ordered to do the advanced tactical strategems as a robot with a variety of programs can. They can't even be intelligently ordered to patrol an area. Humans can. As well, it was a fairly common mistake by the top brass to tell soldiers not to think. They have to think as a group, but they certainly still have to think. Skeletons simply cannot. You wind up with people either in a big mob running into something they can't handle, or people standing in tight formation, getting mowed down by anything that might inflict casualties in an area (More common in D&D than Napoleonic warfare, which already saw a decline in efficacy of line infantry) You can't effectively micro an army of skeletons into skirmishing. It's simply too complex, and takes too long.

woodenbandman
2009-07-12, 07:20 PM
I think that the Chaotic and Evil axes should be separated from each other. When you try to determine someone's alignment, ask yourself two questions:

Is he lawful, chaotic, or neutral?
Is he good, evil, or neutral?

That's their alignment. Like a paladin. Is a paladin good? Yes. Is a paladin lawful? Yes. As long as they're both of those two things, they're being lawful and good. Perhaps a paladin will once in a while perform a chaotic action. But if the paladin is doing good with that action, he shouldn't generally be going against his code. A paladin will also probably at one point perform a lawful action which indirectly causes evil. This is also not going against the paladin's code, as long as it wasn't the paladin's intention and the paladin wasn't the one performing the evil (this might include taking away an evildoer and ignoring his pleas to be set free, only to find that he was trying to save his child, which was summarily killed).

Now, look at belkar. Is he chaotic? Yes. Is he evil? Yes. Ergo, he is chaotic evil. He is not evil with his every breath, nor is he chaotic with his every footstep. But he's chaotic most of the time, and he's evil most of the time, ergo he's chaotic evil.

So my philosophy on alignment is: if you're going to use it (I don't), seperate the Law/Chaos axis from the Good/Evil axis. They obviously don't have anything to do with each other. A person who is Good can commit lawful, chaotic, or neutral actions and still remain good, just as a person who is lawful can commit evil, good, and neutral actions and still remain lawful.

Yahzi
2009-07-13, 01:31 AM
I must post poetry.
You win the Most Impressive Citation award. And the Internets. :smallbiggrin:

Satyr
2009-07-13, 02:30 AM
And an intelligent way to play alignments does not have to explicitly deny objective morality.

Actualy it does; objective morals is either ridiculously stupid (morals are always a by-product of social, cultural and individual perspective) and sometimes also scarringly pretentious ("I think this is right, and therefore it must be right").
In both cases, it fails when combined with rational thaught; it is hard to build an intelligent construct of thoughts on a faulty premise.


Any society that allows the strong to take from the weak, simply because they're stronger, is CE.

If this were correct, every single human society ever was chaotic evil, only the role of the strong and he weak shifted and the ways of taking the stuff as well, and the rules of how acquisite other people's stuff are more or less regelemented, but the basic concept stays unchanged in pretty< much every society.


If you beat up a CE and take his stuff, but allow him to live if he'll give you more stuff, he won't be morally outraged. Outraged, sure, in that he'll want to beat you up - but not morally outraged.

I think you underestimate the hypocrisy of most people. You know, when my people beat your people up, that's valorous patriotism; if your people fight back, they are brutal murderers and aggressors, and vice versa. The first purpose of morals is almost always to justify oneself- independet from the fact if you're right or wrong (in your own perspective, you are pretty much always right, but that's another discussion. Just regard the reaction in this very thread to the reproach that buying stuff made in sweat shops is an evil deed and the reaction to this; basic example of justification and rationalisation. Almost archetypical.


He [The Orc]'s CE, because beating people up and taking their stuff is what he considers acceptable behaviour.

But so does pretty much everybody else, as long as you don't beat up your equals or your people. So, as long as our Ork warrior only beats up goblins, kobolds and elves and takes their stuff, but is a generally nice guy towards his tribe or even Orcs in general, the only difference to his proposedly good human counterpart is the color of his skin and the form of his nose. And that's no base for a claim of moral inferiority.


He's respected because he wins fights and kills things, not because of anything he does for the tribe. Other orcs want to emulate him because he's a winner, not because he's a socially conscientious individual.

Careful, you are getting pretentious here. This only works in the described way if you presume that Orc society is intrinsically moral inferior. The war of everybody against everybody is pretty constant in every society; only the rules of engagement change. The Orkish way is probably a bit more physical and direct, but to claim it moraly inferior is, well, pretentious.

---

I think the best way to play with alignment is to use as a cosmologic concept alone and completely detach it from the behavior; normal people from the physical plane are by default almost always true neutral, indepently from their personal morals or actions; while creatures with any form of extraplanar influence are almost always alligned among their supernatural faction, no matter what they do (Bob the Lich builder and his friendly undead troupe of construction workers are still pretty evil even when all they do are pro bono community services and house building).
The problem of the D&D alignment is that it tries to do two different things at the same time - and therefore fails at both. You could either use alignment as a moral indicator, or as a cosmic one, not both at the same time.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 03:16 AM
Actualy it does; objective morals is either ridiculously stupid (morals are always a by-product of social, cultural and individual perspective) and sometimes also scarringly pretentious ("I think this is right, and therefore it must be right").
In both cases, it fails when combined with rational thaught; it is hard to build an intelligent construct of thoughts on a faulty premise.

There is no real basis for such a conclusion. There is absolutely nothing that prevents alignment from being objective in principle. Back when the Great Wheel was made, everyone picked teams and divided all creation along the two alignment axises, and thus into the nine alignments. You can't exist without falling into these alignments in some way.


If this were correct, every single human society ever was chaotic evil, only the role of the strong and he weak shifted and the ways of taking the stuff as well, and the rules of how acquisite other people's stuff are more or less regelemented, but the basic concept stays unchanged in pretty< much every society.

Uh, no. Societies with a rule of law are LN or LE, for the most part. Pretty much once you advanced beyond tribalism, you hit NE/TN because Chaotic societies can't function on a large enough scale to allow for proper civilization.


I think you underestimate the hypocrisy of most people. You know, when my people beat your people up, that's valorous patriotism; if your people fight back, they are brutal murderers and aggressors, and vice versa. The first purpose of morals is almost always to justify oneself- independet from the fact if you're right or wrong (in your own perspective, you are pretty much always right, but that's another discussion. Just regard the reaction in this very thread to the reproach that buying stuff made in sweat shops is an evil deed and the reaction to this; basic example of justification and rationalisation. Almost archetypical.

I think you don't understand the alignment system. A CE Orc doesn't believe in the concept of natural rights. To him, a Hobbesian state of nature is how things are and how things should be, and that he should be the one on top.

If you think you have rights, but not "outsiders", you are NE or LE.


But so does pretty much everybody else, as long as you don't beat up your equals or your people. So, as long as our Ork warrior only beats up goblins, kobolds and elves and takes their stuff, but is a generally nice guy towards his tribe or even Orcs in general, the only difference to his proposedly good human counterpart is the color of his skin and the form of his nose. And that's no base for a claim of moral inferiority.

A human who acted like the Orc would also be CE. Most, however, do not.


Careful, you are getting pretentious here. This only works in the described way if you presume that Orc society is intrinsically moral inferior.

It is (from the perspective of someone not CE).


The problem of the D&D alignment is that it tries to do two different things at the same time - and therefore fails at both. You could either use alignment as a moral indicator, or as a cosmic one, not both at the same time.

The only way to understand the true meaning of alignment is to see that it is both of those things at once.

Satyr
2009-07-13, 03:34 AM
There is no real basis for such a conclusion. There is absolutely nothing that prevents alignment from being objective in principle.

There are no objective morals. Period. Morals are pretty much always conventions based on the contemporary culture and society; when societies change (and they are in a steady yet slow state of flux) the morals change with them; for being objective, morals must be static and that is absolutely incompatible with this very basic concept. Ergo objective morals = paradox.


Uh, no. Societies with a rule of law are LN or LE, for the most part. Pretty much once you advanced beyond tribalism, you hit NE/TN because Chaotic societies can't function on a large enough scale to allow for proper civilization.

Hey, I just claimed that "Any society that allows the strong to take from the weak, simply because they're stronger" is a sufficient criterium to call someone chaotic evil.


I think you don't understand the alignment system. [...] If you think you have rights, but not "outsiders", you are NE or LE.

Oh I understand the alignment system well enough. That's why I think it doesn't work...
And that's pretty much as indiscriminate argumenent as Yahzi's statement about what makes societies CE. Oversimplificatoion doesn't work that well in general, and again, pretty much every society has more and less equal parts, and people who just haven't the same rights; according to your very own arguement, every society is therefore evil. Do you see how ridiculous this is?


It is (from the perspective of someone not CE).

Yay for pretentious fantasy racism. Sorry, but that's too low for me. When we are still discussing about intelligent ways to deal with allignment, this arguement is wrong here. The only way to purposefully discuss any question of morals is from a neutral perspective; if you assume your position and ideals are intrinsically superior, the discussion is futile.


The only way to understand the true meaning of alignment is to see that it is both of those things at once.

And that's too much double-think to make any sense.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-13, 04:13 AM
I think you underestimate the hypocrisy of most people.

...But... If the alignments, and morals, in D&D are absolute, and everyone who is evil knows (and proudly wears the badge) they are evil, I think this person would not be morally outraged. A person that are CE, in the absolute D&D world, would not argue that it is morally wrong for someone else to beat them up and rob them. They would extract REVENGE! AT ANY COST! perhaps, but that is another matter.
Now, a LE person might feel that it is wrong to rob others without support of the law, but if the PC managed to get legal support, or at least a loophole, for his robbery and beating, the LE evil would be in the same position as the CE person above.

Serpentine
2009-07-13, 08:47 AM
You've got it backwards. The alignment doesn't make the character. The character makes the alignment. You can start making a character by saying "I want to make a chaotic neutral human fighter", but then you're limiting yourself outright. Instead, start thinking about what character you want to make instead of what alignment you wan to play.:smallsigh:
First of all, what's wrong with saying "I want to make a Chaotic Neutral human Fighter. Now, what does that mean to me/this character? In what way will he reflect this alignment?"? Furthermore, it's not always an either/or matter. People, in my experience, will be more likely to say "I want to make a Chaotic Neutral human Fighter who has a serious problem with authority due to an inferiority complex", or "I want to make a human Fighter who has a serious problem with authority due to an inferiority complex, and so will generally be Chaotic Neutral". Either way will produce a perfectly good character.
I wasn't saying that "the alignment makes the character", I was saying that alignment can be a useful tool for creating and expanding upon your character's personality and motivations, and for keeping these consistent throughout a game.

Woodenbandman: I pretty much agree with you. That's basically what's behind my emphasis idea (to take your example, is Law or Good more important to that Paladin? If he's, to put it one way, Good Lawful Good, then I would argue that the occasional Evil action should be a bigger deal than the occasional Chaotic one).

Back to work on my alignment archetypes:

Chaotic Good: Individuality, personal freedoms, creativity, progressiveness, sponteneity, short attention span, fresh thinking, short-term thinking, personal concience, Humanism, personal responsibility, self-government, generosity. A Chaotic Good may well have a moral code, but it is one that they themselves chose, based on their own experiences and concience. They are always willing to help anyone in need, though generally on a case-by-case basis.
The Free Spirit: This character believes in all people doing what makes them happy (so long as that doesn't involve making someone else unhappy). Laws that are made to stop people doing things that make other people unhappy are silly, because a person's own concience should be enough, and if it's not they'll probably do it anyway. These people are likely to chafe under what they see as unfair laws or out of date traditions and may break them whenever it's convenient for them, or possibly as a matter of principle. Probably mostly little ones, though. They will help others to the best of their abilities, especially if that means subverting an unfair law or tradition. They are generous and spontaneous, and will fight for every person's right to happiness. e.g. Hippies.
The Virtuous Rapscallion: This character believes laws and traditions (not necessarily all of them) are oppressive and unfair. Authority figures have no true authority merely by virtue of their position: If they want to tell her what to do, they will have to first demonstrate their worthiness to hold that authority. Any person of authority who forgets that they have that authority only according to the goodwill of their subjects has forfeited the right to that authority, and is an enemy of the people. This character may fight to overthrow an entire dynasty if that power has forgotten its responsibility to its people and has become too oppressive, may defy a particular unjust establishment, or may just watch her authority figures carefully for signs that they are abusing their powers or gaining them through dishonest or unfair means. These will be the first voices against injustice, and its most violent opposition. They may fight hard, but never at the expense of what they feel is right*. They may break any rule they deem unjust at every opportunity, as a matter of principle. e.g. Robin Hood
The Progressive: The people of the past didn't know any better than the people of the present, and times change - circumstances must change with them. This character is constantly reviewing the way things are done, pushing to modify them as necessary or replace them with new systems or procedures. No tradition is sacrosanct, and should be retained only so long as it is the most useful and beneficial option. These characters are suspicious of anyone who justifies something because "it's just the way it's done". If they cannot change something, they may attempt to subvert it.
The Idealist: All people are Good and true at heart. All know what is best for themselves, and want the best for everyone else. All laws and traditions do is fetter the ability of Good people to do what is good and right. The world would be a much better place if we weren't all telling each other what to do, if people on high didn't try to control everything and everyone. If this character does not break a law, it is only because he would have done it anyway - though it would be vastly preferable if there wasn't a bit of paper in a palace saying he had to do that thing.
The Well-meaning Scoundrel: This character generally means well and does good when he can. But for his day-to-day life, the law and its enforcers are an inconvenience and obstacle that must to be overcome if he is to get things done. He probably wishes no ill on authorities and law-abiding citizens, but has few qualms about working around them, through them, or defending himself (preferably non-fatally) against them. e.g. thieves with a concience

Neutral Good: Moderation, pragmatism, considerate. Authority figures are there for a reason, but they are still just human (or whatever). These characters are only care that Good is done, not how. As long as what someone is doing is right and just, it makes no difference whether a government says they can do it.
The Moderate: As the Chaotic Good Progressive, except is more likely to be less critical or a law or tradition, and more likely to try to repair rather than replace it. Things are done for a reason, and one must consider carefully before changing it, but that does not mean it should not be changed. Furthermore, a law may be perfectly just most of the time, but few are all the time - and in such cases, the law must be able to bend. e.g. The wise adviser.
The Positive Balance: Chaos and Law are equal in value. Nature is both random and deliberate. There is a time and a place for order, and for sponteneity. Too much dominance of either will cause suffering. This character may believe that the extremes of Law and Chaos are necessary and balance each other out, or that it is better for each to be minimalised and brought into harmony with each other. So long as Good is done, it doesn't matter how. e.g. The nice naturalist.

Lawful Good: Traditionalism, community welfare, ponderousness, caution, planning, long attention span, restrained thinking, long-term thinking, peer judgement, responsibility to and for one's peers, "teach a man to fish"*, "good of the many"*, justice, restraint, narrow-mindedness. People are happier and more secure in a well-ordered society, and a well-ordered society needs time-tested laws and traditions and unquestioned authority. Governments must work for the benefit of all their subjects, and the subjects must in turn obey their government, and all will be well and happy and just.
The Judge: The happiness and wellbeing of all people depends on a secure and well-ordered society, and the security and order of a society is only as strong as its laws and traditions. Anyone who questions or does not adhere to these laws and traditions threatens their society, and therefore the happiness and wellbeing of all its people. The system may sometimes fail, and such cases must be avoided where possible. However, it is more important that the system stay strong for the people than be weakened for the sake of a single individual. The ancestors knew best, and to question them is to risk destabalising the entire society. If the system must be changed, it must be as slight and as slow as possible. The government knows what is best for the people, and the people must be governed or there will be chaos and, therefore, misery. Chaos is the great enemy of civilisation, and must be eliminated at every opportunity.
The Crusader: Spreading law, order and [government system of choice] to people across the world, whether they want it or not! People can only be happier and safer under the rule of this character/her government, even if they don't know it yet, and she will do everything she can to bring as many under it as possible. Anyone who would threaten this security and her cause must be destroyed, for the sake of all her people, including the ones who aren't yet. e.g. Knights Templar, Missionaries.
The Rebel: You heard me. A good government must care for its people. If it fails to do so, it loses it right to govern. Without proper government, a society will start to decay. Evil will gain a hold, and the security and wellbeing of the people will be threatened. In such a case, it is just that the people should rise up against its government in the defence of justice. It is best if such an uprising should be led by a responsible leader who seeks to reinstate the natural order and can direct the people to right deeds and minimise bloodshed. The rebel believes that good government is the best thing for the people, but knows that even a good government must be watched lest it turn bad. Law is best, but sometimes a period of chaos is needed to restore it. e.g. Martin Luther.
The Ascetic: This character attempts to surround himself with order and regularity. She believes in discipline and routine, in body, mind and/or habits. A well-ordered mind is a peaceful mind, and a peaceful mind is better equipped to know and do what is right. e.g. Fransiscan(sp?) monks.
The Soldier: The people up top know what's best, and the people at the bottom know how to do it. Orders are to be obeyed. So long as orders are obeyed, everything will be right. Heirarchies are necessary and natural, and must be maintained for the good of all, no matter where on that heirarchy they sit. e.g. The typical grunt, the benign dictator.
The Law-abiding Citizen: The ordinary person. Believes that a well-ordered society is best for them and their interests, and for their family and neighbours. Will not actively pursue the cause of Law and Order, but may report any law-breaking he sees (particularly those that actively harm others) and generally avoid breaking any rules himself - unless he's sure he can get away with it, and then he'll probably feel bad about it. e.g. Joe Blogs.

Chaotic Neutral: Sponteneity, selfishness, randomness, balance/harmony, unpredictability, freedom.
The Free Spirit: Can't fence me in, man! People can and should do what they like, and live with the consequences. If someone does something bad and a bad thing happens to them, then that's their problem. So long as people don't do anything to hurt or inconvenience this character (or anyone she likes), she doesn't care what they do. Law is bothersome and morality is irrelevant.
The Freedom Fighter: They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom! This character believes in liberty at all cost. The ends justifies the means - and the ends is freedom and the abolishment of tyranny. e.g. Guerilla fighters.
The Chaos Theorist: To this character, "Good" and "Evil" are meaningless artificial abstractions. Nature cares not about right and wrong, only about survival. Stuff happens. It cannot be predicted, explained or justified. It just is. Doing good now can, probably will, cause some bad somewhere down the track, and vice-versa, so it's best to just not worry about it. Alternatively, Good and Evil may be counterbalances to each other in the vast fundamental Chaos that is the universe, that which holds it all together and motivates its development.
The Brat: This character does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. As long as people don't get in his way, he won't get in theirs, and if he feels like it he might even do something nice for someone. But only because he wants to. And he might not. He might decide to be a complete **** and screw some people over. e.g. "Bad" CN characters.

True Neutral: Apathy, harmony, balance, philosophy, objectivity, nature, passiveness, impartiality, disinterest.
The Apathetic: What makes a man turn Neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality? This character just couldn't really care less. Stuff happens, people do things, and there's nothing you can do about it so why bother getting excited? These people do not judge, and indeed do not care. It could come from a sense of inevitablility - evil empires are overturned, and good ones decay. Laws are broken, chaos ordered. Or it could come from a lack of interest (or ability) in such abstract and deep thought. e.g. a fop
The Observer: This character understands that things change and nothing is permanent. They believe that no philosophy is any "better" than any other, and what is truly important is that events be watched, noted, and remembered. Both good and bad make mistakes, and these mistakes must be noticed and remembered if they are to be avoided in the future. An observer must be a step away from the action. To influence anything is to cease being an observer and become an actor in the great performance. She must be impartial and objective, must not allow personal views or feelings to get in the way of understanding the hard facts and motivations. She records - maybe experiments - she does not judge. e.g. A time traveler, a historian, a scientist.
The Grunt: This character is a tool for higher powers. She is pointed in a direction, told what to do, and she does it. If she is told to do good things (or put in such a position), she will do it. If she is told to do a chaotic thing (or is put in such a position), she will do it. It is not her place to question or consider. It is her job to do. Let her masters deal with the consequences. e.g. an animal companion, a ground-level soldier.
The Balancer: This character believes that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are elements as fundamental to the universe as Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Without acts of evil, there could be no good ones. Without ugliness we could not appreciate beauty. Without law there would be only chaos. Without chaos there would be nothing for law to strive against. Without darkness, there is no way to define light. An imbalance in any of these has the potential to throw the entirety of existance out of kilter. The Balancer seeks to maintain this balance wherever possible. To take an example from Baldur's Gate, this character may help a village to push back a marauding orc horde, but then assist the orcs when the villagers embark on a campaign to exterminate them. She may take the side of the underdog, or take on a particular cause such as that of Nature, or lead a paladin-like crusade against all extremes. e.g. the Paladin of Neutrality, the overzealous Druid.
The Philosopher: Similarly to The Balancer, the Philosopher believes that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are all equal components of the universe. However, as with the classical elements, he also believes that the universe is perfectly capable of maintaining the proportions by itself. He may seek to correct perceived imbalances within his day-to-day life, but acknowledges that it is ultimately impossible to do it on a wider scale, and unnecessary to do so anyway. All the alignments are equal, and he does not judge those who adhere to one or another - there will always be another to oppose them. e.g. the scholar, the nature-worshipper.

Lawful Neutral: Restraint, order, fundamentalism, control, pragmatism, realism, conservatism, fear or hatred of change, stoicness.
The Ultra-Conservative: The people of the past knew best, and the less things change the better they are. Chances are this character somehow directly benefits from the status quo, and they will do anything to make sure it stays that way. Change is the enemy. Innovation is a threat. Dissention must be silenced. e.g. Amish
The Defender of a Higher Order: This character cares little for the little rules and regulations of mortals. For her, the greatest Laws, the only true Orders, are those of the universe. Logic, mathematics, physics, the movements of the stars: one or more of these are her great passion, the Truth for which she fights (inasmuch as it needs fighting for). She will probably follow human (etc.) laws, but she will have limited respect for them in themselves. On the other hand, she may believe that human laws and heirarchies reflect the Higher Order, and as such will serve and defend them as the embodiment of the universe. e.g. Ancient Chinese officials.
The Patriot: One's leaders are in charge for a very good reason, they know best, their word is the Law, and they must be obeyed absolutely. This character believes that their nation/people/government is the embodiment of all that is Right and True. He will defend it and its way of life to the death if necessary (or, you know, at least likes to believe that). It is the undeniable right of that nation to do as they will, and anyone who disagrees is either anti-them, or unpatriotic. e.g. ...I think you can guess the sorts of people I'm thinking of.

Bah, this'll do for now. Good and Neutral done, then.


An alignment-based question I've been wondering about for a while: Removing all real morality from it, the basis of religion (that has an inevitable reward or punishment) is "do what the deity says, and you'll be rewarded. Don't, and you'll be punished". Now, in D&D, it seems to be generally accepted that people who are Evil go to the Hells or the Abyss for eternal damnation, and people who are Good go to Celestia or the other one for eternal bliss. How does this tie in with the "do what your deity says and be rewarded" thing? Hasn't the worshipper of an Evil deity, who has obeyed his every decree, done the "right" thing? Do they go to that deity's realm for their reward for obeying, or do they go to the Hells for being Evil?


*Can't think of the right word or phrase right now. Hopefully you get the gist.

Riffington
2009-07-13, 08:55 AM
There are no objective morals. Period. Morals are pretty much always conventions based on the contemporary culture and society; when societies change (and they are in a steady yet slow state of flux) the morals change with them; for being objective, morals must be static and that is absolutely incompatible with this very basic concept. Ergo objective morals = paradox.

You keep asserting this, but how do you know? How do you know there isn't an objective morality (some sort of Natural Law) underlying the world (whether of Earth or D&D)? And how do you know there isn't a Divine morality? (particularly in D&D, not interested in asking about real world theology)



And that's pretty much as indiscriminate argumenent as Yahzi's statement about what makes societies CE. Oversimplificatoion doesn't work that well in general, and again, pretty much every society has more and less equal parts, and people who just haven't the same rights; according to your very own arguement, every society is therefore evil. Do you see how ridiculous this is?

Societies are not intelligent, and thus don't have an alignment per se. Some are run by Evil people, and/or are likely to push more of their people towards evil (secret police, for example, tend to have this effect. So does legally-mandated genocide).




The only way to purposefully discuss any question of morals is from a neutral perspective; if you assume your position and ideals are intrinsically superior, the discussion is futile.
The only way to purposefully discuss any question of morals is with an open mind. This should include the possibility that your position and ideals are intrinsically superior. It should also include the ability to judge whether something is better or worse. Otherwise, how can you have a discussion? De gustibus non est disputandum...

Sebastian
2009-07-13, 09:37 AM
That's... goddammit! That's the friggin' point! Limitations inspire greater creativity! By choosing outright "I'm Lawful Neutral" you are forced to stretch your creative muscles in order to create an exciting and interesting character. That is the point of this thread, to stretch those muscles within the confines of a specific limitation IE their Alignment.


To stretch your muscles within a confine is a contradiction of terms. No matter what, you can't stretch to your fullest because those limitations are always there to stop you. Without that confine, you can stretch so much farther and into much more interesting shapes. Your creative muscles get a better workout from having no restrictions than from having a set parameter that that you have to conform to.


Typical example of lawful vs chaotic. :smallbiggrin:

HamHam
2009-07-13, 10:15 AM
There are no objective morals. Period.

In DnD there is. (And also in RL but that is beyond the scope of this thread.)


Oh I understand the alignment system well enough. That's why I think it doesn't work...
And that's pretty much as indiscriminate argumenent as Yahzi's statement about what makes societies CE. Oversimplificatoion doesn't work that well in general, and again, pretty much every society has more and less equal parts, and people who just haven't the same rights; according to your very own arguement, every society is therefore evil. Do you see how ridiculous this is?

No. Most historical human society is going to evil or at best neutral. The world kind of sucks, if you hadn't noticed. Most modern societies are barely neutral for that matter.


Yay for pretentious fantasy racism. Sorry, but that's too low for me. When we are still discussing about intelligent ways to deal with allignment, this arguement is wrong here. The only way to purposefully discuss any question of morals is from a neutral perspective; if you assume your position and ideals are intrinsically superior, the discussion is futile.

Not really. In Character, you will generally think that whatever alignment you are is right. That's just how it works. OOC, we don't really care which one is right because it's a freakin game.


And that's too much double-think to make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. Each alignment espouses a certain code of behavior. And each physically exists as part of the structure of the universe. A LG angel will always act LG or else it will stop being LG and stop being an angel. A CG Orc is not just in rebellion against his society, but his very gods.

And because the alignments exist within reality itself, most creatures of sufficient intelligence will be instinctively aware of them.


An alignment-based question I've been wondering about for a while: Removing all real morality from it, the basis of religion (that has an inevitable reward or punishment) is "do what the deity says, and you'll be rewarded. Don't, and you'll be punished". Now, in D&D, it seems to be generally accepted that people who are Evil go to the Hells or the Abyss for eternal damnation, and people who are Good go to Celestia or the other one for eternal bliss. How does this tie in with the "do what your deity says and be rewarded" thing? Hasn't the worshipper of an Evil deity, who has obeyed his every decree, done the "right" thing? Do they go to that deity's realm for their reward for obeying, or do they go to the Hells for being Evil?

Worshipers of a deity go to their deities personal plane. Where they are "rewarded". Which if your deity is Evil is not necessarily what most normal people would call a reward. But it depends on the deity. If it is your racial deity, it will basically be what your race thinks of as "heaven" (which in the case of evil races like Orcs is still going to involve a lot of maiming, pillaging, slaughtering, etc). But if you're a human worshiper of Tiamat, you are kind of screwed.

Finally, most LE gods have their demiplanes attached to the Nine Hells, and most CE gods get their own layer of the Abyss.

-----------------

Finally, on the whole "play a character don't play an alignment" thing, that's well enough for most classes but if you are a Cleric or over divine class, you need to play a certain alignment for mechanical reasons.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-13, 10:40 AM
That's... goddammit! That's the friggin' point! Limitations inspire greater creativity!

Yes when we are talking about haiku but not when we are talking about a descriptor. So for ex, choosing to play a bearded fighter character is not more or less creative than choosing a beardless wizard character. Each choice, bearded or bearless, fighter or wizard, imposes limits. For ex it would be out of character for the beardless wizard to swear by his beard unless he was making a joke. But the limitations don't necessarily force one to be more "creative".


By choosing outright "I'm Lawful Neutral" you are forced to stretch your creative muscles in order to create an exciting and interesting character.

Why? Lawful neutral is no more a boring choice than chaotic neutral. It is a misperception that one alignment is more "free" than another. If the blackguard helps orphans, donates money to the poor and does not kill innocents and does so without some ulterior motive, he is not evil.

But these limits don't force you to be creative any more than general character creation. Choosing a bearded fighter is a "creative" choice as is choosing alignment. It's just not that creative. Choosing why and how the character is the way he is, is the creative part of role playing.


That is the point of this thread, to stretch those muscles within the confines of a specific limitation IE their Alignment.

I understand what you are trying to do but the way you went about it perpetuates the idea that alignment proscribes behavior. In doing so that truly limits character development instead of imposing limits to induce creativity. If alignment dictated action then it would imply limits to character change. For example, Vaarsuvius would not have turned towards evil. That V did so was dictated by the characters motives. That is psychology and action dictated alignment not the other way around.



I'm not presenting those as absolutes, I presenting those as fun and interesting methods of playing those alignments.
That's fine. And like I said you are well intentioned. But you are still proscribing a characters psychology from alignment. That is instead of saying here's an interesting character concept for a chaotic neutral character you presented a character profile based solely on the alignment.

Glass Mouse
2009-07-13, 11:00 AM
Sure, you have to "play your character, not your alignment", nobody disputes that.
But how is choosing to be laful/neutral/chaotic any different than choosing to, say, be an orpan? Both will influence your character's personality and actions during the game. Same will your class - yes, also the classes with no alignment restrictions. You don't play an axe-wielding hack-and-slash maniac tank if you're a wizard (unless you're really really good at optimizing :smalltongue:).
Yeah, the argument "but you should go above and beyond your class!" - playing an anti-social bard, a fighter-happy wizard, a pacifist fighter, etc. - great, sure! But why wouldn't you be able to do the same with alignment? Finding new and interesting ways to play a personality type. It's just a bit harder to find the ways, when we're talking about cosmis forces.

Way I see it, that's what this thread is about. I may be wrong, of course :smallsmile:, but I really enjoy reading the different input here. No need in fighting over something that we all generally agree on, is there? :smallsmile:

Serpentine
2009-07-13, 11:01 AM
Worshipers of a deity go to their deities personal plane. Where they are "rewarded". Which if your deity is Evil is not necessarily what most normal people would call a reward. But it depends on the deity. If it is your racial deity, it will basically be what your race thinks of as "heaven" (which in the case of evil races like Orcs is still going to involve a lot of maiming, pillaging, slaughtering, etc). But if you're a human worshiper of Tiamat, you are kind of screwed.

Finally, most LE gods have their demiplanes attached to the Nine Hells, and most CE gods get their own layer of the Abyss.
Okay... But what about all the damned that presumably wander around the hells (at least, they did in Neverwinter Nights)?

HamHam
2009-07-13, 11:16 AM
Okay... But what about all the damned that presumably wander around the hells (at least, they did in Neverwinter Nights)?

LE people who don't worship an evil deity. So, your people who paid lip-service to a normal god that everyone around them worshiped, like Pelor or Heronious, but are cruel (etc) and thus LE. Fallen paladins. Members of the Archdevils' mortal cults. Etc.

Solaris
2009-07-13, 11:27 AM
Regardless of the alignment, your character can still have friends. So long as you aren't playing with an alignment-oriented class, you can get along with whomever you want - you can still be evil and yet, say, turn back towards a burning building to save your friend - you'll just do so with a resigned sigh.
Hm. Actually, I think this's one of the best barometers of your alignment, at least just the character's first impulse. The Good character's first impulse is to go in for anybody. He might not, because he knows "Burning building + me = Rocks fall, everybody dies". The Neutral character's first impulse is only for friends and family members. The Evil character's first impulse is to not go in at all. He might go in, depending on how valuable that person is to him.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-13, 11:31 AM
The Evil character's first impulse is to not go in at all. He might go in, depending on how valuable that person is to him.


Or, to start knocking people out and dragging them inside. Then going out of his way to make sure the fire spreads.

..or to get his Rifle, find a good hiding spot and start sniping the firefighters when they arrive. (assuming a fire in a modern setting)

or to seal the exits shut, with whatever he can find to make sure the people get out.

Knaight
2009-07-13, 11:31 AM
Sure, you have to "play your character, not your alignment", nobody disputes that.
But how is choosing to be laful/neutral/chaotic any different than choosing to, say, be an orpan? Both will influence your character's personality and actions during the game.

Your alignment doesn't influence your personality. Its a rough approximation of it. The personality directly affects actions taken in the game, alignment doesn't effect anything, it just sums it up. If your character is an orphan, the personality will probably change at least a little due to different life experiences. This alters actions. Choosing to be an orphan is a detail that affects your personality. Choosing to fit into an alignment is an indication of being wiling to take up a stereotype. Picking an alignment afterwards and treating it as secondary to the personality is a different matter.


LE people who don't worship an evil deity. So, your people who paid lip-service to a normal god that everyone around them worshiped, like Pelor or Heronious, but are cruel (etc) and thus LE. Fallen paladins. Members of the Archdevils' mortal cults. Etc.

The reverse is also fun. Good or neutral characters who worship an evil deity who they don't really get. A good guy who believes himself to be a prophet of Nerull, the god of death, who is a fair and evenhanded controller of life and death who gives meaning to life, is a fun character. If they start going evil having them convert to a traditionally good seeming god is even more fun. Things go bad, they get jaded, it goes into being a bit less merciful, and from there a bit more evil. They convert to St. Cuthbert then Hieronymus, each time slipping deeper into evil.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 11:42 AM
Or, to start knocking people out and dragging them inside. Then going out of his way to make sure the fire spreads.

..or to get his Rifle, find a good hiding spot and start sniping the firefighters when they arrive. (assuming a fire in a modern setting)

or to seal the exits shut, with whatever he can find to make sure the people get out.

Thats closer to Stupid Evil- not all evil persons revel in death and destruction.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 11:48 AM
Thats closer to Stupid Evil- not all evil persons revel in death and destruction.

Yes, yes they do. If you only do evil for personal benefit, you're just Neutral.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 11:52 AM
Not according to Champions of Ruin.

As long as your methods are Evil more often than not, whatever your motivation (it could be self, could be family, could even be saving the world) your alignment is evil.

The Operative from Serenity is classic example of "for the greater good" evilness. And he admits to being "a monster" for whom the world he wants to create has no place.

Blackjackg
2009-07-13, 12:01 PM
Yes, yes they do. If you only do evil for personal benefit, you're just Neutral.

Again, I refer to the greatest happiness principle.

Example: There's only one muffin left. You and Steve both want it. If you give the muffin to Steve, that's good, because you're sacrificing your own happiness for someone else's. If you take the muffin, that's neutral. Because the net happiness is the same. Only one person can enjoy the delicious muffin, so it might as well be you. Splitting the muffin is probably also neutral.

Example 2: Steve has been poisoned, and the last muffin contains the antidote. You have not been poisoned, but you still want a muffin. If you give the muffin to Steve, that's good, for the reasons noted above. But this time, if you take the muffin for yourself, it's evil. Because the happiness you get out of the muffin will be significantly less than the happiness Steve would get from not dying a horrible poisoned death.

It's all a matter of degree.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 12:03 PM
The Operative from Serenity is classic example of "for the greater good" evilness. And he admits to being "a monster" for whom the world he wants to create has no place.

LN. LE if the society which he is trying to create is LE, which it probably is.

Knaight
2009-07-13, 12:06 PM
You have to know the muffin contains the antidote. Otherwise taking the muffin is mean (since if someone is dying of poison it would be nicer to give them the muffin, you can get your own muffin later.)

If you don't have access to either piece of information(that is, you don't know that Steve is poisoned or that the muffin has the antidote) then things revert back to situation one.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 12:08 PM
He thought it would be a utopia- some sort of Good society.

A guy who routinely murders children when he thinks it will bring his enemies out of hiding- Neutral?

His methods are atrocities, he is Evil, not Neutral, not matter how good his motivations.

(BoVD, BoED, Champions of Ruin, and Exemplars of Evil all support this)

Blackjackg
2009-07-13, 12:10 PM
You have to know the muffin contains the antidote. Otherwise taking the muffin is mean (since if someone is dying of poison it would be nicer to give them the muffin, you can get your own muffin later.)

If you don't have access to either piece of information(that is, you don't know that Steve is poisoned or that the muffin has the antidote) then things revert back to situation one.

Correct.

(Too short. Here is a haiku about the muffin scenario.)

Early Sunday brunch,
the muffin contains the cure.
Steve will surely die.

Glass Mouse
2009-07-13, 12:18 PM
Yes, yes they do. If you only do evil for personal benefit, you're just Neutral.

Still a matter of degree. An evil character doesn't have to run to the house and start barricading the doors. Just staying back and quietly enjoying the sight is evil as well - in my opinion, at least. Intent versus action and all that.

Also, I strongly believe that evil characters can have friends. Not all evil means anti-social - and friends ARE quite enjoyable, as long as they don't get in your way.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 12:21 PM
yes- The Giant has words on Evil With Friends, in the Gaming section, Savage Species has a couple of paragraphs on how Evil characters can be loyal, affectionate, loving, etc- yet still evil.

So does Exemplars of Evil.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 12:23 PM
He thought it would be a utopia- some sort of Good society.

A guy who routinely murders children when he thinks it will bring his enemies out of hiding- Neutral?

His methods are atrocities, he is Evil, not Neutral, not matter how good his motivations.

(BoVD, BoED, Champions of Ruin, and Exemplars of Evil all support this)

If he did it because it was his only choice, it would be neutral. Just like Mal desecrating the dead (which is an inherently evil act I am pretty sure).

But what crosses the line is it's not his last option, just his most convenient one. Which shows a fundamental disregard for human life and a sociopathic lack of empathy. Which are evil.

And just because he believes it to be utopian does not make it utopian. The society he is trying to create is by definition tyrannical which makes it LE.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-13, 12:25 PM
Or, to start knocking people out and dragging them inside. Then going out of his way to make sure the fire spreads.

..or to get his Rifle, find a good hiding spot and start sniping the firefighters when they arrive. (assuming a fire in a modern setting)

or to seal the exits shut, with whatever he can find to make sure the people get out.

I think, in this example, we were talking about a friend to the XE character. A normally functioning (aka not nuts) chaotic evil character will still have friends, as stated above, and maybe even lovers and pets. Pets that eat virgins, but still pets. Or a fluffy bunny. Who knows.
The point is that if a CE character's best friend is caught in a burning building he will more likely help than not.

The options you show above is more for CC (caotic crazy) characters. A CE human that is sane does not randomly kill people.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 12:26 PM
Again, according to BoED and Fiendish codex 2, repeatedly chosing the "lesser evil" does lead to Falls, alignment shift, etc.

Just cos he thinks its the only option doesn't make him right.

Not all tyrannies are LE, a demon tyrant ruling over a populace of cowed humans is both Tyrant and CE.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-13, 12:28 PM
LN. LE if the society which he is trying to create is LE, which it probably is.

Nope. Definitely LE. He even admits he is evil; his deeds are definitely evil. I think your scale for G-N-E is very unbalanced.
The society he is aiming for is LG, according to him and the parliament. And probably most of the worlds that were in the original union.

It probably was too, in the beginning. Now it has decended into a bottomless pit of Lawful Evilness.

...Funny thing... This war is basically the American Civil war, from the other perspective. And not too many slaves to complicate things...

Knaight
2009-07-13, 12:31 PM
Desecrating the dead and murder are two very different things. They aren't even close to each other. Its like saying that two groups of cannibals are both equally evil, because they are cannibals. Even if one of them has a culture where they eat their dead out of honor, its believed in life that being eaten is honorable, and those they eat died of natural causes or in heroics, and the other one tracks down and murders people to eat.

Desecrating the dead is impolite, but its really not inherently evil. That doesn't mean the family of the deceased is going to like it, but using that to justify murder is a pretty big dissonance. Its like condemning the first group of cannibals listed above because of the second.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-13, 12:32 PM
I think, in this example, we were talking about a friend to the XE character.


Fair Enough.

You can still rescue your friend. In fact, you can just be dragging in that extra victim on the way to save your buddy. Once you're both out, you join in on shooting the rescue workers together. It'll be a bonding experience.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 12:40 PM
Again, according to BoED and Fiendish codex 2, repeatedly chosing the "lesser evil" does lead to Falls, alignment shift, etc.

I don't really care. FC 2 also has those silly corruption and obeisance rules.

The Operative is LE, but not because he's doing evil acts toward a good end, and his end is not even good.

EDIT:

Sidenote, doing a bunch of lesser evils will make you fall to Neutral. It will not make you fall to evil.

Other Sidenote: Desecrating the dead may actually just be chaotic, now that I think about it. Consult your local Death god to make sure.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 12:45 PM
Champions of Ruin disagrees. Once your methods are more often Evil than Good, your alignment shifts to Evil no matter how good (or at least, how good you think) your motivation is.

You can have Evil people whose end really is good, but its the methods that matter overall.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 01:04 PM
Champions of Ruin disagrees. Once your methods are more often Evil than Good, your alignment shifts to Evil no matter how good (or at least, how good you think) your motivation is.

You can have Evil people whose end really is good, but its the methods that matter overall.

Again, I don't care what the book says. The system of trying to count up how many good acts and how many evil acts you've done and if the two sides are kind of equal that's neutral is retarded.

The difference is a matter of principles and inclusiveness.

Evil cares only about itself.
Neutral cares about itself and those close to it.
Good cares about everyone.

Blackjackg
2009-07-13, 01:13 PM
Evil cares only about itself.
Neutral cares about itself and those close to it.
Good cares about everyone.

So Hitler, who only cared about himself and the white, non-Jewish Germans, would be considered Neutral?

EDIT: Sorry, that's kind of a smartass comment, but it's my way of demonstrating that who someone thinks about doesn't really enter into the equation. It's about how much you're willing to harm others for the good of yourself and yours.

Knaight
2009-07-13, 01:19 PM
Other Sidenote: Desecrating the dead may actually just be chaotic, now that I think about it. Consult your local Death god to make sure.

I would have no issue with my corpse being desecrated if it helped living people. I would have an issue with being killed to help living people. Somehow I think a lot of people agree with me(particularly on the second part). Therein lies the difference.

On the other hand, I'm not big on burial or cremation and all the ritual with it. People need organ donations, and its not like I'm going to need organs after I die, so that seems like the best option, and this extends to helping people in general. A lot of people don't feel this way, and I can see the argument for saying that using their corpse is evil. I would disagree with that and just say its a bit rude.

brujon
2009-07-13, 01:26 PM
The way i perceive it, the inherent problem in comprehending the alignment system in D&D, is that we are familiar with the concept of relativistic morality. We have different religions, different countries, and with that, different cultures. It's a well established thing nowadays. Hell, i'll give you one:

I live in Brazil, right? Here we have lots of virgin forests on the Amazonas and there are entire tribes of natives who haven't been in (direct) contact with civilization yet. Well, the thing is that recently it hit the media that one of those tribes had a particular cultural practice that involved the summary slaughter of any newborn baby with physical/mental imperfections. What? Some of you will say. That's most definitely Chaotic Evil! It's on par with Sparta and Nazi Germany. But, that may come as a shock to you, the majority of Anthropologists and Sociologists who reviewed this case and gave interviews and commented on the issue said that we should not judge them based on our morality, because in our world, the handicapped don't really hinder the progress of our "tribe" in general. And that's not the case with the natives. They'll have to tend to him and they don't come upon everything as easy as we do, therefore we cannot judge them. I, personally, don't agree with this point of view, and just think that's disgusting. But i understand their viewpoint, too.

That said, the D&D world simply does NOT have a relativistic morality. There are GODS, literal, walking talking gods of immesurable power that created this one, universal morality, and everything is based upon their decree. Said gods split in 4 factions. The good, the evil, the chaotic, and the lawful.

Their morality is vaguely based on the Judeo-Christian precepts of what's considered "good" and "bad". So what exactly would be those precepts? Let's have a look.

The ten commandments, namely:

1 - I am the lord your god, thou shall have no other gods before me and thou shall not make for yourself an idol.

2 - You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your god.

3 - Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

4 - Honor your father and mother.

5 - You shall not kill.

6 - You shall not commit adultery.

7 - You shall not steal.

8 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

9 - You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

10 - You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor


So the first 3 commandments are a moot point in the D&D-verse. There are multiple gods, all of them exist for a fact of life and they generally don't care if you follow only them.

Commandments 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 speak all of the same thing: Respect for the next. You can also include commandment 5, since killing is a disrespect for life itself, which generally is regarded as the most sacred thing of all.

So, by this view, respecting the next is what's required to be good in this morality view. Respecting the next means you will respect his life, his home, his wife, his possessions and everything included. You will not harm others, you will try to help them and respect the authority (Symbolized by the Honor your father and mother), because in the end that's what's good for everyone.

This is a Lawful Good standpoint, because it mixes.

Lawful: Respect for authority, material possessions, and social established relationships (Marriage).

Good: Respect for life and the well being of the world and people.


That being established, we can now see that the Judeo-Christian views on morality are the Lawful Good point of view, and it's generally the most accepted and sought-after point of view. We can positively establish that by seeing how things are portrayed in the D&D-verse.

Angels are Lawful Good. Heaven is Lawful Good. Paladins are Lawful Good. Selflessness and honor are tied closely to the Lawful Good alignment.

We can pretty much see that the Lawful Good alignment is the "Golden Standard" of the D&D-verse. The ones that can follow that alignment to a tee are seen as exalted and receive praise from the general populace.

Now that we established that, we can take a look at the alignments with the accepted morality of the D&D-verse in mind:

Lawful Good: They are the law-abiding do-good gold standard good ol' boys. They won't break the law except in the utmost direst of the situations, even if that law is dictated by a sadistic maniac tyrant, and even then they will be sorry they did. They will always try to prevail in direct battle against their foes in a honored manner, or die trying. It's very bad form to attack unarmed people, as is to finish sleeping foes. They will try to throw down the tyrant, and if the unarmed guy is causing trouble they will try to subdue them. They always think of the nonviolent way first, and then if the guy continues to be evil repeatedly, they deliver swift justice. They will help if asked, and even if not asked if they see that they could. They are your standard Joan D'arc and King Arthur type characters. Because of their inherent lawful morality, they will frown upon people that commit unlawful acts, and will be prone to take them to justice.

Chaotic Good: They value the good aspect of the standard morality better than they value the lawful aspect. This is the Robin Hood type character. He will ignore such things as laws and the notion of property if it's against something perceived as evil. They have no qualms about robbing an evil landlord or breaking the laws of a corrupted government. They have their own philosophical views on what is or isn't fair, but they follow the basic outline of what's perceived as good in the D&D-verse, or - They respect other people's lives, they respect anyone who's good or is trying to do good. They may have their own notions about honor, but generally they'll view it as too subjective and prone to errors. They try to judge each situation accordingly. If the BBEG is lying on his bed sleeping, it's generally frowned upon to go and finish him off while he's sleeping, or to sneak behind him when he's distracted and stab him in the back. But if the situation calls for it, they'll suck it up and seize the advantage. Killing the tyrants and evil landlords and helping the helpless is what drives him.


Neutral: These are the normal folks. They see the good, the bad, the lawful and the chaos. They live their lives normally, trying to abide the law and do good, but generally they keep it to themselves. Sometimes they will slip into chaotic and evil behavior. For example, Joe Commoner has had a beer too many, and he tries to violently gain Jenny Commoner affection, or he secretly thinks about gutting her boyfriend out of jealousy. The next day he'll feel bad about it and say he's sorry, but he won't cry himself into sleep because of it. Neither will he feel bad about himself if Bob Commoner the Merchant gave him twice the change for his bread. Maybe when he was young he jumped his neighbor's fence to eat the orange from their trees. They will try and act up to par but sometimes it simply isn't enough, and they simply don't care too much. The wizard in the middle of nowhere in his tower who zaps anyone who comes too close, regardless, can also be classified as neutral. He just wants to be left alone. Other people include persons who actually commit to the very ideology of neutrality, such as some druids who believe that good and evil, law and chaos, act as balancing scales to the force of nature.


Chaotic Neutral: These people are represented by thieves, dishonest merchants and free spirited individuals. The thief who don't see the act of robbing as wrong and will try his best to avoid conflict with his victim is Chaotic Neutral. He's still commited enough to the morality to see that killing someone is wrong, but they will do it if the situation calls for it, even if it isn't someone evil. They won't kill babies or helpless women and folk. Only if forced to he will resort to violence, but he doesn't discriminate good from evil. The dishonest merchant will lie but won't force you to buy from him.

Lawful Neutral: They uphold the law, or their clan's code of honor, or the law of their church, but they don't really care about good or evil. Respect for life is pretty much standard, as with neutral and good alignments, but if a good individual repeatedly breaks the law, he too, is going to be punished in short order. The police officer who does what he have to while following all of the law, he's Lawful Neutral.

Lawful Evil: These are the tyrants, the evil landlord. They don't have the respect for life of the neutral and good alignments. They'll exploit people, have slaves, and generally just make life miserable for those below them. They do value honor and promises, but only because they feel that it creates an environment in which they feel comfortable to operate. They will try to rise in power by creating schemes and rising to new positions by undermining those above them, proving their superiority by intelligently exploiting the system.

Neutral Evil: Power above others, by law or by force. These individuals are arrogant and mistrustful. They'll exploit other weakness by appearing as something they're not and then stabbing their backs. They'll appear law-abiding and then seize the perfect opportunity for a coup d'etat. They'll join sides with whoever's stronger, and then switch back if they begin to lose position. They will kill, rape, murder, steal and otherwise do anything to get what they want, but generally prefer to have a lawful environment in which to work, just because it's better to work than a utterly chaotic environment.

Chaotic Evil: I'm stronger than you, therefore you are mine and will do my bidding. They don't care about what others think, they don't care about what other's feel, they don't care about law, honor. There's nothing that's below a Chaotic Evil individual. They love power above anything else and everything that makes them feel like they have power above others will appeal to them. That includes wanton killing and acts of random violence. Such disposition is that they usually end up being contract killers and executioners, for that rewards them doubly, in currency and enjoyment.




So these are my views on D&D-verse alignments. When i DM i present this to my players as general guidelines on what they represent on character behavior, and then tell them to leave their alignment in blank. They roleplay, and i make notes accordingly. When the situation calls i'll see if they're still lawful, or good, or whatever based on that, and that alone. I think no-one has a clear-cut view on what his own alignment is, so i leave them in the dark about it. They start knowing what it is, but in the course of the game it's up to them if they maintain it or don't.

I always viwed D&D as having the Judeo-Christian standard of morality, but you may think otherwise. I think it's easier to understand the alignment concept after you have a standard. Then you can see what their differences are in their viewpoints. It also helps to shrug off the real-world concept of relativistic morality and really understand that, yes, all goblins are evil because the gods said so.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 01:54 PM
Again, I don't care what the book says. The system of trying to count up how many good acts and how many evil acts you've done and if the two sides are kind of equal that's neutral is retarded.




It is- but that was 2nd ed definition of Neutral.

in Champions of Ruin- its methods- a person who consistantly behaves in an Evil fashion is Evil regardless of why they are doing it.

Or, with Fiendish Codex 2, a person who has done enough evil is going to an Evil afterlife regardless of his actual alignment, if he doesn't atone.

Ellington
2009-07-13, 02:02 PM
This is how I've always seen it:

Good - Will put put himself in harm's way to benefit others
Evil - Will put others in harm's way to help himself

Lawful - Believes in order and restricts his actions to a set of rules to maintain it
Chaotic -Has no special affinity towards order and acts upon instinct and abides by rules when he sees fit

Neutral is the middle ground between the two in both cases.

Yukitsu
2009-07-13, 02:41 PM
My view on the reason those books above are wrong is that they are far too inclusive to what evil is. "Everything is basically evil, so I guess you're hosed." The other half of the time, they bear no consideration on the context of the situation, nor of knowledge of alternatives, which the adventurer may not be aware of, nor be capable of determining. So if I see some rich snob in game, about to kill an innocent person, and decide that since I'm across another balcony, and thus cannot intervene in any other way, that I should snipe him with my crossbow, thus killing him, I've committed murder. According to those books, this is evil, despite a lack of truly good alternatives. For instance, had I instead used whatever to display incriminating evidence that the rich snob did murder someone, A) Rich snobs in those days never lost trials over that, and B) the person I wanted to protect is still dead. Obviously, blanket statements of morality lack this aspect of context that applies. FCII, which refuses, like all D&D books, in defining its terms is especially bad for this. The BoED is about just as bad, but at least provides a counter reference that not all murder is evil.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 02:48 PM
Actually BoVD has a specific example countering this- if killing is the only way to save people's lives from an attempted murder, killing the would-be murderer is not murder.

The example given was would-be mass murderer, but same principle applies. See real law- it is permissible to use violence (the minimum possible) to prevent a serious crime, and to prevent imminent murder, it is permissible to kill if this is the only way.

Depending on the situation, the "assassinations" carried out by Slayers of Domiel may not qualify as murder- if the target is military member of a state you are at war with, for example.

Domiel is the "foe of tyrants" maybe, in D&D, tyrannicide when there is no other alternative, doesn't qualify as murder.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-13, 02:51 PM
Again, I don't care what the book says. The system of trying to count up how many good acts and how many evil acts you've done and if the two sides are kind of equal that's neutral is retarded.

Good, so you agree with us who favor a relative moral system.
The problem is that this thread is about the D&D moral system as it stands, which might be retarded, but also makes it impossible to not care what the books say.

GoatToucher
2009-07-13, 02:58 PM
Regardless of real world philosophies (and people certainly seem to be investing an element of their own worldview to this discussion), in the world of D&D, evil, good, and neutrality are combinations of ends and means. Good must be wholly good, otherwise it slips to neutrality and evil.

For example, one could not torture your enemies to get information that would save the town and still claim goodness. The intent is good, but the act is evil. A Neutral character could do it. An evil character might prefer it.

Conversely, one cannot rule a people benevolently and justly in order to further your plans for world domination through pacts with evil otherworldly beings and claim goodness. The acts are good, but the intent is evil.

Evil compromises. Good does not. That's the system, like it or not. I could name a few cases where such moral absolutism makes little sense from a real-world perspective, but D&D is a world where absolute, tangible good and evil exist.

As for Law vs. Chaos: for my money, that is a subordinate issue. I don't RP to get my jones out for order suppressing randomness. That's just me.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 02:59 PM
question is, by relative, do you mean "if torture is considered non-evil by a culture, its non-evil for any member of that culture to carry it out"?

or do you mean "intent and results are more important than the act itself- if mass-murder averts an even greater disaster, paladin should not Fall for doing so"?

Both of these tend to follow from "relative morality"
or "ends justify means variant of utilitarian morality"

Yukitsu
2009-07-13, 02:59 PM
The problem being, that is still defined as murder, hence my protestation that they don't define there terms. They basically use words, make up definitions and never tell you what they are. Certainly these days it's legal to kill someone in defense, depending on the situation, but in the older periods, killing some rich snob was under no circumstances legal, unless you yourself are a rich snob. As an illegal killing, it's defined as murder. Lastly, it only goes into a single example of a murderer killing a mass murderer, rather than any more realistic situations.

As well, the sheer number of contradictions between the books removes pretty much any vestigial usefulness in the books that there may have been. In my view, they simply don't mesh together when one can say "It says in X book that this is always evil and will condemn you to the nine hells" while "book Y clearly demonstrates that you can do that and be lawful good, so that is clearly false."

HamHam
2009-07-13, 03:01 PM
So Hitler, who only cared about himself and the white, non-Jewish Germans, would be considered Neutral?

EDIT: Sorry, that's kind of a smartass comment, but it's my way of demonstrating that who someone thinks about doesn't really enter into the equation. It's about how much you're willing to harm others for the good of yourself and yours.

No, because the way he treats his subordinates and his own people is 100% LE.


It is- but that was 2nd ed definition of Neutral.

in Champions of Ruin- its methods- a person who consistantly behaves in an Evil fashion is Evil regardless of why they are doing it.

Or, with Fiendish Codex 2, a person who has done enough evil is going to an Evil afterlife regardless of his actual alignment, if he doesn't atone.

Except that this is contradicted in the same book by the hellbred and anagnorisis.

"Souls in this state have experienced a revelation about their identity and their situation [sic] they sincerely repent of their misdeeds, achieving true understanding of the harm they committed while alive [sic] these souls can now empathize with their victims and fully understand the consequences of their actions"

Your attitude to your actions is far more important. If you do something evil out of desperation and later regret it, that's Neutral. If you do evil things for a "good" cause because you are callous to suffering you are causing, that's Evil.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 03:01 PM
on Law vs Chaos- generally, it tends to be subordinate for Good, less subordinate for Evil.

Demons and Devils are almost permanantly at each other's throats, whereas Archons and Eladrins nver fight each other, if BoED is to be trusted on this.

I prefer it this way.

Also- not all illegal killings are murder. Some are manslaughter, for example.
Solving the few contradictions (not as many as you suggest- apply books in printing order, with newest first. All books are valid, but newer ones override older ones where the contradiction occurs.

If its in same book- best judgement.

EDIT:
If character sincerely regrets it, character would try and reverse the damage. (and, if they die trying, then they become a hellbred.) Without genuine repentance, character who "repents on their deathbed" becomes a spectre haunting Dis, whatever their actual alignment.

Continuing on "the path of evil" however much you empathise with the lives lost, is not the mark of a Neutral character.

Attitude is important, but its not the be-all and end-all.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 03:10 PM
Good, so you agree with us who favor a relative moral system.
The problem is that this thread is about the D&D moral system as it stands, which might be retarded, but also makes it impossible to not care what the books say.

No. There's nothing relative about it. But moving numbers around like some kind of celestial abacus is dumb. Each of the nine alignments espouses a certain mind-set. Actions and intentions are inseparable. If you hold LG beliefs, you will act in a LG manner. If you don't act in a LG manner, that means you must not really believe in LG.

"Falling" to evil is not about doing some action that tips some sort of magical scale somewhere and makes you evil. It is about losing faith in the inherent rightness of good, and ceasing to do what is good.

All moral dilemmas have a way to resolve them according to each alignment. The idea of preventing murder or whatever is, frankly, nonsensical. Death is not bad. If the person that just got murdered was good, he's going to heaven which is going to be a lot better than the Prime, because the Prime rather sucks in most places. If he was evil, he is now off to be punished for it. So the only important part is that it violates the laws of the land, and preventing by violating more laws isn't going to help anything. So a LG person will act as appropriate within the law, but he won't break the law.

Now, a CG person will just shoot the guy because he doesn't care about the laws, or the Pact Primeval for that matter.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 03:16 PM
LG characters, at least according to PHB, occasionally do not act in an LG manner, committing minor Chaotic or Evil acts- the greedy LG dwarf willing to steal if he can justify it to himself, for example.

Given that there are evil D&D villains who "believe their every act is in the service of Good" a person doesn't have to believe that what they are doing is Evil, for it to be so.

D&D has a long-standing history of "murder to save lives" being evil, when the people murdered are threatening others unintentionally, from being infected with a disease, for example (2nd ed Player's Handbook)

Saving/protecting lives is a major priority of Good characters- but it can't be their only priority, or they risk turning into Well Intentioned Extremists and ceasing to be Good.

Mongoose87
2009-07-13, 03:26 PM
No. There's nothing relative about it. But moving numbers around like some kind of celestial abacus is dumb. Each of the nine alignments espouses a certain mind-set. Actions and intentions are inseparable. If you hold LG beliefs, you will act in a LG manner. If you don't act in a LG manner, that means you must not really believe in LG.

"Falling" to evil is not about doing some action that tips some sort of magical scale somewhere and makes you evil. It is about losing faith in the inherent rightness of good, and ceasing to do what is good.

All moral dilemmas have a way to resolve them according to each alignment. The idea of preventing murder or whatever is, frankly, nonsensical. Death is not bad. If the person that just got murdered was good, he's going to heaven which is going to be a lot better than the Prime, because the Prime rather sucks in most places. If he was evil, he is now off to be punished for it. So the only important part is that it violates the laws of the land, and preventing by violating more laws isn't going to help anything. So a LG person will act as appropriate within the law, but he won't break the law.

Now, a CG person will just shoot the guy because he doesn't care about the laws, or the Pact Primeval for that matter.

You're saying a LG commoner will view a murder as inherently positive?

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 03:29 PM
yes- unnecessary death is bad in D&D- which is why "helping others in need" is such a big deal in BoED.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 03:34 PM
You're saying a LG commoner will view a murder as inherently positive?

No, I'm saying that for LG murder is murder, and is equally bad regardless of the victim. Murdering someone evil is no better than murdering someone good.

On the other hand, many LGs, especially paladins and clerics, will consider their deity's divine sanction to supersede the local law.


LG characters, at least according to PHB, occasionally do not act in an LG manner, committing minor Chaotic or Evil acts- the greedy LG dwarf willing to steal if he can justify it to himself, for example.

Because mortals are imperfect.


yes- unnecessary death is bad in D&D- which is why "helping others in need" is such a big deal in BoED.

But not because of the death itself, but rather because of the externalities caused (pain, suffering, upsetting of the natural order, breaking of laws, fear, doubt, hatred, etc).

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 03:37 PM
So are immortals- given the fact several angels have Fallen, and even gods can become Evil. Lolth, I think, began as the CN deity Araushnee.

I lean to the view that all Good alignments will take a "murder is evil" attitude-
the difference is in their methods- Lawfuls prefer to use the law against evil, Chaotics are aware that sometimes, the law is used to further evil.

The variant paladins, such as Paladin of Freedom, were predated by Dragon Magazine's paladins of every alignment.

And both the NG and CG ones took a "never kill unless there is absolutely no alternative" attitude.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 03:38 PM
I lean to the view that all Good alignments will take a "murder is evil" attitude-
the difference is in their methods- Lawfuls prefer to use the law against evil, Chaotics are aware that sometimes, the law is used to further evil.

Chaotics hate the law, period. CG is basically a libertarian. Just get rid of all these rules and power structures, and everything will be awesome!

Yukitsu
2009-07-13, 03:41 PM
I haven't read that anywhere. Citation needed?

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 03:41 PM
Not true- they tend to replace them with taboos and customs, but they never chuck all law out completely- DMG2, Races of the Wild and its outline of Elven society.

Even Chaotic societies have rules, and sometimes, some form of laws. And power structures (elven monarch or council)

BoED:

While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces- religion, philosophy, or community- to encourage good behaviour and punish evil.

Even "outsiders of pure CG" are ruled- by their monarch, Queen Morwel.

For uber-chaotic, mildly Good, there is Diaboli (Chaotic subtype outsiders) in Dragon Magazine:
Dragon Compendium:

Unlike humans, the diaboli have a unifying belief in the superiority of anarchy. They build their societies around the belief that since they cannot provably define any kind of government as better than another, they must simply live without governments.

Despite their chaotic natures, diaboli strongly believe in traditions and ancient mores that continue to maintain their societies. Along with these strong and repeatedly proven customs, diaboli hold together their otherwise free-willed societies with a mixture of traditions, taboos, customs, and a strong sense of fair play.

"Do what thou wilt but harm none" unifies the diaboli and acts as the great truth from which all traditions and taboos grow.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 03:55 PM
Not true- they tend to replace them with taboos and customs, but they never chuck all law out completely- DMG2, Races of the Wild and its outline of Elven society.

Even Chaotic societies have rules, and sometimes, some form of laws. And power structures (elven monarch or council)

BoED:

While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces- religion, philosophy, or community- to encourage good behaviour and punish evil.

Even "outsiders of pure CG" are ruled- by their monarch, Queen Morwel.

For uber-chaotic, mildly Good, there is Diaboli (Chaotic subtype outsiders) in Dragon Magazine:
Dragon Compendium:

Unlike humans, the diaboli have a unifying belief in the superiority of anarchy. They build their societies around the belief that since they cannot provably define any kind of government as better than another, they must simply live without governments.

Despite their chaotic natures, diaboli strongly believe in traditions and ancient mores that continue to maintain their societies. Along with these strong and repeatedly proven customs, diaboli hold together their otherwise free-willed societies with a mixture of traditions, taboos, customs, and a strong sense of fair play.

"Do what thou wilt but harm none" unifies the diaboli and acts as the great truth from which all traditions and taboos grow.

Because of the Good component of their alignment. Good believes in natural, unalienable rights to things like life, happiness, etc. How that is conveyed is not the important part.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 03:59 PM
Which is why Good characters, even CG ones, can tolerate the existance of laws, and Lawful people. They might not prefer laws for themselves, but they accept that laws have a part to play.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 04:18 PM
Which is why Good characters, even CG ones, can tolerate the existance of laws, and Lawful people. They might not prefer laws for themselves, but they accept that laws have a part to play.

If by "tolerate" you mean not try and kill them or do other things that would be evil.

But they most certainly do not believe that "laws have a part to play". They think the system (aka the man) is keeping people down.

Their ideal is a Rousseau-like state of nature, where everyone lives as they wish and respects everyone else's natural rights, and the trappings of civilization (property, authority, regulation, etc) exist only in their most minimal and natural of forms.

And that is basically what the CG planes are like.

EDIT:

The main reason LG and CG outsiders aren't at war like the demons and devils is because, being good, they do not covet. They are each happy to live and let live, and accept that individual mortals have a right to choose between law and chaos.

But they basically consider the other side to be misguided.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 04:30 PM
They still have those minimums, mostly.

CG mortal societies always have some form of law- arbitration, etc- because mortals are flawed and there will always be disputes, intruders, criminals.

To be a society, is to have a limited amount of order, even if that society calls itself CG.

HamHam
2009-07-13, 05:15 PM
They still have those minimums, mostly.

CG mortal societies always have some form of law- arbitration, etc- because mortals are flawed and there will always be disputes, intruders, criminals.

To be a society, is to have a limited amount of order, even if that society calls itself CG.

There will be pragmatists and idealists within any alignment.

hamishspence
2009-07-13, 05:22 PM
but which is the majority?

For a CG society to run at all, there must be a certain amount of pragmatism about basic rules.

and even "beings of pure Chaos and Good" have rulers, and councils, though they rule with a very light hand. Eladrins.

A guy opposed to any organization and limitation, is possibly more CN than CG. And even then, most CN's are pretty casual, this would be an "extremist CN"

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-13, 05:38 PM
A guy opposed to any organization and limitation, is possibly more CN than CG. And even then, most CN's are pretty casual, this would be an "extremist CN"

I think CN societies would be ones with voluntary association to whatever group. For instance, they might be best represented by anarchistic communes that rule by Quaker Consensus.

Blackjackg
2009-07-13, 06:12 PM
I think CN societies would be ones with voluntary association to whatever group. For instance, they might be best represented by anarchistic communes that rule by Quaker Consensus.

If they're ruled at all. More likely it's just a group of people that stay together because it increases their chances of survival. They wouldn't need to have any agreed-upon rules or group norms at all-- just the unspoken understanding that if you cross too many others, you're out.

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-13, 06:26 PM
If they're ruled at all. More likely it's just a group of people that stay together because it increases their chances of survival. They wouldn't need to have any agreed-upon rules or group norms at all-- just the unspoken understanding that if you cross too many others, you're out.

It's possible, at least in some environments, but for example some anarchist-run communes use Quaker Consensus for decisions about stuff that relates to the common interest.

In practice, this means that nothing is done unless everyone in the group can agree on a solution. If someone regularly says "no", he will probably be asked to leave, which would be a decent solution for a CN alignment in the game.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-13, 06:38 PM
Chaotics hate the law, period.

No.

...and yes.

Alignment is two things in D&D, a label for supernatural things and a character descriptor. Alignment labels, law, order, good, evil also tie into real world concepts. The three uses, label for the supernatural, character description and real world meaning are related but distinct.

Good and evil is the easy axis. Although you can debate what good and evil mean (as either character descriptor or real world concept) ad nauseum, most people have an idea for themselves of what good and evil is (even if by good and evil they mean relative concepts). So whether you think killing puppies is good or evil or whether it depends on the social context, at least you can label it as such.

Now law and chaos is the axis that causes most people to be confused IMHO. For example, players will say things like "a lawful person can't break an oath" or "a chaotic person will do whatever he feels like doing". When a player does this, IMHO he is confused about what law and chaos mean in D&D.

The confusion is first that alignment dictates character action which is not the case. Alignment describes character action. So though lawful characters tend not to break contracts, there is nothing stopping them from twisting the contracts or even canceling them if the motivation is sufficient. This leads to the second issue which is just what law and chaos mean.

What would it mean for a charater to be totally "lawful" or totally "chaotic"? What would be it mean to be completely devoted to law or chaos? Well this is where D&D, and other fantasy sources", give us archetypes.

The archetypal D&D lawful critter is a hive minded formian or a mechanical inevitable (or in previous editions, a modron). Think Borg or Dalek if you prefer. The archetype is that these creatures that they are organized into strict castes. Individuals within a caste are hard to distinguish in any meaningful way. Through programming or a shared mind, all individuals think the same, or rather, work towards the same purpose. There is no questioning of orders. However, the top ranking individual usually exhibits some kind of individuality and original thought, for example the Borg Queen or Davros in science fiction, O' Brien in 1984 and Mustapha Mond in Brave New World.

The archetypal D&D chaotic critter is demon or a slaad or a drow. Another good example are the Broo from Runequest. Strangely though each individual is out for his own good, they often live in regimented societies like the drow and the top individual is always striving to impose his or her will on the lower ranks. The utmost examples of chaos are the chaotic gods, demon pricess and slaad lords themselves. But like the Lords of the Far Realms in D&D or Lords of Chaos from Moorcock's novels or mythological gods such as Eris, the aims of such beings is often depicted as either nihilistic (bringing about the end of the universe), making the world more chaotic (by bringing strife), or inscrutable (beyond human logic).

In these example we see that "lawful" and "chaotic" in D&D and fantasy/science fiction settings is used more in a literary sense than a literal sense. For ex, a devotee of entropy like Darkseid might build a gigantic machine that will be used to destroy the world. While Borg destroy inferior races in order to build a more perfect order.

So how does this relate to player characters in a game of D&D? I argue that they should take on some of these "literary" characteristics. That is, say you are playing a character who is devoted to chaos, one that cannot just be described as chaotic but rather one that worships, chaos. How do you do that and not be annoying? One thing would be to commit "random" acts. Another would be to commit "random" acts that ruin fun of the game for other players. So first this extreme character must be played with an eye to how the other players and the DM want to play the game. Having said that, you might have a lot of leeway. Still the extreme character that ALWAYS manages to insult or assault the npcs wears thin quickly. So instead of being completely "random", you might tone it down. The character might be obnoxious or contrarian but he is not that way ALL THE TIME. The character does not derail the plot that the other players and DM want to play.

However, most of the time, players do not play such extremely chaotic characters. Rather they play characters that exhibit some chaotic traits but whose main motivation is not devotion to chaos. So for example, a character might be described as chaotic even though he upholds the law of the land. Such a character for example might be a ranger who values his own freedom, the freedom that being in the wild gives him. A roguish character might be chaotic in that the character loves to cause trouble for others and yet he might be the leader of his own organization, one with a hierarchy and rules.

Similar confusion arises for lawful characters. One often hears players asking to make a contract with a lawful npc because such an npc would not break a contract. Wrong. Contracts can and are cancelled. They have clauses. They can be twisted. A lawful character can give himself any number of justifications for breaking a contract given enough motivation.

This brings us to the third confusion, alignment is not a motivation in and of itself for a majority of characters. Most good characters are not good because they want to be good but because they want to help people. Similarly most charactaers don't have lawful or chaotic tendencies for the sake or law or chaos. The lawful character who upholds the law of the state does so not for the sake of law but, more likely, for the sake of the state. The chaotic character who breaks the law of the state does so not for the sake of chaos but, more likely, because he values something else more than he values the state. A lawful character can break a law of the state if by doing so he follows a higher "law", that is if his allegiance is not to the state but to some other organization. And a chaotic character may uphold the law of the state not because by doing so he upholds the state, but more likely because that law upholds something else (other than the state) of value to the chaotic character

Riffington
2009-07-13, 06:49 PM
Chaotic doesn't have to mean you hate the law. It can, of course.
But just as easily, it can mean that you believe rules have exceptions. Yes, there is a law against theft, and yes, it is a good and appropriate law. But when it comes to making a photocopy on your company's property... well, it doesn't hurt them much, and it helps you so much, so it's fine. It's just a minor exception. Or, on a larger scale, your brother may be a fugitive from justice, but he's still your brother.

This increased tendency to substitute your judgment for the rule when you feel it's appropriate is going to be different based on your personality or good/evil, of course. A good person is more likely to make the exception when it's appropriate for improved justice or helping people out; an evil person is more likely to make the exception for personal profit/whim.

A chaotic person can even pass lots of laws -as many as a lawful one. But the chaotic lawgiver will be more likely to change those laws, claim to be above them, or ignore them when they don't seem to apply.

Serpentine
2009-07-14, 12:07 AM
Evil cares only about itself.
Neutral cares about itself and those close to it.
Good cares about everyone.I disagree with this entirely. To do my own version of this very, very, ridiculously broad, simplistic and non-inclusive little snippet:

Evil wishes ill upon others.
Neutral doesn't mind whether others to well or ill, unless they do well or ill by them.
Good wishes well upon others.

They are all likely to care about both themselves and those close to them. Evil might be less likely than Good to, say, sacrifice themselves for a greater cause (what is the "greater cause" of Evil?), but it is still entirely possible.

Something that seems to be getting forgotten in this discussion, and that I'm trying to get across in my "archetypes" posts, is that people are people. Individuals. The same thing will mean different things to different people. Law can mean self-discipline, obedience, rules and regulations, or or cosmic truths, depending upon to whom you talk. Good can mean good intentions, immediate assistance, or long-term welfare, depending upon to whom you talk. To say "Lawful Good characters must believe such and such" is to completely obliterate the potential of alignment to improve roleplaying.

Yahzi
2009-07-14, 12:44 AM
For a CG society to run at all, there must be a certain amount of pragmatism about basic rules.
In my scheme, the difference between CG and LG is not how much they favor cooperation, keeping their word, and obeying social sanctions, but rather, who those rules apply to.

CG is on the level of Peer Approval. Thus, their fellow clan/tribe/gang/group of some kind are the ones who count. You have to be fair with these people, respect their rights, and in general behave like a Paladin - to them. Outside people, on the other hand, don't necessarily deserve this kind of treatment. In fact, you should break the rules to support your friends over strangers.

LG is Social Contract. In their view, everyone who is willing to live by the rules deserves to be treated by the rules. A friend is entitled to no special treatment; you can't break the rules for them, and it would be wrong of them to even ask. However, monsters or people who refuse to be fair to others are fair game to be killed.

NG is Universal Rights. Just like LG, except they think everyone - even people who can't or won't play by the rules - deserves to be treated fairly. The only way a NG can kill someone is if doing so is the only way to protect other people from that person's actions.


There are no objective absolute morals. Period. Morals are pretty much always conventions evolutionary strategies based on the contemporary culture and society biology of the creatures involved.
Fixed it for you.

What a species considers moral will be what allows that species to best survive. Humans are very social creatures: for us, NG will always be best - unless we are in a situation so dire we can't afford fairness. Since that describes medieval societies struggling to survive in a world full of monsters, it is entirely plausible that LE might be best for a given group of humans in a given situation. Unlikely, but possible.

Mind-flayers, on the other hand, are going to have a very different evolutionary strategy that involves being very unfair to other people. It's still Evil, of course; but it's not necessarily bad, whatever that would mean. However, it rather does make them the arch-enemy of social species like humans.


They are all likely to care about both themselves and those close to them
Right - which is why my alignment system is not about the rules (the rules are pretty much always the same) but about who the rules apply to.


The rules are: be fair.

If you think the rules apply to everyone, you're NG.
If you think the rules apply only to everyone who agrees to abide by the rules, you're LG.
If you think the rules apply only to your friends and family, you're CG.
If you think the rules apply only to people who can earn you a profit of some kind, you're LE.
If you think the rules apply only to people who scare you, you're CE.
If you think the rules apply to yourself, and yourself alone, you're NE.

Riffington
2009-07-14, 01:03 AM
What a species considers moral will be what allows that species to best survive.

This makes no evolutionary sense (see Dawkins, The Selfish Gene).
There is no evolutionary pressure to promote the survival of your species, either from the point of view of a gene, or of a meme. There is pressure on the part of a gene or meme to promote the survival of that gene or meme, but that works out very differently.

Serpentine
2009-07-14, 01:19 AM
This makes no evolutionary sense (see Dawkins, The Selfish Gene).
There is no evolutionary pressure to promote the survival of your species, either from the point of view of a gene, or of a meme. There is pressure on the part of a gene or meme to promote the survival of that gene or meme, but that works out very differently.Not quite so, I think. Using this line of thought (for more information see Kin Selection), an individual will look after itself first, because it wants its genes to be passed on. It will look after its offspring (with variations) next, because they are carrying half (again, with variations) of its genes. It will look after the rest of its immediate family next, because they share a significant amount of genes. Then its extended family, because they share a significant if lesser amount of genes. Then its tribe or group, because they share some genes (and because of the potential for reciprocation), then its whole species because while they may not share many genes, it's still more than it does with other species.
But... this isn't really an alignment issue...

Blackjackg
2009-07-14, 01:47 AM
Don't forget the pretty fundamental reciprocity principle. In small groups (say, up to about 250 people), you look after everybody, because then everybody looks after you. It doesn't work as well in large societies like most of the world is living in now because whether you do something nice or something mean to somebody, chances are you'll never see them again, but for the majority of human existence, the reciprocity principle has been what kept us alive.

Riffington
2009-07-14, 08:40 AM
Not quite so, I think. Using this line of thought (for more information see Kin Selection), an individual will look after itself first, because it wants its genes to be passed on. It will look after its offspring (with variations) next, because they are carrying half (again, with variations) of its genes. It will look after the rest of its immediate family next, because they share a significant amount of genes. Then its extended family, because they share a significant if lesser amount of genes. Then its tribe or group, because they share some genes (and because of the potential for reciprocation), then its whole species because while they may not share many genes, it's still more than it does with other species.
But... this isn't really an alignment issue...

Yes, but with decreasing amounts each time. And to counterbalance that little benefit, the same species is usually a more direct competitor than other species. In general, by the time you get past the tribal level, you are better off promoting the destruction of other groups rather than their welfare from an evolutionary standpoint. Depending on their strength you may or may not want to be seen promoting said destruction, but that's very different from alignment.

Our beliefs regarding morality come from somewhere else. If orcs and humans have different moralities, it may be because of our respective deities, it may be because orcs are intrinsically evil in a way that humans or not, or it may be that orcish physiology has been tainted by their past misdeeds. But it doesn't come from Terran evolution.

HamHam
2009-07-14, 01:17 PM
I disagree with this entirely. To do my own version of this very, very, ridiculously broad, simplistic and non-inclusive little snippet:

Evil wishes ill upon others.
Neutral doesn't mind whether others to well or ill, unless they do well or ill by them.
Good wishes well upon others.

They are all likely to care about both themselves and those close to them. Evil might be less likely than Good to, say, sacrifice themselves for a greater cause (what is the "greater cause" of Evil?), but it is still entirely possible.

Evil puts itself first. This may result in behavior similar to that other alignments, but to assume that just because Asmodeus acts toward Glaysa in a paternal means he actually "loves" her in a way that a Good being would is a mistake.


Something that seems to be getting forgotten in this discussion, and that I'm trying to get across in my "archetypes" posts, is that people are people. Individuals. The same thing will mean different things to different people. Law can mean self-discipline, obedience, rules and regulations, or or cosmic truths, depending upon to whom you talk. Good can mean good intentions, immediate assistance, or long-term welfare, depending upon to whom you talk. To say "Lawful Good characters must believe such and such" is to completely obliterate the potential of alignment to improve roleplaying.

Each of the alignments has certain core attitudes that do not change. Obviously, mortal beings have free will and even the most LG person has little bit of Chaos and Evil in them. And thus, the actions of mortals are but a pale reflection of the alignments.

hamishspence
2009-07-14, 01:27 PM
Not necessarily. Can one be altruistic and Evil? I'd tend to say yes- its possible, though it tends to get rarer the more evil the being is.

Would a devil be able to genuinely love another devil, and risk themselves for their love?

If BoED is to be believed, its not impossible for even fiends to love.

While I've seen:
"Neutral means look out for number one.
Evil means look out for number one while crushing number two"

I think its an oversimplification.

HamHam
2009-07-14, 01:59 PM
Not necessarily. Can one be altruistic and Evil? I'd tend to say yes- its possible, though it tends to get rarer the more evil the being is.

And I would say no.


Would a devil be able to genuinely love another devil, and risk themselves for their love?

If BoED is to be believed, its not impossible for even fiends to love.

I would say that a soon as they genuinely love someone else, that is to say, find themselves putting the well-being of someone else before themselves, they cease to be Evil and become Neutral.

hamishspence
2009-07-14, 02:05 PM
Putting others' wellbeing before own is done numerous times by Evil characters in D&D novels, OOTS (the hobgoblin sacrificing self to save Redcloak) etc.

Do they all change to Neutral every time they perform self-sacrificing acts?

though "go into berzerk rage when their love is killed" is more common than "dive in front of the attack."

Savage Species and Exemplars of Evil are both pretty clear on Evil + Loving being compatible.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-14, 02:39 PM
I would say that a soon as they genuinely love someone else, that is to say, find themselves putting the well-being of someone else before themselves, they cease to be Evil and become Neutral.

I definitely disagree. This does not hold water, because it would definitely cut down on the number of Evil characters and beings in D&D (All female orcs with younglings would be "always neutral"... Almost all Evil NPCs that had a family would be neutral for the same reason...

Again: A lot of Evil people, and a lot of Evil creatures, do have loved ones, children, parents, tribes, even lands, who's well being is more important than their own.

There are "Crazy Evil", but that is a very special case of Evil, which can be combined with neutral chaotic or lawful.

HamHam
2009-07-14, 02:47 PM
I definitely disagree. This does not hold water, because it would definitely cut down on the number of Evil characters and beings in D&D (All female orcs with younglings would be "always neutral"... Almost all Evil NPCs that had a family would be neutral for the same reason...

Orcs are mortal beings. Their bodies are made up of flesh and blood, not evil and chaos.

Riffington
2009-07-14, 02:48 PM
I would say that a soon as they genuinely love someone else, that is to say, find themselves putting the well-being of someone else before themselves, they cease to be Evil and become Neutral.



But they [Chaotic Good] most certainly do not believe that "laws have a part to play". They think the system (aka the man) is keeping people down.




If you only do evil for personal benefit, you're just Neutral.


Your statements seem to be quite at odds with the fact that ~30% of humans are Good, ~30% are Evil, ~30% are Chaotic, and ~30% are Lawful.
If you are more evil than ~70% of people, you are Evil. (you can alter these numbers slightly (say, 20%/50%/30%... but it's certainly not 1%/98%/1%, as your statements would seem to reflect)

That means many Evil people dislike evil and do it only for personal benefit, that many Evil people truly loving some other person, etc. And it means that if you have less respect for Law/tradition than ~70% of people, you are Chaotic. That includes a lot of people who respect the Law and Tradition... but just exercise more personal discretion than the average person.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-14, 02:55 PM
Orcs are mortal beings. Their bodies are made up of flesh and blood, not evil and chaos.

...?

Good, you agree with me.

HamHam
2009-07-14, 02:58 PM
...?

Good, you agree with me.

A demon, on the other hand, is made up of evil and chaos.

hamishspence
2009-07-14, 03:17 PM
Or, its made up of the soul of an chaotic evil mortal- which may retain a trace of its old malleability.

Just as its possible for a celestial to become Evil and still be a celestial with its alignment subtypes, so maybe the same applies to Fiends.

Delaney Gale
2009-07-14, 04:56 PM
Chaotic Neutral:

Chaotic Netural characters can hold loyalties, and often do. Heck, they might hold loyalties to people who you'd think would be anathema- a CN rogue might owe a LG paladin a few favors, or go drinking with a NG cleric because of their mutual love of gambling. They might even hold loyalty to organizations or causes, but rarely for the reasons good, evil, or lawful characters would. Personal connection is the name of the game with CN characters.

They openly disregard laws that don't make sense to them, and will break ones that make sense if they think they can get away with it while not causing undue suffering. A CN thief would sneak in to a noble's house to steal their jewelry, but wouldn't sneak in to assassinate the noble, and wouldn't sneak into a struggling merchant's house to steal the last of their stock. They'll cheat at cards if they think they can get away with it, but they're probably smart enough to win without cheating.

They're not cruel, per se, they just have a hard time putting others' welfare before theirs. If they're doing well they might even be generous, but their contributions to strangers are mostly motivated by guilt and societal pressure rather than genuine desire to do so. If a CN character was down to their last five gold and approached by a beggar, they wouldn't feel compelled to give, even if they were about to get a windfall and one of those gold pieces would improve the beggar's life dramatically.

Glass Mouse
2009-07-14, 11:38 PM
But is there a difference in the attitude towards love? A good character may believe in a completely altruistic "true love", while an evil character is more likely to view love in more utilitarian terms, "well, sure I love him/her, but I wouldn't if it wasn't also convenient".

Dunno, just a thought.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-07-14, 11:43 PM
But is there a difference in the attitude towards love? A good character may believe in a completely altruistic "true love", while an evil character is more likely to view love in more utilitarian terms, "well, sure I love him/her, but I wouldn't if it wasn't also convenient".

Dunno, just a thought.

Oh definately. Love is all about individual attitudes, values and perception.

Even "good" people have conditional love and it's a filthy lie people tell that love must be unconditional. If you know there's something you can do to make it so that your family will never talk to you again or cut you off, there's the condition.

It's also a nice dirty lie to say that love is wasted on objects or ideals. People spend their entire lives loving things that could never love them back. And taking it a step further, they'd even have a good case at being right about doing so.

"Evil" people would simply pick misguided or self-serving conditions or things. Simple really. You can serve something selflessly and with perfect devotion and still be entirely wrong for doing so.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-14, 11:44 PM
But is there a difference in the attitude towards love? A good character may believe in a completely altruistic "true love", while an evil character is more likely to view love in more utilitarian terms, "well, sure I love him/her, but I wouldn't if it wasn't also convenient".

Dunno, just a thought.

Why can't the evil character fall "truly" in love even when it incurs serious "inconveniences". He just does so in an evil way.

Good character: Well, I'm really happy you found somebody else. I want what is best for you.

Evil character #1: If I can't have you, no one can *BANG*

Evil character #2: Honey, can't you see that I killed him so we could be together?

Evil character #3: Now we will be forever together *BURP* Excuse me, but you were delicious.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-15, 12:32 AM
A demon, on the other hand, is made up of evil and chaos.

I think I was a little too tired yesteday; I missed the "demon" part of the original post.

I do agree with you there; demons are basically elementals of Evil. Depending on universe (DM preference), I would say
A) they can fall in love, but it will destroy them, literary. They will disolve when they are no longer made of the "matter" of Evil
B) they can't fall in love
C) they can, but turn into mortals

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-15, 12:34 AM
Why can't the evil character fall "truly" in love even when it incurs serious "inconveniences". He just does so in an evil way.

Good character: Well, I'm really happy you found somebody else. I want what is best for you.

Evil character #1: If I can't have you, no one can *BANG*

Evil character #2: Honey, can't you see that I killed him so we could be together?

Evil character #3: Now we will be forever together *BURP* Excuse me, but you were delicious.

Again, this is the alignment of Crazy Evil. #3 could also be a Demon.
Some of the most evil people in the world have been in love, in the normal way.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-15, 01:02 AM
Again, this is the alignment of Crazy Evil. #3 could also be a Demon.
Some of the most evil people in the world have been in love, in the normal way.

Evil does not have to be crazy, of course. This was simply an counterexample to a post that claimed and evil character could not fall "truly" in love...whatever "truly" in love means.

That I chose "crazy evil" for a counterexample was merely out of of convenience, speed and for comic effect. Yet that does not detract from the point I was making that, yes, evil and love can be mixed in a character's personality. For ex, MacBeth loved Lady MacBeth

As I have said in my previous posts, alignment is a descriptor of characters in D&D and should not be used to dictate behavior. And alignment labels also refer to real world concepts. Although the two uses, game descriptor and real world concept, are related, they are best understood as seperate things. Often posters in these alignment debates start to debate the real world concepts, say of good and evil.

But what should it matter what you think good and evil is in the real world? Say you personally adhere to moral relativism as a moral philosophy. But as a DM, you may want to have personifications of absolute evil in your fantasy world.

If the aim is to debate real world concepts, then, naturally, real world examples or arguments about social contracts, evolutionary theory and such can be brought up.

But if the point is discuss how to play evil characters in a role playing game or what alignment means in D&D then I think it is best to keep the discussion to the possibilities of the realm of fantasy and storytelling.

If we do so, then I think it is far easier to see the multiple character possibilities that can be played in D&D using any alignment. And yes, some of these will be stereotypical and trite. But the stereotyped and trite is so for a reason MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yahzi
2009-07-15, 01:27 AM
There is no evolutionary pressure to promote the survival of your species
It's pretty hard for a gene to reproduce without the species it is embedded in reproducing.

Unless you're arguing for the kin selection among genes. Which is just... I'm not even going to go there.


Our beliefs regarding morality come from somewhere else.
Like... where?


But it doesn't come from Terran evolution.
Well, Orcs don't come from Terran evolution either.

My point was that different creatures, like for instance Mind-Flayers, can arguably have different moralities (like Evil) and still be functional societies.

Yahzi
2009-07-15, 01:30 AM
Orcs are mortal beings. Their bodies are made up of flesh and blood, not evil and chaos.
Not if you're playing a Tolkien-esque world.

It's a perfectly valid game choice to have all monsters just be monsters, without families or hobbies or any other reason for existence than to plague mankind.

Heck, that's what D&D started with.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-15, 01:41 AM
Yes, but with decreasing amounts each time. And to counterbalance that little benefit, the same species is usually a more direct competitor than other species. In general, by the time you get past the tribal level, you are better off promoting the destruction of other groups rather than their welfare from an evolutionary standpoint. Depending on their strength you may or may not want to be seen promoting said destruction, but that's very different from alignment.

Our beliefs regarding morality come from somewhere else. If orcs and humans have different moralities, it may be because of our respective deities, it may be because orcs are intrinsically evil in a way that humans or not, or it may be that orcish physiology has been tainted by their past misdeeds. But it doesn't come from Terran evolution.

I am not sure if you are talking D&D or IRL here.
In IRL I think reality itself is arguing against you; morals most certainly came from Evolution (meaning the fundamentals). It has been an advantage for us to cooperate; and no matter how many wars we have had those who have cooperated have been more successful in forwarding their genes to the next generation. In fact, there is a gap somewhere between family groups (like apes) and societies that we managed to cross without killing each other too much. Apes can't do that, they behave as you say; anyone outside the family group is primarily a competitor for females, food and territory. What humans realized was that other family groups meant trade. More food. Different food. Different females. Information ("There is a good spot to camp on behind those mountains. Far less predators and a lot of fish.")

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-15, 01:44 AM
Not if you're playing a Tolkien-esque world.

It's a perfectly valid game choice to have all monsters just be monsters, without families or hobbies or any other reason for existence than to plague mankind.

Heck, that's what D&D started with.

And that was fun for several minutes in the '70ies. :smalltongue:

Tolkien ran into problems when he first created a race "purely monstrous, with the only purpose to plague mankind". He couldn't resist making them interesting and having conversation indicating things like family, interests, etc.

The same with D&D. Thank god the "Orcs are evolved pigs. That are green" bit is over with (Why pigs would evolve to purely evil creatures is another question).

HamHam
2009-07-15, 02:56 AM
And that was fun for several minutes in the '70ies. :smalltongue:

Tolkien ran into problems when he first created a race "purely monstrous, with the only purpose to plague mankind". He couldn't resist making them interesting and having conversation indicating things like family, interests, etc.

The same with D&D. Thank god the "Orcs are evolved pigs. That are green" bit is over with (Why pigs would evolve to purely evil creatures is another question).

An even bigger problem being that once he thought about it for more than two seconds, he realized it created continuity errors and did not work with his own dogma (Catholicism). Which is why you get stuff like the orcs being corrupted elves, because evil isn't supposed to be able to create new things. And he could never entirely decide, imho, if orcs were inherently beyond salvation or just poorly brought up.

Regardless, in the proper core DnD setting, orcs are just humans with tusks and crazy one-eyed god.

Riffington
2009-07-15, 08:11 AM
I am not sure if you are talking D&D or IRL here.
In IRL I think reality itself is arguing against you; morals most certainly came from Evolution (meaning the fundamentals). It has been an advantage for us to cooperate; and no matter how many wars we have had those who have cooperated have been more successful in forwarding their genes to the next generation. In fact, there is a gap somewhere between family groups (like apes) and societies that we managed to cross without killing each other too much. Apes can't do that, they behave as you say; anyone outside the family group is primarily a competitor for females, food and territory. What humans realized was that other family groups meant trade. More food. Different food. Different females. Information ("There is a good spot to camp on behind those mountains. Far less predators and a lot of fish.")

IRL, since D&D does not have evolution.
You are setting the bar insanely low for morality, however. Evolution does support a certain amount of cooperation, but cooperation is related to Law rather than to Good. The ability to band together with your neighbor to attack a stranger is certainly useful. Evolution does not promote Justice very well, since it is typically better to side with the more powerful side. Evolution does not promote marital fidelity well, since it is better for males to spread their genes widely when possible, and for women to substitute a superior set of genes for their husband's when they can get away with it. When evolution can promote injustice and betrayal, we can hardly call it a provider of the fundamentals of morality. We need a source beyond the human genome for that. (Doesn't have to be a supernatural source, again see Dawkins).


It's pretty hard for a gene to reproduce without the species it is embedded in reproducing.
Sure, true, but that's not a relevant factor. They don't have the power to see the future. So every time there is reproduction but no catastrophe, a species survival gene is selected against if it has any costs. Every time there is catastrophe, the species survival gene is still not selected for (because you're promoting the survival of those without the gene equally with the survival of those with). The only way it can be selected for is if you are constantly budding off into new species, and most of those species are constantly being wiped out. Perhaps there are some bacteria in this situation, but certainly no Chordatae.



Like... where?

Some might posit Natural Law, or a Divine source, or History, or Aesthetics? I do not pretend to know.



My point was that different creatures, like for instance Mind-Flayers, can arguably have different moralities (like Evil) and still be functional societies.
Ok, sure. I'm talking about evolution, not critiquing the Monster Manual ;)

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-15, 08:27 AM
IRL, since D&D does not have evolution.
You are setting the bar insanely low for morality, however. Evolution does support a certain amount of cooperation, but cooperation is related to Law rather than to Good. The ability to band together with your neighbor to attack a stranger is certainly useful. Evolution does not promote Justice very well, since it is typically better to side with the more powerful side. Evolution does not promote marital fidelity well, since it is better for males to spread their genes widely when possible, and for women to substitute a superior set of genes for their husband's when they can get away with it. When evolution can promote injustice and betrayal, we can hardly call it a provider of the fundamentals of morality. We need a source beyond the human genome for that. (Doesn't have to be a supernatural source, again see Dawkins).

...

Ok, sure. I'm talking about evolution, not critiquing the Monster Manual ;)

My point is not if it's Law or Good. The point I make is that it has proven beneficial for us to develop a sense of ethics. Our brain is the most amazing product of evolution (yet).
Evolution has proven you wrong, or at least partly wrong: This is exactly what I am talking about, the built in ability that feel sympathy for the weak, and therefore not always siding with the strong side. It is an evolved response; an instinctive response that might very well have something to do with the fact that our offspring is pathetic; unlike most other animals, our offspring takes 13-16 years before it can fend for itself in any reasonably good way. Basically the same evolved instinct that makes us tolerate, and support, a "grown" offspring and still treat it like a child, gives us the ability to see weakness in others as something else than just "Let's kick them while they're down".

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-15, 08:33 AM
An even bigger problem being that once he thought about it for more than two seconds, he realized it created continuity errors and did not work with his own dogma (Catholicism). Which is why you get stuff like the orcs being corrupted elves, because evil isn't supposed to be able to create new things. And he could never entirely decide, imho, if orcs were inherently beyond salvation or just poorly brought up.

Regardless, in the proper core DnD setting, orcs are just humans with tusks and crazy one-eyed god.

(And at the end he could not even decide if they were corrupted elves, or corrupted men).

As for "green humans with tusks"; that is quite close to what I think of them. They are cruel barbarians, but they are not idiots, or axe-crazy. They can be negotiated with. They take good care of their young. And if you step aside and look at the world from a species-neutral point of view, quite often the orcs were living in those hills or that forest before the dwarves or humans decided to cast them out or build their fancy new town right there...

...It still won't change their alignment from generally X-Evil, but hopefully it stops you from slaughtering the young for XP.

Serpentine
2009-07-15, 10:13 AM
Quick note on love: It has been the fundamental basis for many an undenyably evil villain.

Riffington
2009-07-15, 11:52 AM
My point is not if it's Law or Good. The point I make is that it has proven beneficial for us to develop a sense of ethics. Our brain is the most amazing product of evolution (yet).
Evolution has proven you wrong, or at least partly wrong: This is exactly what I am talking about, the built in ability that feel sympathy for the weak, and therefore not always siding with the strong side. It is an evolved response; an instinctive response that might very well have something to do with the fact that our offspring is pathetic; unlike most other animals, our offspring takes 13-16 years before it can fend for itself in any reasonably good way. Basically the same evolved instinct that makes us tolerate, and support, a "grown" offspring and still treat it like a child, gives us the ability to see weakness in others as something else than just "Let's kick them while they're down".

Please tell me I am misunderstanding your argument, because it looks like a strawman, and it's fun to knock down strawmen, but not very fair. Let me show you my understanding so you can tell me where it's wrong.
1: Everything humans are is a result of evolution, so if people have brown hair rather than green, it's because brown is evolutionarily better. If people believe that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s, it's not because they've discovered how the world works, it's just that we've evolved to believe that.
2: Furthermore, affection for our young is the root of morality.

Bah. Sure, humans have brains, and sure I happen to believe (though it's not been proven) that we got them via evolution, and sure, it's only intelligent things that can be moral or immoral. But that's not a proof that morality is evolutionarily-determined. Morality has specific contents. Those contents could have gotten there a variety of ways, and you haven't shown that they came from evolution.
As to 2: well, no. The fact that we're less likely to abuse our own children than our spouse's children by another marriage hardly constitutes morality. Even if you can somehow show that the modern civilized love of cuteness (which is less evident in poorer cultures) is evolutionarily determined, it's still not morality. Treating people better because they are cuter is not justice.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-15, 12:02 PM
Please tell me I am misunderstanding your argument, because it looks like a strawman, and it's fun to knock down strawmen, but not very fair. Let me show you my understanding so you can tell me where it's wrong.
1: Everything humans are is a result of evolution, so if people have brown hair rather than green, it's because brown is evolutionarily better. If people believe that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s, it's not because they've discovered how the world works, it's just that we've evolved to believe that.
2: Furthermore, affection for our young is the root of morality.

1. ...You are misunderstanding me. Or exaggerating for dramatic effect.
I believe that the capacity for cooperation and the ability to feel pity for others outside the close family group are evolved. To argue that that means that I also belive that all knowledge is evolved is a strawman.
The difference between your argument and mine is that you seem to think that mercy, pity, cooperation are all just logical ideas we decided
to have. I argue that these evolved as natural instincts, because it benefited us in the great armsrace called Life.

2. No, I am saying that it might be one of the reasons we are, unlike our relatives, able to extend a hand across family groups. Another is the simple fact that we can put ourselves in other individual's place.

Blackjackg
2009-07-15, 12:12 PM
1: Everything humans are is a result of evolution, so if people have brown hair rather than green, it's because brown is evolutionarily better.
Or else green just hasn't come up yet on the ol' genetic mutation roulette wheel. If someone is spontaneously born with green hair someday, we'll see how adaptive it is in ensuring breeding success (my guess is: about as adaptive as other hair colors).

If people believe that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s, it's not because they've discovered how the world works, it's just that we've evolved to believe that.

2: Furthermore, affection for our young is the root of morality.

Bah. Sure, humans have brains, and sure I happen to believe (though it's not been proven) that we got them via evolution, and sure, it's only intelligent things that can be moral or immoral. But that's not a proof that morality is evolutionarily-determined. Morality has specific contents. Those contents could have gotten there a variety of ways, and you haven't shown that they came from evolution.
As to 2: well, no. The fact that we're less likely to abuse our own children than our spouse's children by another marriage hardly constitutes morality. Even if you can somehow show that the modern civilized love of cuteness (which is less evident in poorer cultures) is evolutionarily determined, it's still not morality. Treating people better because they are cuter is not justice.
Well, a case can be made for a genetic basis for morality. Certainly there is evidence for biology playing a role in the lack of morality (or, in diagnostic terms, Antisocial Personality Disorder). Furthermore, evolutionary study shows convincing (at least to me) evidence that the domestication (see also: morality) of humans can be seen right down to our bone structure. I may go find a link to this research on the net, but right now I'm too lazy.

There is also such a thing as social evolution, wherein societies consciously and unconsciously alter their breeding patterns (and thus their evolutionary path) in response to environmental and cultural demands. So people who get a sick feeling in their gut when they break rules (and therefore choose not to break rules) could conceivably be more successful in reproduction than those who can violate rules with impunity, even in "modern" human society.

So yeah, even though you (and I) may not agree with all of Avilan's points, they are not without empirical support.

Riffington
2009-07-15, 12:14 PM
The difference between your argument and mine is that you seem to think that mercy, pity, cooperation are all just logical ideas we decided
to have. I argue that these evolved as natural instincts, because it benefited us in the great armsrace called Life.


That's fine if we go a bit beyond pity/cooperation to more nuanced moral stances, but since mercy is close enough I'll pretend that it is a moral principle. So now show me the evidence for your position. That could take the form of finding a gene that (if defective) allows a person to be of full intelligence but lack mercy. It could take the form of finding a population of people who (due to a founder effect or different environment) lack mercy, and have some kind of discernable heritance pattern to this trait when they breed with the general population. It could take the form of twin studies where adopted twins separated at birth have similar tendencies towards mercy regardless of the parents who bring them up.

Blackjackg: You are agreeing with me on the hair color. Regarding the evolutionary plausibility, I grant that it's plausible, but I haven't seen any evidence. For a scientific theory to be supported, we need to see actual data, not just multiple mutually-contradictory plausible explanations.

Yahzi
2009-07-15, 10:21 PM
Evolution does not promote Justice very well, since it is typically better to side with the more powerful side.
Except it's not. Just societies, like Athens, outlived, outfought, and out-reproduced unjust societies, like Sparta.

There's a very simple mathematical model that explains this: the Prisoner's Dilemma. The history of society is the story of people learning to cooperate for longer and longer exchanges before finally breaking down and cheating.


When evolution can promote injustice and betrayal, we can hardly call it a provider of the fundamentals of morality.
Evolution also promotes sickle-cell anemia and skin cancer. Does that mean it is not the provider of melanonin?


We need a source beyond the human genome for that. (Doesn't have to be a supernatural source, again see Dawkins).
Dawkins is a great biologist and understands evolution fantastically well. However, he might not understand morality as well as he thinks he does. Or, alternatively, you might not have fully understood his argument.


The only way it can be selected for is if you are constantly budding off into new species, and most of those species are constantly being wiped out.
There's a reason humans are the least genetically diverse large mammal on the planet. We're very good at killing people who are different.


Some might posit Natural Law, or a Divine source, or History, or Aesthetics? I do not pretend to know.
One of those is evolution and two of them are products of evolution, leaving only one source as "not evolution." That particular one has enough problems that we don't really need to discuss it.


1: Everything humans are is a result of evolution, so if people have brown hair rather than green, it's because brown is evolutionarily better.
It was better at some point. Or at least not worse.


If people believe that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s, it's not because they've discovered how the world works, it's just that we've evolved to believe that.
Those are the same thing. We've evolved to believe that because it is how the world works. Or at least, it's a close enough approximation.


2: Furthermore, affection for our young is the root of morality.
Theory of Mind is the root of morality - the ability to imagine being in someone else's shoes. People who lack that ability are not moral agents. They're usually not even functional.

Creatures that lack Theory of Mind - or worse, have no use for it because social cooperation does their species no good - will be Evil, according to human and D&D standards. However, they might be perfectly evolutionarily viable, and a NG person would not kill them just for being Evil. LG would, though. Gotta let the Paladins do their thing, you know. :smallbiggrin:



And that was fun for several minutes in the '70ie
I said it was a valid game choice. I didn't say it was one I would make. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, my essential point here was to shill for my idea of alignments, where discussions like "can evil love" are simply avoided. Everyone behaves the same to their equals; the only thing that changes with alignment is who you define your equals as. This gives the DM an easy guide for consistent, rational behaviour among NPCs, and still allows Orcs to torture humans and even Orcs from other tribes, while cooperating with their own tribe.

Mindleshank
2009-07-15, 11:01 PM
Wow i think some of you have evil all wrong. Especially if you have read the book of vile darkness, with that in mind you must say an evil person does not do things for personal gain. For example, in the book of vile darkness it says using people is an evil act and that lying is an evil act. Well thats not entirely true those may not be noble acts but they certainly aren't evil before i explain more i have a question to ask all of you.

Why does a good person help an old lady across the street?

Simple enough right.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-15, 11:54 PM
Wow i think some of you have evil all wrong. Especially if you have read the book of vile darkness, with that in mind you must say an evil person does not do things for personal gain. For example, in the book of vile darkness it says using people is an evil act and that lying is an evil act. Well thats not entirely true those may not be noble acts but they certainly aren't evil before i explain more i have a question to ask all of you.

Why does a good person help an old lady across the street?

Simple enough right.
Yes. And the lawful good person will only walk her when the light is green and at the crosswalk. The neutral good will walk her only after looking both ways. And the chaotic good person will jaywalk with her when possible.

*sigh*

There are good persons and law-abiding persons and law-abiding, good persons but there are no "lawful good" persons. There are only "lawful good" characters. "Lawful good" is a game descriptor. "Lawful good" is related to the real world concepts of abiding by the law and being good but a strict distinction should be kept in one's mind. There are fictional characters that one can play that have little or no parallels in real life. For ex, you could have an embodiment pure evil like a demon. The only parallel in the "real world" (that is outside the D&D game context) would be a mythological (as opposed to fictional) being like the Devil. More importantly, the nature of evil and good in a fantasy world can be arbitraly chosen. That is, whatever you think good and evil are as real world concepts, you can choose a completely different way of thinking about good and evil in your fantasy world and still have a believable and consistent fantasy game world.

Now, having said this, in real life, using a person or lying is not necessarily an evil act. Not even a strictest Kantian will answer the question, "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?", honestly. And your evil boss is not evil because he counts you as a Full-Time-Employee in some report.

Of course, lying or using a person could be an evil act. The question of how, why, what, when, where and who lying or using a person is an evil act is far from a "simple" question to answer. Or at least, the question of good and evil has been good enough for countless numbers of philosophers, clerics, and other learned individuals to argue over for thousands of years with no consensus.

Now the Book of Vile Darkness published by the wise Wizards of the Coast did not enlighten me about the true nature of good and evil but I wanted to Mindrape a character.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 12:03 AM
Yes. And the lawful good person will only walk her when the light is green and at the crosswalk. The neutral good will walk her only after looking both ways. And the chaotic good person will jaywalk with her when possible.

I asked Why. At any rate though i think that the game descriptors are better than most people give them credit for a lot of them don't like them and i think you simply have to understand them individually first. For example, i toke me a long time to finally figure out what neutral evil was and it has guided my character rather skillfully so far. You are defined by your actions yes but your alignment is the result of that

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-16, 12:45 AM
I asked Why.
So? Answer your own question.



At any rate though i think that the game descriptors are better than most people give them credit for

Agreed. They can work well in game.



For example, i toke me a long time to finally figure out what neutral evil was and it has guided my character rather skillfully so far. You are defined by your actions yes but your alignment is the result of that
If you mean that your character actions and motivations define your alignment, I would agree. And I applaud your dedication to playing the role.

Could you give more specifics as to how you play your neutral evil character?

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 12:50 AM
If you mean that your character actions and motivations define your alignment, I would agree. And I applaud your dedication to playing the role.

Could you give more specifics as to how you play your neutral evil character?

Why certainly my characters name is hasdrubal by the way and he plots and waits for the right time to kill(which he loves to do) because his party members scorn him for kill most of the time he kills for personal gain and to honour his god Nerull he has no code of conduct other than to keep his older brother safe and i would tell you more but i really don't want my party to read what i am about to say for it is my master plan.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-16, 01:07 AM
Why certainly my characters name is hasdrubal by the way and he plots and waits for the right time to kill(which he loves to do) because his party members scorn him for kill most of the time he kills for personal gain and to honour his god Nerull he has no code of conduct other than to keep his older brother safe and i would tell you more but i really don't want my party to read what i am about to say for it is my master plan.
Yes! What is sown must be reaped for all life is an abomination in the eyes of the Hater of Life, the Foe of All Good, the Bringer of Darkness, the Reaper of the Flesh...

Rappy
2009-07-16, 01:29 AM
I prefer d20 Modern's allegiance system (which was too often labelled into alignment terms, IMHO, but that's a tangent for another day), but here's my personal use of alignments (only one method of each, obviously, otherwise we'd be here a while).

On Evil
Chaotic Evil: You enjoy the thrill of the chase, the smell of blood on your hands, and the adrenaline pumping through your veins as you fight the system above your head. There's just something about tempting the hands of fate and the hammer of justice that just feels...so right...to you. You need to keep moving and finding new ways to keep your cravings sated. You need the sweet drug of your adrenal focus, no matter what it takes.

Lawful Evil: The darkness has an order to it in your mind. You work within the law to subvert it to your own desires, finding loopholes and obscure dogma tucked away in the annals of judicial literature. You find the idea of commiting heinous acts without a purpose distasteful; why be a simple ruffian when you could actually have a method to your madness?

Neutral Evil: While CE feeds on the shadows and LE uses them as a tool, you embrace the shadows as part of life.

On Good
Chaotic Good: What good is a Paladin if they are strapped to an obscure system only they seem to understand? You prefer to let your heart guide your actions. If the law isn't hurting anyone, fine, but if it's used to reign in the innocent or curb the path of justice, you're prepared to fight back in spite of the risks.

Lawful Good: The system may not be perfect, but a system is a system nonetheless. What kind of a good person would object to the laws placed around them if there are no outright problems manifesting? It is best to spread the safety of the law and order your people take for granted in order to help others to the path of righteousness.

Neutral Good: Helping others isn't meant to be caged by social laws or lack thereof. Everyone is redeemable, whether they are the strictest adherent to deplorable tactics or the biggest wild card anarchist you can find. Good doesn't play favorites in your mind, no matter what the society.

Neutrality I won't touch for now, since I have no good examples of trying to play around with them.

Juggernaut1981
2009-07-16, 01:41 AM
Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic
This is how "predictable" you think the game world is.

Will the solution you used yesterday work again today? Is having a system where things remain similar day after day valuable? Should things like punishments be determined before the crime is committed and everyone be made aware of the punishment? Should there be systems?

Yes, these things are valuable and we should always work to make them better = Lawful
Sorta, sometimes they don't work as well as we want = Neutral
No, things should change as they need to change = Chaotic

Good-Neutral-Evil
This is how "me-focussed" you think beings are.

Does everyone look out for each other? Will my neighbour protect me against bandits? If I am sick, would the Inn-keeper bring me food and get me a healer? Are other people important? Does it matter to me if other beings think I am "nice"?

Yes, you should look out for other people and hopefully others will look out for you = Good
Some people do, some people don't. I don't expect everyone to. Some people are just evil. = Neutral
Look after yourself buddy. It's not my job to look out for you. If you can't take care of yourself, then you should die. = Evil


So for Lawful Good. Read the LAWFUL sentence and the GOOD sentence one after the other. If they are more lawful, read Lawful first. If they are more good, read Good first.

It isn't microbiology people. Sheesh.

Serpentine
2009-07-16, 01:41 AM
Various thoughts on alignment.

On D&D Alignments and Morality: In real life, morality, good and evil and all that, is subjective. It varies between times, places, communities and even individuals. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about D&D, where there are gods and angels and demons and literal living, breathing, walking-around embodiments of morality. The place where these cross over is where the DM and her player's real-life subjective beliefs about good, evil, law and chaos determine the objective morality of their D&D world. The moralities of D&D will be as varied as there are DMs. To say that alignment in D&D is meaningless because "such-and-such a person will think that this is evil, while so-and-so will say it's good" is itself meaningless. If such-and-such is DMing, then it will be evil in that game. As long as this is consistent and all the players are more or less in agreement with this, then that's that.

On [Alignment] creatures: Always [Alignment] creatures have [alignment] wound into the very fabric of their beings. They don't just act [alignment], they literally are [alignment]. Any non-[alignment] individuals will most likely be actually or practically unique, with very specific reasons for being that alignment.
Usually [Alignment] creatures have a heavy, natural inclination towards [alignment]. In the right circumstances they may resist or redirect these tendencies and become a different alignment, but it could be difficult for them to maintain it consistently. Their culture, if they have one, will most likely reinforce and amplify the tendencies. Exceptions are possible, and there may even be whole communities of another alignment. Chances are, however, that there will be a constant battle against how they are "meant" to be. In the case of an only slight alignment shift, their upbringing or interests may simply have focused on one or another part of [alignment].
Often [Alignment] creatures have a slight natural inclination towards [alignment], or tendencies that tend to favour [alignment]. Alternatively/in addition, for various reasons their culture may have developed to emphasise and produce [alignment]. It doesn't take very much for this creature to become a different alignment, and it could only or mostly be circumstances and/or social pressures that push them towards [alignment].

This is a table I made to illustrate example approximate proportions of alignments for a particular creature. They're based on Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil and True Neutral, but can just be turned around for the others.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h287/serpentine16/alignmenttables.gif

Um... I think that was about all I had. I'll finish my archetypes... at some point.

Riffington
2009-07-16, 08:28 AM
Except it's not. Just societies, like Athens, outlived, outfought, and out-reproduced unjust societies, like Sparta.

There's a very simple mathematical model that explains this: the Prisoner's Dilemma. The history of society is the story of people learning to cooperate for longer and longer exchanges before finally breaking down and cheating.
Show me the data. I've done modeling using the Prisoner's Dilemma and by changing my assumptions I can come up with any solution I like... it's plausible, but it needs actual rigorous experimentation.



Evolution also promotes sickle-cell anemia and skin cancer. Does that mean it is not the provider of melanonin [sic]?
I think we have pretty good data on sickle cell and melanin. I haven't seen all the data on the skin cancers so I won't talk about that right now.



There's a reason humans are the least genetically diverse large mammal on the planet. We're very good at killing people who are different.
This is not strictly true, but to the extent that it is true, it would tend to harm your argument. After all, killing those who are different is immoral, but might be evolutionarily-favored or disfavored. If we can show a sufficiently low genetic diversity amongst humans, that data would tend to oppose the notion that morality is evolved.



One of those is evolution and two of them are products of evolution, leaving only one source as "not evolution." That particular one has enough problems that we don't really need to discuss it.
None of those three are evolution, or products of evolution in any but the weakest sense. I don't think we need to discuss them, just to note that there are possible sources for our morality other than evolution.



It was better at some point. Or at least not worse.
No. It could have been better, worse, or equal. We don't actually know. Evolution is not a perfect optimizer - it just tends on average to support better things rather than worse. Not every time.



Those are the same thing. We've evolved to believe that because it is how the world works. Or at least, it's a close enough approximation.
Totally unacceptable. We've evolved the ability to think, and we've also evolved some innate instincts. The product of our thought and senses is not known to be an evolved belief; an instinct is. I have an evolved notion that a spread-out pile of candies contains more than a bunched-up pile. I have a rational understanding of math (with no evidence to suppose it's evolved) that allows me to actually count the piles. These things are different, and at odds.




Creatures that lack Theory of Mind - or worse, have no use for it because social cooperation does their species no good - will be Evil, according to human and D&D standards. However, they might be perfectly evolutionarily viable, and a NG person would not kill them just for being Evil. LG would, though. Gotta let the Paladins do their thing, you know. :smallbiggrin:
But a creature could be Evil and possess a Theory of Mind, but just choose Evil. I know some Evil humans with a Theory of Mind.



Anyway, my essential point here was to shill for my idea of alignments, where discussions like "can evil love" are simply avoided. Everyone behaves the same to their equals; the only thing that changes with alignment is who you define your equals as. This gives the DM an easy guide for consistent, rational behaviour among NPCs, and still allows Orcs to torture humans and even Orcs from other tribes, while cooperating with their own tribe.
I prefer my Orcs to cooperate with their own tribe, but quickly turn on them when a changed situation makes it fun/profitable. Because I like my Orcs like I like my evil. Evil.

horseboy
2009-07-16, 04:56 PM
Don't pick an alignment, pick a personality and then assign it an alignment. Forget trying to play your alignment, and just play your character. The mechanics of alignment only serve to stifle RP and arbitrarily penalize players. They aren't even necessary, the whole alignment system is just a holdover from previous editions that should have been retired long ago.

+1 this. Especially since what your character's alignment is isn't determined by your actions but ultimately what campaign style the character is put into.

Fun Example of a non-human from an alignmentless system.
Grafft was born on the hard world of Frrrrlus (orbiting Epsilon Ceti A&B). The falar there are known for their cooperative capabilities, as the planet's heat kills off any of the weak far more effectively than their culture could. His alpha noticed in him a great deal of intelligence. Enough so, that he was marked as a potential threat. He always encouraged Grafft to try more daring and glorious deeds. To everyone's amazement he found a way to do every one of them, and survive. Finally, he was “encouraged” to join the ISC military, with the hopes that he would die far away, while fulfilling the pride's obligation to the lesser races.
Grafft excelled in the Inter Species Confederation's military. His team player mentality meant his squad always scored high time after time, which earned him the rank of corporal in boot. His constant contact with humans began to teach him the basics of subterfuge and he soon realized what his Alpha was playing at: he was afraid of him. Fearful prey makes mistakes. He soon began to dream of returning home and killing the old Alpha, allowing him to take his place. Then the war broke out and “Old Man” dreams were replaced with current glory.
Grafft got into a lot of trouble in the war. He attempted to start his own clan with captured (non)combatant Jeronan females. The humans higher up in the ranks really did not like this. Some sort of soft spined craziness about violating their rights. Unable to make use of important captured resources, he took the only other option available to him that would ensure the ISC victory and began destroying such enemy resources. That got the Georges and the Doggies all over him. They just wouldn't listen, no matter how much he tried to explain the needs on the ground. If it wasn't for the ISC loosing and in desperate need, he probably would have ended up in the brig.
Grafft's was already a part of Recon. Watching an active enemy kept his non-cursorial mind occupied and staved off his short attention span far better than standard “hurry up and wait” style missions. He was too good to be let go, so finally they came to a plan. He was inducted into Force Recon. The unusual nature of their chain of command would put him under the direct control of an officer. Grafft was very good about following orders, surely this would solve the problem. For the most part it worked. Even with his two field promotions eventually to Sergent, he still was under a Lieutenant that kept him, mostly, from violating Geneva convention. Then the Jeronan nuked Denver and orbitally bombarded Europe into oblivion. One look was all it took for countless “told you so”es. Grafft was then put in the secret plan to “seed” privateer ships with military trained personnel to elevate their effectiveness.

Personality: Grafft hates waste, making him Brutally Efficient. His growing up in an extremely hostile environment taught him early on that waste means death. Whether it's a waste of opportunities, when someone raises a weapon against him, they never get a second opportunity, or waste of lives, he will not throw away his men. He is Hard but Fair. He acknowledges that the lesser races can not compete with him and that's why they are relegated to the less noble pursuits. He expects them to follow these paths with no less determination and skill than he himself is capable of in his own way. Those that do not are wastes, those that do are rewarded. He does not intrinsically value life itself, only the lives of those with value. Semper Fi. The corps treated him better than his own pride. In many respects he sees it as his second pride. Paternal. As he gets older he's started taking the new members of his unit under his wing and giving long lectures. Luckily they usually take the form of an interesting anecdote from his life. A strong streak of Falar Honour. Spoiler for length
If I were to bash my head into a wall and try and play a character like this in D&D what his alignment would be would be completely dependent on what type of campaign I'm in to see which faucet of his personality is going to be "dominant".
Has the war made it's way to his homeland? He'll forsake all other things to return home and fulfill his societal obligations to defend his home. He'll follow his Alpha's orders, even though he thinks he's a ****, now's not the time for petty personal feuds. He'll selflessly sacrifice of himself to protect any of his homeland. Eventually a DM would start calling him Lawful Good.
Is it a "Dirty Dozen" type campaign where he's infiltrating deep into enemy territory, targeting and killing off high ranking enemy officials, usually other falar? No regard to the moral implications of slinking into someone's house past their guards, holding a sword to their throat, whistling to wake them up so he can challenge him to a "trial of possession" then slit his throat and take his stuff, as is the falar law. Thus making him Lawful Neutral
Is this a political intrigue game? Where he's got time to plot and scheme against his father, challenge him to one on one combat, kill him and 1/3 to 1/2 of his brothers to assert his dominance and all the weisenheimers going "attack now, while he's weakened". Then hand out a sister of his each to his political backers as "tokens of his benevolence." Then take his remaining sisters, his mom, any war brides he's accumulated and probably some aunts and cousins then proceed to christen every room in his stronghold achieving Lawful Evil status.
Is he the token Non-human, surrounded by human law and custom? He ignores the law and traditional human society and instead follows his own internal system of right and wrong. That they happen to coincide with his culture's never comes up because the campaign only interacts with falar culture maybe once or twice. Earning himself Neutral Good status.
Does it take place on some independent, back-water planet of dubious value? Then he's going to be the one in the group saying: "Hey, these guys are worthless and too incompetent to live they can't protect themselves from some goblins, I vote we just leave." Planting him firmly in Neutral Evil territory.
If I were to repeatedly bash my head into a wall and try and mechanically express him the closest mechanically would be a barbarian/assassin (with a level in ranger/fighter and enough rogue to qualify). That means that if I don't answer predominately with a NE answer then I'm looking at having to argue that I'm not "Playing my character right" and am about to be penalized for being in character. Thus alignment is impeding my roleplaying ability as I'm only allowed to express one faucet of his personality or suffer mechanical consequences.

If you want alignments to be played intelligently then you're going to have to re-write alignments to be intelligent.

My suggestion: Remove alignment restrictions from classes. Move the "goal posts", if you will, of alignment from "Absolute Objectiveness" to "Sociologically Objective". The DM comes up with 8-10 points about the culture (which they really should just to explain it to the players) The players "rate" their alignment based on how many of the points their character agrees with. They then do this with all the (major) civilizations. You use the character's rating of the society of the caster to determine their alignment for alignment based spells and effects. That way an orc and a humans can both be champions of their respective ideologies, and Paladins, it's just that each other pings Chaotic Evil. Heck each can even have their own copy of the Outer Planes, leading to some interesting consequences, like maybe because one group doesn't even believe in Hell, they can't interact with demons giving them both DR to each other.

Yeah, I know, leave it to the Rolemaster player to come up with the convoluted and book keeping intensive option. :smallamused:

Riffington
2009-07-16, 07:12 PM
That means that if I don't answer predominately with a NE answer then I'm looking at having to argue that I'm not "Playing my character right" and am about to be penalized for being in character. Thus alignment is impeding my roleplaying ability as I'm only allowed to express one faucet of his personality or suffer mechanical consequences.


That's only if your DM is lame. A decent DM would say that he's NE, interesting, and complex, and would give you roleplaying points for playing your specific character well (not for doing stuff some other NE guy might do, any more than she should penalize a dwarven teetotaller for failing to drink enough). Your only mechanical consequences should be a little extra damage when a Paladin smites him.

HamHam
2009-07-16, 07:31 PM
If you want alignments to be played intelligently then you're going to have to re-write alignments to be intelligent.

You know, just because the alignment system doesn't line up with most modern ethical philosophy doesn't mean it isn't written intelligently.

Juggernaut1981
2009-07-16, 10:09 PM
My suggestion: Remove alignment restrictions from classes. Move the "goal posts", if you will, of alignment from "Absolute Objectiveness" to "Sociologically Objective". The DM comes up with 8-10 points about the culture (which they really should just to explain it to the players) The players "rate" their alignment based on how many of the points their character agrees with. They then do this with all the (major) civilizations. You use the character's rating of the society of the caster to determine their alignment for alignment based spells and effects. That way an orc and a humans can both be champions of their respective ideologies, and Paladins, it's just that each other pings Chaotic Evil. Heck each can even have their own copy of the Outer Planes, leading to some interesting consequences, like maybe because one group doesn't even believe in Hell, they can't interact with demons giving them both DR to each other.
[/QUOTE]

I built a world where societies were massively influence by their religions (like the generally are). While the world was in a Pantheons, cities all had in effect Single-Religion (however, recognised the existence of other gods).

In the evil societies, certain things were legal.

In the a city you could have slaves (esp. purchased ones, and people forced into slavery by being unable to pay debts), when you died your stuff became property of the city (unless you could prove your death temporary) and if someone else tried to claim it or keep it from the city it was counted as Blasphemy.

In another city capturing people for slavery was legal. Assassins were protected (the person hiring the assassin would go down for the crime, they wanted the act performed, the assassin was an elaborate tool in their hands in effect)...

In another city prostitution was a church-protected activity, killing a prostitute carried the penalty of execution, capturing people for slavery was seen as a prestigious career. Killing someone else carried different punishments, the rule of law is not so concrete...

In another city entering with slaves would see you summarily shot by the local guard and the slaves released

In another city laws were complex, restrictive and generally there were far many more laws than even lawyers knew what to do with, the city was strictly laid out and buildings that did not meet standards were demolished and replaced

In another city law was an option extra generally, the city had a mess of a layout, markets turned up where-ever, and so on.


AND SO ON.

Using the D&D Alignment System you can create the "systems of law" in a town and have people adhere to those social orders (which are based on a moral construct) and then name those social orders (and their underlying moral constructs) with the names given by the Alignment System.


It's not DIFFICULT to work WITH the system. If you want to be contrary and develop some kind of subjective system where "everyone believes that they are good no matter what their alignment actually is" go for gold. I think you're going to cause the Outer Planes chaos, mess up a number of magic spells, character abilities and a raft of other things. But, sure... GO FOR GOLD.....

Agrippa
2009-07-16, 10:21 PM
I think of alingment as a metagame term. See, no one thinks of him or herself as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, it's just what they are. You can be Good aligned and think of yourself as a selfish jerk (in spite of your own behavior) and you can be Evilly aligned and think of yourself as a paragon of morality.

How I view the alignments.

Chaotic Good: Creatures of this alignment view personal freedom and flexibility of action as necessary to promote the life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is great, but individual freedom does not remove responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. Individuals are valued on the basis of their actions, rather than by their position in society. Acts of kindness and mercy are to be lauded but not enforced.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (Neutral Evil) in alignment, creatures of Neutral Good alignment believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedom if the best is to be brought to the world – the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

Lawful Good: While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of Lawful Good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Only through the group can any individual gain security and meaningful position. Certain freedoms, such as rights to private property, must of course, be sacrificed to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good will, or disregard for life and intentional cruelty, the Chaotic Neutral places the personal freedom of each individual. Whether these individual choices lead to good results or ill is beside the point. Chaotic Neutral creatures disregard all authority unless compelled by the circumstances. While Chaotic Neutrals believe in personal responsibility, they consider both compassion and willful cruelty to be abject folly. A Chaotic Neutral neither goes out of their way to benefit strangers or cause harm.

True Neutral: The “True” Neutral looks upon all other alignments as unimportant and distracting. Thus, Evil and Good, Chaos and Law are mostly irrelevant; they are neither individualistic nor collectivist, and neither are they kind or cruel. The main goal of True Neutrals is to benefit them selves and or families without causing needless harm or risking injury. True Neutrals also try not to go out of their way to protect or benefit those outside their immediate family or espouse any particular ideological views. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action and ethical action are also True Neutral.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view their group and its regulation as all-important. Whether any individual – or even large groups of individuals – benefit or are harmed by following rule and tradition, doing so is the responsibility of all creatures. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world is considered by Lawful Neutral creatures to have its sole hope resting upon law and order. Individuals exist mostly for the benefit of the group. Evil or Good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Chaotic Evil: The major precept of this alignment is that of personal freedom unshackled by responsibility. Whatever advantage can be taken should be taken, and the woe of others is often to the benefit of oneself. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained, except where they can be paid lip service to one’s own benefit. Others’ lives have little or no value. Those of this alignment hope to either bring down all restraint and prohibition, moral and otherwise to achieve power, glory, and prestige in a system of individual caprice and governed by their own whims or to create a state of perfect freedom abandoning all laws and restrictions as acts of oppression or mere crutches for those they deem weaker than themselves. They don't consider themselves in any way wicked for such plans or actions.

Neutral Evil: The Neutral Evil creature views Law and Chaos as unnecessary considerations, for he seeks the greatest benefit both within the group and without it. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum benefit to himself.

Lawful Evil: Lawful Evil creatures respect law and order, believing that the individual good of creatures is of no consequence compared to the strength and stability of the group. Individual freedom is held as valueless, or at least scorned. Any cruelty or atrocity is justified if it serves the interests of the State, and the suffering of enemies is to be enjoyed or at least accepted. Truth is important, but only where it serves the group. These creatures place but scant value on individual lives – even their own lives. The goal of each individual creature is first to know its place in the group, and then to increase its station in that hierarchy for the perpetuation of the group. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of Lawful Evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Good
I'm not sure where the heroes of the Final Fantasy would fit in here. If anyone has any ideas just post them.
Chaotic Good
Katara, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Agatha Heterodyne, the Tenth Doctor and Zeetha
Neutral Good
Granny Weatherwax, Susan Sto Helit, Shepard Book and Krosp I
Lawful Good
Superman/Clark Kent and Captain Carrot Ironfounderson

Morally Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
Captain Jack Sparrow, what Captain Mal wishes he could be and Jayne Cobb (with slight Evil tendencies)
True Neutral
The CMOT Dibbler of Discworld
Lawful Neutral
Havelock Vetinari and Baron Wulfenbach

Evil
Chaotic Evil
The Joker, Randal Flagg, Bangladesh DuPree, Xykon, Gordon Gekko (at it‘s mildest), Warhammer Chaos, Discworld elves, the Kurgan, Lelouch vi Britania (at it‘s most sympathetic) and the Reavers
Neutral Evil
Final Fantasy VII Sephiroth, the Master (of Doctor Who), Adlai Nishka, Saffron and Jubal Early (all from Firefly)
Lawful Evil
Darth Vader, the Operative, the Auditors of Reality, Davros and his Daleks

Glass Mouse
2009-07-17, 01:14 PM
Why does a good person help an old lady across the street?

Because it's the right thing to do.

...

To get this thread back to D&D alignments, I'd like to give my two pennies on one way to play CE intelligently:

I've got a CE bard drow. She wants nothing more than to survive and enjoy her life and freedom. She doesn't go out of her way to harm other people or creatures (partly because it's often too dangerous, partly because it would be really bad for business and reputation), but she does enjoy the rare occasions where she can hurt someone without repercussions - like, when the group needs critical information, and no one will object to the use of torture, or when they really need to get past some annoying NPC. From time to time, she will suggest an "evil" solution to an otherwise peaceful problem, but she'll quickly back down if the group doesn't like the idea ("Eh, just brainstorming, I didn't think it was a good idea anyway.")
Her main drive (and the reason she left her drow homecity) is her desire for freedom. She loves the surface for its flexibility, lack of systems and restrictions (compared to drow society), and she will fight for her right to remain free.
When she actually, actively kills or does something outright evil, it's usually only if someone discovers her true race, or if someone tries to harm her or hinder her (and then, only if it's safe to start killing. No need to make things worse).
She will, however, cheat and lie her way through anything. Keeping stuff (both information and treasure) from her team mates (oh, it's such fun to see the other players boiling :smallbiggrin:), cheating innocent commoners, lying just to test what they'll believe, subtly trying to turn people against eachother (she has yet to succeed that one).


In summary:
She's evil because she has a genuinely sadistic streak, and because she'll use any means possible to keep herself safe.
She's chaotic because she values freedom over almost anything else, and because it downright amuses her to break rules (and get away with it).

She's compatible with a good/neutral group because she has every interest in keeping up a facade - especially towards the group - and thus will go along with most of their agendas. Also, because she's so concerned about her own safety that she'll never knowingly endanger neither herself nor the group.

Of course, this is not the only way to play CE. But it's a bit different from the "big bully" CE interpretation :smallsmile:


EDIT: Wow, I didn't realize how long this post was... If you don't feel like reading this wall of text, don't. I won't get mad, promise :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2009-07-17, 02:41 PM
when you've seen the walls of text over on the OOTS part of the forum, this looks like a model of conciseness :smallamused:

And yes, the "mildly evil, moderately chaotic" style is an interesting way to play Evil.