[D&D] Is Selfishness Evil or Neutral?

[Zovc]

As the title reads, "is selfishness evil or neutral?" What about greed? Good is usually defined as selflessness...

[hamishspence]

A normally good act done for selfish reasons (helping others at considerable cost to self) is considered neutral by BoED, at least.

Generally for selfishness to be evil though, it has to be fairly actively harmful selfishness.

Or possibly examples of doing nothing for a selfish reason, when you would expect a person to do something- a person is in danger, saving them will cost you little or nothing and not put you at risk, but you don't help them, anyway.

[Sinfire Titan]

Chaotic. The results of Selfishness or Greed could be Good or Evil.

[Keshay]

Neutral. There is no such thing as a non-selfish act.

[Telonius]

IMO, there are a range of "selfish" actions. Extremely selfish would be (generally) evil, extremely selfless would (generally) be good, something in the middle would be neutral. Trying to own the whole world would be on the extreme selfish end. A Vow of Poverty would be on the extreme unselfish end. Things like the existence of private property, buying things you really need, and eating would be neutral (if not taken to extreme).

[Zovc]

Chaotic. The results of Selfishness or Greed could be Good or Evil.

So you're proposing Law is selflessness? From a freedom standpoint, I suppose you're right--in terms of Personal Freedom vs the Sacrifice of it for Safety. Then again, I can't think of that being accurate in any other context.

I'd be interested in a brief definition of each end of the alignment spectrum, Sinfire Titan.

[Skorj]

"Selfish" is a very squishy word. Most people act, when they act rationally, so as to maximize results according to their values. This leads to long (and not particularly interesting) debates about whether altruism is also selfish, since an altruistic act is generally making the actor happy by living according to his values. Meh, people define "selfish"" in different ways, and so can never agree.

Ordinary "selfishness" in the way that word in normally used: simply taking what you can instead of sharing, is clearly neutral. If you add circumstances such as theft or robbery, it could become be chaotic or evil. But simple selfishness of the sort common to young children is neutral.

[Johel]

Really depends if your selfish action hurts people or not.
And if you know it hurts people, do you keep doing it ?

A good person might be selfish but will also show altruistic behavior on a regular basis. Even Chaotic Good persons tend to feel the need to "right some wrong".

A neutral person is surely selfish but will not act selfishly if she knows that her actions directly hurt people. Or she may not but will think about it anyway.

A evil person ? That's all about her and maybe a few friends and relatives. So, who cares about those anonymous bastards ? A really evil one might even rejoice to see others suffer.

[Rhiannon87]

Selfishness is neutral. It depends on what you do with that selfishness that makes it evil.

And someone on these very boards has a sig line that I've brought up in alignment discussions IRL, that I think is relevant to this discussion. It's something like "Selfishness is neutral, it's looking out for number one. Evil is looking out for number one while crushing number two." A neutral character is going to look out for themselves (and those most important to them). A good character is going to look out for everybody, sometimes to the detriment of their own well-being. And an evil character is going to look out for themselves (and those most important to them) while crushing anyone who might come even close to being a challenge/threat.

[Gnomo]

Selfishness, as most motivations (drives) can not be correctly cataloged as good, neutral or evil; the consequences of acts triggered by it can be judged as such. Love can be a very selfish feeling, but is not good or bad as long as it doesn't affect people.

It is true that solidarity and generosity usually lead to good acts, or more exactly, to actions that are convenient to people, it is also truth that selfishness and ambition usually lead to evil actions, but there's no guideline on this, consider self-improvement which needs a good quota of ambition, as long as it doesn't do wrong to people is considered something good.

When it comes to D&D alignment I go case by case.

[Eldariel]

Neutral. There is no such thing as a non-selfish act.

Human's primary instinct is preservation of race, not preservation of self. Sure, the trigger is internal, but the cause for e.g. sacrificing your life to save your kid is racial preservation and as such, completely altruistic.

[JaxGaret]

Human's primary instinct is preservation of race, not preservation of self. Sure, the trigger is internal, but the cause for e.g. sacrificing your life to save your kid is racial preservation and as such, completely altruistic.

I take it you have not read The Selfish Gene?

[FoE]

Selfishness is evil. Self-interest is neutral.

When there's a famine, I'm acting in my own interest to conserve my food supply instead of distributing it to the other townspeople. It's selfish to start hoarding more food than I could possibly ever eat and let everyone else starve.

[Sipex]

I'd catalogue it as neutral usually.

Although you then get into the realm of "What's the difference between neutral and evil then? You can't expect the players to believe all evil characters are just actively pursuing evilness, it would only make sense that a good amount of them are doing their evil acts because in the end it's something that will benefit them (ie: selfishness)"

[JonestheSpy]

I take it you have not read The Selfish Gene?

Just like to point out that the thesis of that book is an opinion based on observation, not a scientific theory on par with the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity.

And yeah, it's all about degree - people can act selfishly in small ways and still be neutral, just like they can be generally decent and still be neutral.

[Zovc]

I'm interested in getting a "solid" definition of evil I can use to explain to a group of younger players. They are hung up on evil being rape, pillage, and murder... essentially anything criminal or frowned upon by (our) society.

[Fiery Diamond]

IMO, there are a range of "selfish" actions. Extremely selfish would be (generally) evil, extremely selfless would (generally) be good, something in the middle would be neutral. Trying to own the whole world would be on the extreme selfish end. A Vow of Poverty would be on the extreme unselfish end. Things like the existence of private property, buying things you really need, and eating would be neutral (if not taken to extreme).

This. Also


Or possibly examples of doing nothing for a selfish reason, when you would expect a person to do something- a person is in danger, saving them will cost you little or nothing and not put you at risk, but you don't help them, anyway.

this, as an example of Evil selfishness.

To be honest, I think there are a lot more people in the real world (I've come to this conclusion by reading stuff people on the forum have posted) who by D&D Alignment would consider themselves Neutral who are actually Evil. In fact, that's generally how I'd run things in D&D - unless they have access to and have made use of their access to getting their alignment detected, most Evil people will think they are Neutral, while some will even think they are Good.

[Tiki Snakes]

Neutral. There is no such thing as a non-selfish act.

This. Exactly this.

[Eldariel]

I take it you have not read The Selfish Gene?

Not the book, but I'm familiar with the term. I don't necessarily subscribe to his view of the particular scenario though.

[hamishspence]

Well, if you read the PHB on Human alignment very literally, you would expect 1/3 of the world population to be evil.

You'd also expect 1/3 of the population to be Good- being Good doesn't mean absolutely saintly selflessness, either.

[Keshay]

Human's primary instinct is preservation of race, not preservation of self. Sure, the trigger is internal, but the cause for e.g. sacrificing your life to save your kid is racial preservation and as such, completely altruistic.

If you honestly think that acting to promote the welfare of your own child is not self-interest, you have a wildly different perception of familial relationships than I and I believe most people have.

And no, preservation of race is not humanity's primary instinct. If that were true eugenics, euthenasia, etc... would not be seen as anathma by the majority of society.

[Fiery Diamond]

If you honestly think that acting to promote the welfare of your own child is not self-interest, you have a wildly different perception of familial relationships than I and I believe most people have.

I'm curious to know what your perception is that thinks promoting the welfare of your own child is self-interest. I certainly don't see it as such.

[Sipex]

All actions taken can be defined as selfish, or can at least be thought they are but never proven (only the person committing the act would really know).

A donation to charity? Make yourself feel good about yourself, or if you're more outgoing about it, make other people think you're a good person.

Saving your child's life? You love them and would rather die than see them get hurt. It's still technically selfish because it is what you want.

etc etc.

[scsimodem]

It's a motivation common to all human beings and does not fit into a particular alignment. It's where that motivation falls in your list of priorities, not what kind of results the actions get.

Those who place the self at or near the top of their list of priorities are typically evil. Sometimes they work for charities to make themselves look better. They'll obey the law to keep from getting in trouble, but, ultimately, they would hurt you if they thought it would somehow benefit them.

Those who put it considerably lower are good altruists. They are willing to suffer to benefit others. They still look out for themselves, typically making sure they are well fed, clothed, and housed, but they allow their own comfort to suffer in order to benefit others.

The desire itself is not in and of itself good or evil. In fact, it's simply the basis of all economics. I think the best example is in a simple business transaction. Most businesses will attempt to charge as high a price as they can without losing business to competitors while most customers will attempt to pay as low a price as they can while still finding somebody willing to sell to them. This is neither good nor evil. When a business with a product meets a willing buyer, both (believe they) benefit. If either side did not see a perceived benefit, they would not participate in the transaction. The customer wanted the product more than the money and the business wanted the money more than the product. Neither of them cares about the other outside their capacity to fulfill their needs. Now, an evil person will try to leverage the system and break the rules by, for example selling shoddy product while claiming it's the same as competitors or attempting to sabotage rival businesses. A good person will, on the other hand, temper his desire for profit and give some of his profits to charity or give normally disadvantageous discounts (below cost) to those deemed 'needy.'

As far as good or evil, look at how you would describe a particular manifestation of selfishness. Things like envy and lust are clearly bad forms of selfishness.

[hamishspence]

I'm curious to know what your perception is that thinks promoting the welfare of your own child is self-interest. I certainly don't see it as such.

Genetic self-interest- your genes are the only part of "you" that are immortal-


and by furthering the interests of your children, you are furthering your own immortality- in a sense.

[Sinfire Titan]

So you're proposing Law is selflessness? From a freedom standpoint, I suppose you're right--in terms of Personal Freedom vs the Sacrifice of it for Safety. Then again, I can't think of that being accurate in any other context.

I'd be interested in a brief definition of each end of the alignment spectrum, Sinfire Titan.

I thought I had a post on Alignments at BG. The one I do have isn't fully fleshed-out.


Hell rewards those who advance its goals with power (Devil-hood). What happens after that is a matter of circumstance. Hell punishes the unfortunate non-Evil ones who get trapped by some effect, and turn them into unwilling minions.

Heaven is similar, but attempts to convert Evil into Good on their free will. Those unwilling to convert are punished for their transgressions in life.

Neutral doesn't give a hoot.

I'll start from the top-right, and go clockwise.

Lawful Good: One way or another, this character may view order or justice as the proper way to live. Simply abiding the laws isn't enough to stick someone in this camp; a LG character will deliver justice personally from time to time. They assist the government, provided they agree with the government's intent (a LG Pally in LE region wouldn't be required to enforce LE laws in one of my campaigns, but doing so isn't considered evil either).

Lawful Neutral: Comes in two types. Some Lawful characters view Law as Fate; even local laws have some influence over the world outside that kingdom. This character doesn't necessarily strive to uphold local/planar laws, but goes out of his way to avoid breaking them if it is in his ally's best interests. If not, he does his best to persuade them, or even opposes their actions if the law being broken is important enough. If he does participate in such actions, it is almost always with deep regret, and may repent either personally through some means, or force the party to atone (though not necessarily by turning them in to the proper authorities).

The other type instead has a strict moral code. This character doesn't care about local or planar law unless it gets in the way of his own regiments and rites. The codes upheld by Wu-Jen are a good example here: completely innocuous, but they uphold them to the point of refusing to enter a building if they can't fulfill their code. How much they care about this code determines how they react to outside forces influencing it.

Those who uphold the law are the most likely to sacrifice for it, but for different reasons for each of the three. LN characters are the most likely to do so just because. If it seems the best option is to do so, they will.

Lawful Evil: First and foremost, these characters understand that survival is a priority. Order comes second, but it is a close second. OCD may be in full effect for any Lawful character, but LE ones tend to be the most obstinate or touchy about it. Whereas a LN character can break their moral code only under extreme pressure or need, an LE character may very well do so whenever they think they can get away with it. If they don't, they do their best to cover up the error rather than face punishment; bribing people left and right to keep it under wraps, or just plain old murder. However, even these characters avoid violating their morale codes when doing so isn't going to threaten them, or pay off greatly. If showing mercy to a weakened enemy would pay off more than killing them, the LE character may very well do so. But if the character would pose too great a threat within short-term, the LE character will ignore this and slay them with digression. These guys plan everything out.

Neutral Evil: These ones are wild cards unless you personally know them. Even bribing them won't keep you safe forever. If you manage to get one of their secrets, Blackmailing them will be the last thing you do. They may show mercy or kindness from time to time, but do so only to toy with you. These guys are as likely to have a plan as they are to stab you with your own sword: If it seems the easiest way to self-preservation, then do it. If it will draw attention, do so only when it won't (or simply prove your strength to everyone who sees it to discourage challenges). They want the simple life, but want power with it. They'll stop at nothing less than someone 4 or more times their own strength to get it, and even those beings are not exempt from the slaughter list. Likes to kick the dog.

Chaotic Evil: These come in all varieties, to the point where IDing a Chaotic Evil character without dispute is nearly impossible. I tend to categorize these guys as the epitome of selfishness. If they know they can live through a deed, or that dying won't keep them down, they are likely to try anything if it amuses them. More like a cat playing with a mouse than outright nihilistic, except their own life can very well be the mouse. In spite of this, they can seem civil, or even downright nice; at least, until you find out their vice. At that point, they either like you and you have a chance of getting spared, or they just gut you for kicks if doing so will bring short-term power. These guys don't like to plan, but when they do, it gets scary.

Chaotic Neutral: I refer to the Liber Chaotic, of Warhammer fame, for this one. I myself am an avid Chaos worshiper (Tzeentch). These guys are a bit difficult to pin, but just saying they leave things to fate and nothing else is a good way to describe them. If something goes wrong, they may try to correct it or accept it, depending on how important it is to them. They can follow local law just fine, until it gets in their way (in which case their patience is what's being tested, and that varies). Once they lose their cool, they aren't above hurting or killing, but they're more likely to make a fool out of you than anything else. They exhibit what we deem as sins regularly, but try to seem decent if something interests them.

Chaotic Good: Its perfectly reasonable, even downright common to see a Chaotic Good character obeying local laws, until the law does something that irritates them or would bring pain to a friend. In fact, that's the fastest way to tick these guys off: mess with his allies. They're a bit reluctant to act if its for a total stranger, and will likely moan about it 24/7 even after it is completed. It doesn't mean they aren't willing to help out every now and then, but these guys would be kicked out of the Boy Scouts for their apathy towards others.

Neutral Good: To call this alignment saintly would be wrong. I view this as the average alignment of a neutral species. These guys are the first to protest when a law hurts them, the first to judge a criminal, and the first to do pretty much whatever you would expect out of the common person. Some of them may come across as jerks, but that doesn't make them evil. Just makes them jerks about being themselves. If its too the point that their actions seriously hurt someone and they just don't care, then they very well may be evil (depends heavily on context here).

Neutral: I saved this one for last. It isn't entirely impossible in my mind, just very unlikely that any sentient being can be Neutral. There's just no solid definition for it. For those who want to know what I think about True Neutral, play Armored Core 3-Formula Front, or 4 Answer. The middle path of 4A is a good idea of Sentient Neutral, leaning towards Neutral Good. Neutral characters act only if the information they have will prove that the ends are justified, and only if the means can avoid getting others involved. SOunds good, right? Not really. By avoiding getting others involved, I mean that these characters are likely to be cold-blooded killers to those who are involved, but will go out of their way to keep things under wraps until the situation is over. This doesn't mean they are willing to kill to balance Good and Evil, it just means that killing the person was the best option to prevent others from getting involved. Bit of a loner.

[lsfreak]

Selfishness is evil. Self-interest is neutral.

This. Separate self-interestedness and selfishness. One is is neutral (or, perhaps rather, does not belong as part of the alignment system because it takes extremely exceptional individuals to actually act outside of any self-interestedness) while the other is... I'm not sure where I'd place it. Most likely as evil since it implies gains at the cost of others.

[Raewyn]

I don't who it is toting this awesome sig quote, but it goes roughly as follows.

"Selfishness isn't evil. Looking out for number one is Neutral. Evil is looking out for number one while crushing number two."

Whoever said it, I approve of his/her awesome philosophy.

[Fiery Diamond]

Genetic self-interest- your genes are the only part of "you" that are immortal-


and by furthering the interests of your children, you are furthering your own immortality- in a sense.

Ignoring for the moment that your genes are not you, he mentioned familial relationships, which this explanation doesn't address.

[TheOOB]

Selfishness doesn't have an alignment. Evil people are people willing to harm innocents to advance their own agenda, but not helping someone is in no way evil. There is no such thing as a neutral action, there is just your alignment which is a measure of how you generally act.

[snoopy13a]

As the title reads, "is selfishness evil or neutral?" What about greed? Good is usually defined as selflessness...

Selfishness is neutral in D&D as is greed. In D&D, one must exploit another to be considered evil.

The rich and greedy merchant who earned his fortune through honest and fair dealings is not considered evil in the D&D universe. However, the slumlord who earned his fortune through high rents at unsafe buildings can be considered evil as he is exploiting his tenants.

[hamishspence]

Ignoring for the moment that your genes are not you, he mentioned familial relationships, which this explanation doesn't address.


It doesn't address relationships where the two aren't related (wife, step-siblings, etc) true.

But it does address parent/child, sibling/sibling (you share almost as much genes with your brother as you do with your child) and so on.

[Fiery Diamond]

I thought I had a post on Alignments at BG. The one I do have isn't fully fleshed-out.



I'll start from the top-right, and go clockwise.

Lawful Good: One way or another, this character may view order or justice as the proper way to live. Simply abiding the laws isn't enough to stick someone in this camp; a LG character will deliver justice personally from time to time. They assist the government, provided they agree with the government's intent (a LG Pally in LE region wouldn't be required to enforce LE laws in one of my campaigns, but doing so isn't considered evil either).

The part I bolded/underlined. Yikes. I'm afraid I've got to disagree with how I would run it- enforcing evil laws is evil. The fact that they are laws is irrelevant.


Chaotic Good: Its perfectly reasonable, even downright common to see a Chaotic Good character obeying local laws, until the law does something that irritates them or would bring pain to a friend. In fact, that's the fastest way to tick these guys off: mess with his allies. They're a bit reluctant to act if its for a total stranger, and will likely moan about it 24/7 even after it is completed. It doesn't mean they aren't willing to help out every now and then, but these guys would be kicked out of the Boy Scouts for their apathy towards others.


Good =/= apathy. Sorry, is not right. In fact, this is closer to how I would define the Chaotic Neutral alignment.


Neutral Good: To call this alignment saintly would be wrong. I view this as the average alignment of a neutral species. These guys are the first to protest when a law hurts them, the first to judge a criminal, and the first to do pretty much whatever you would expect out of the common person. Some of them may come across as jerks, but that doesn't make them evil. Just makes them jerks about being themselves. If its too the point that their actions seriously hurt someone and they just don't care, then they very well may be evil (depends heavily on context here).

I haven't got the faintest clue what you're actually trying to say.

Also, I would disagree with your Evil descriptions, simply because you don't have to be that bad in order to be Evil, by how I handle alignment.


I'll reiterate what I said earlier - most Evil people think they are Neutral, or even Good. Your average Joe is most likely either Neutral or Evil, not Good. It is more common to run into an average Joe who is Evil than to run into an average Joe who is Good. This is how I would run things, and it is also how I see the alignment system in its (extremely loose) correspondence to RL.


Edit:


It doesn't address relationships where the two aren't related (wife, step-siblings, etc) true.

But it does address parent/child, sibling/sibling (you share almost as much genes with your brother as you do with your child) and so on.

Perhaps I misunderstood the poster, but "relationship" does not mean "blood relation" in this context. It refers to interaction and expectation.

[hamishspence]

In a sense, yes, since roughly 2/3 of the population should be (unless you are ignoring the PHB guideline) Neutral or Evil.

Yet also, since about 1/3 are good, you are just as likely to run into a Good person as an Evil person, so that last bit "more likely to run into Evil than Good people" is not consistant with D&D.

This is assuming people are selected at random from the population as a whole-

mostly, there will be clumping at the regional level- towns will tend to be biased toward on particular alignment- with the others being proportionately rarer.

EDIT:
In the context of the post "protecting your own child" "familial relationships" it seemed to imply blood relationship.

Where "its genes" falls down, is that an adoptive parent will still be brave and self-sacrificing up to a point- here, different explanations come into play.

Such as:

"humans have an instinctive "preserve children" reaction as a holdover from when they lived in small group where everyone they knew was at least mildly related"

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, that's assuming that the population is divided roughly into 1/3 Good, 1/3 Neutral, and 1/3 Evil. Where did we get that assumption? I'm not bothering to look it up, but if it is in the PHB, that's certainly one thing that is inconsistent in description of alignment versus statement of other facts regarding alignment. I certainly don't work off of that assumption. Good probably makes up 1/5 at the very most.

Edit:



EDIT:
In the context of the post "protecting your own child" "familial relationships" it seemed to imply blood relationship.

Where "its genes" falls down, is that an adoptive parent will still be brave and self-sacrificing up to a point- here, different explanations come into play.

Such as:

"humans have an instinctive "preserve children" reaction as a holdover from when they lived in small group where everyone they knew was at least mildly related"


@bolded: Really? Not to me. Family has nothing to do with blood as far as I'm concerned, it has to do with the emotional (and perhaps legal) relationship.

@underlined: Why do you assume a different explanation? Could the explanation for the adoptive parent not just as easily be the one that applies to the blood-related parent?

@bolded and underlined: Why do you assume that it must be instinctive?

[hamishspence]

"Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral"

So they can't be, for example, 51% Neutral, 34% Evil, 15% Good.

Because- that would mean they qualify for "Usually Neutral (any)"

Even having "a plurality" be neutral results in the correct definition being "Often Neutral (any)"

If you assess the DMG- "Power center alignment" 41% are Good.

If you assess Cityscape "Community alignment" which covers the alignment of the community as a whole, for any community larger than a small town, then the table lists 36% as Good.

So, for humans as a whole, very roughly 1/3 are Good, for human "power centers" 41% are Good, for human communities larger than small towns, 36% of those communities (taken as a whole, rather than every person in the town) are Good.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Lawful Good: One way or another, this character may view order or justice as the proper way to live. Simply abiding the laws isn't enough to stick someone in this camp; a LG character will deliver justice personally from time to time. They assist the government, provided they agree with the government's intent (a LG Pally in LE region wouldn't be required to enforce LE laws in one of my campaigns, but doing so isn't considered evil either).

Lawful Neutral: Comes in two types. Some Lawful characters view Law as Fate; even local laws have some influence over the world outside that kingdom. This character doesn't necessarily strive to uphold local/planar laws, but goes out of his way to avoid breaking them if it is in his ally's best interests. If not, he does his best to persuade them, or even opposes their actions if the law being broken is important enough. If he does participate in such actions, it is almost always with deep regret, and may repent either personally through some means, or force the party to atone (though not necessarily by turning them in to the proper authorities).

The other type instead has a strict moral code. This character doesn't care about local or planar law unless it gets in the way of his own regiments and rites. The codes upheld by Wu-Jen are a good example here: completely innocuous, but they uphold them to the point of refusing to enter a building if they can't fulfill their code. How much they care about this code determines how they react to outside forces influencing it.

Those who uphold the law are the most likely to sacrifice for it, but for different reasons for each of the three. LN characters are the most likely to do so just because. If it seems the best option is to do so, they will.

Lawful Evil: First and foremost, these characters understand that survival is a priority. Order comes second, but it is a close second. OCD may be in full effect for any Lawful character, but LE ones tend to be the most obstinate or touchy about it. Whereas a LN character can break their moral code only under extreme pressure or need, an LE character may very well do so whenever they think they can get away with it. If they don't, they do their best to cover up the error rather than face punishment; bribing people left and right to keep it under wraps, or just plain old murder. However, even these characters avoid violating their morale codes when doing so isn't going to threaten them, or pay off greatly. If showing mercy to a weakened enemy would pay off more than killing them, the LE character may very well do so. But if the character would pose too great a threat within short-term, the LE character will ignore this and slay them with digression. These guys plan everything out.

Neutral Evil: These ones are wild cards unless you personally know them. Even bribing them won't keep you safe forever. If you manage to get one of their secrets, Blackmailing them will be the last thing you do. They may show mercy or kindness from time to time, but do so only to toy with you. These guys are as likely to have a plan as they are to stab you with your own sword: If it seems the easiest way to self-preservation, then do it. If it will draw attention, do so only when it won't (or simply prove your strength to everyone who sees it to discourage challenges). They want the simple life, but want power with it. They'll stop at nothing less than someone 4 or more times their own strength to get it, and even those beings are not exempt from the slaughter list. Likes to kick the dog.

Chaotic Evil: These come in all varieties, to the point where IDing a Chaotic Evil character without dispute is nearly impossible. I tend to categorize these guys as the epitome of selfishness. If they know they can live through a deed, or that dying won't keep them down, they are likely to try anything if it amuses them. More like a cat playing with a mouse than outright nihilistic, except their own life can very well be the mouse. In spite of this, they can seem civil, or even downright nice; at least, until you find out their vice. At that point, they either like you and you have a chance of getting spared, or they just gut you for kicks if doing so will bring short-term power. These guys don't like to plan, but when they do, it gets scary.

Chaotic Neutral: I refer to the Liber Chaotic, of Warhammer fame, for this one. I myself am an avid Chaos worshiper (Tzeentch). These guys are a bit difficult to pin, but just saying they leave things to fate and nothing else is a good way to describe them. If something goes wrong, they may try to correct it or accept it, depending on how important it is to them. They can follow local law just fine, until it gets in their way (in which case their patience is what's being tested, and that varies). Once they lose their cool, they aren't above hurting or killing, but they're more likely to make a fool out of you than anything else. They exhibit what we deem as sins regularly, but try to seem decent if something interests them.

Chaotic Good: Its perfectly reasonable, even downright common to see a Chaotic Good character obeying local laws, until the law does something that irritates them or would bring pain to a friend. In fact, that's the fastest way to tick these guys off: mess with his allies. They're a bit reluctant to act if its for a total stranger, and will likely moan about it 24/7 even after it is completed. It doesn't mean they aren't willing to help out every now and then, but these guys would be kicked out of the Boy Scouts for their apathy towards others.

Neutral Good: To call this alignment saintly would be wrong. I view this as the average alignment of a neutral species. These guys are the first to protest when a law hurts them, the first to judge a criminal, and the first to do pretty much whatever you would expect out of the common person. Some of them may come across as jerks, but that doesn't make them evil. Just makes them jerks about being themselves. If its too the point that their actions seriously hurt someone and they just don't care, then they very well may be evil (depends heavily on context here).

Neutral: I saved this one for last. It isn't entirely impossible in my mind, just very unlikely that any sentient being can be Neutral. There's just no solid definition for it. For those who want to know what I think about True Neutral, play Armored Core 3-Formula Front, or 4 Answer. The middle path of 4A is a good idea of Sentient Neutral, leaning towards Neutral Good. Neutral characters act only if the information they have will prove that the ends are justified, and only if the means can avoid getting others involved. SOunds good, right? Not really. By avoiding getting others involved, I mean that these characters are likely to be cold-blooded killers to those who are involved, but will go out of their way to keep things under wraps until the situation is over. This doesn't mean they are willing to kill to balance Good and Evil, it just means that killing the person was the best option to prevent others from getting involved. Bit of a loner.
Not bad!

Anyhow, as is my want, I will now post authoritative text:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
. . .
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

And for context:

Selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
Selfishness is likely not to be Good due to the altruism clause - though minor selfish acts are probably OK. For example, some who is Good can also be a glutton - but only to the extent that they aren't actively depriving the less fortunate of food.

Most selfish behavior falls under Neutral - you're not going to give up your stuff to help anyone else.

The most extreme selfishness, of course, is Evil. Once you start hurting and oppressing other to get MORE, you're Evil.

[Fiery Diamond]

"Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral"

So they can't be, for example, 51% Neutral, 34% Evil, 15% Good.

Because- that would mean they qualify for "Usually Neutral (any)"

Even having "a plurality" be neutral results in the correct definition being "Often Neutral (any)"

All right. So all you've done is exhibit that the PHB description of alignments is incompatible with the PHB description of Human Alignment Tendency. Surely this means we must ignore one or the other, or at least bend it. Some choose to ignore the former, while others choose to ignore the latter. I fall into the second category.

Edit: Also, I have edited the above post to respond to Hamishspence's comments on family.

[MickJay]

If you respect familial bonds to the degree that you're willing to sacrifice yourself for people who are not your blood relatives, you can usually count on those relatives to honour your sacrifice by aiding your family after your death.

As for blood relatives, there's some interesting stuff about influential Byzantine eunuchs who subsidized and promoted their family members' (brothers, nephews) careers. Lacking ability to produce their own offspring, they were ensuring that their relatives would be successful (and, consequently, be able to have more children that would share some of the benefactor's characteristics). It does seem to be a natural tendency with all living creatures - regardless of how you call it, practically every selfless or altruistic act can be explained in terms of furthering the interest of the person doing the deed, their family, tribe, nation or the whole species - and as long as ANY of these benefit enough, sacrifice of an individual will be generally considered selfless, and thus further such sacrifices (should the need arise) are going to be (more or less subtly) encouraged.

[Sinfire Titan]

The part I bolded/underlined. Yikes. I'm afraid I've got to disagree with how I would run it- enforcing evil laws is evil. The fact that they are laws is irrelevant.

I never said the law itself was evil. I said the people who made it are. The paladin may find some of their ideas decent.


Good =/= apathy. Sorry, is not right. In fact, this is closer to how I would define the Chaotic Neutral alignment.

We see things differently here then.


I haven't got the faintest clue what you're actually trying to say.


Take your everyday citizen IRL. The average human being. I view that as the bare minimum for NG alignments.


Also, I would disagree with your Evil descriptions, simply because you don't have to be that bad in order to be Evil, by how I handle alignment.

That's a personal issue. I view Good and Evil as tangible energy in DnD, thus I feel the need to put a little more Evil in Evil.


I'll reiterate what I said earlier - most Evil people think they are Neutral, or even Good. Your average Joe is most likely either Neutral or Evil, not Good. It is more common to run into an average Joe who is Evil than to run into an average Joe who is Good. This is how I would run things, and it is also how I see the alignment system in its (extremely loose) correspondence to RL.

I'm sorry, what? If mankind was evil-inclined, why can I ride a bicycle 8+miles/day without getting shanked? Humankind is more Neutral, or even Good-aligned than Evil. If it were the other way around, then a third of our population could be found in prisons on a 2 or 3 year sentence at the very least. I highly doubt 1/3 of the human population has commit crimes worthy of 2 years in jail. Maybe 1/8th, but that's a bit much (there are 60 billion+ people on the planet).

We may be the species most likely to go killing each other, but we don't do it without reason (save for a fraction of the world).


Well, that's assuming that the population is divided roughly into 1/3 Good, 1/3 Neutral, and 1/3 Evil. Where did we get that assumption. I certainly don't work off of that assumption. Good probably makes up 1/5 at the very most.

So both of you believe Humans are Bastards? Got news for you: You're jaded. The internet isn't a good basis for an example of the human population. The internet exaggerates things so much that it isn't funny.

[Fiery Diamond]

If you respect familial bonds to the degree that you're willing to sacrifice yourself for people who are not your blood relatives

Actually, this is my point: I don't "respect familial bonds to the degree that willing to sacrifice [myself] for people who are not [my] blood relatives." Familial bonds are [I]unrelated to whether they are my blood relatives. If I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my blood-related brother, then I would be just as willing to sacrifice myself for my non-blood-related brother. If, however, I'm unwilling to sacrifice myself for my non-blood-related brother, then I would be just as unwilling to sacrifice myself for my blood-related brother.

[hamishspence]

I make a bit of a distinction- assuming you are as likely to run into a "not very nice person" as you are a "nice person"

Not so much "humans are gits" as "1/3 are Gits, 1/3 are Really Nice People, 1/3 are So-so"

The PHB's "Evil implies" bit exaggerates a bit- settings like Eberron stress that Evil does not mean Complete Monster. You can be "evil" without being a "villain".

The source I favor for this (admittedly 3rd party) was Quintessenial Paladin 2.

The reason I prefer the "Evil Everywhere" approach, is it means your paladin/cleric/etc is literally forced to be circumspect about Detect Evil- it is not a licence to smite, but a tool, and a person Smiting everyone in town that detects as evil is a murderer.

[ericgrau]

Neutral, but if it's both selfish and disregards others it's evil. Nothing wrong with looking out for yourself; it's looking out for yourself at the expense of others that causes problems.

[Keshay]

Ignoring for the moment that your genes are not you, he mentioned familial relationships, which this explanation doesn't address.

Ignore it all you want, your genetics are a very real and important factor in determining identity. Like all facts, this one does not require your belief for it to remain true.

The idea is that continuity is important to living things. Life is able to create life, and thus continue into the future. This is what makes life life. Thus, as the most intrinsic quality of life, it is the most important.

In its most basic form, continuity consisits of passing genetic information on to later genreations. Since resources are limited, each individual is in potential competition with others. The more resources you are able to acquire and use to promote your genes to later generations, the more successful you are.

By promoting the welfare of your offspring, you are contributing to your continued success. Similarly, since we reproduce sexually, contributing to the welfare of your mate similarly enhances our success.

By promoting the welfare of other familial relations you can contribute to your success indirectly since your siblings, parents and cousins also carry a portion of your genetic material.

The question of non-realted family members was raised. This matter is, in its most basic form, related to safety. If you have a herd or group or clan where not all individuals are related, all members of that group can still contribute to the safety of all other group members. By contributing to the safety of the group, there is a chance that my personal chances for success will continue. This is not the case for all animals, Tigers are solitary because thier chances for success are not enhanced by grouping.

In the case of human beings, we have the capacity to identify ourselves based on more than our genetics. There is value given to the continuity of tradition, culture, "the family name" and so forth. By sharing common history and experience, extended, non-related, and adopted family members come to form just as much of a person's identity as their genetics. By promoting the welfare of your family members, your success is enhanced. Your identity and memory will continue into the future with these people even if your genes do not.

The thought process can continue through the community, regional and national levels of organization, but I'd hope the idea has adequately been conveyed, my fingers are getting tired. Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope it was worth reading.

[Vangor]

Good and evil alignments are based on motivations and regard for consequence.

If the motivation is inherently help for others, this is good. If the motivation is inherently harm for others, this is evil. I am certain someone is wanting to note the ability to help or harm a villain altering this, but the motivation of a character is not confined to the immediate, hence consequences become important in determining if the motivations are help or harm.

[Glass Mouse]

I see it as:

Good: wishes well upon strangers.
Neutral: wishes well upon friends/family, cares not for strangers.
Evil: wishes ill upon strangers.

So, if selfishness = wishing well for oneself/one's loved ones, then it's Neutral.
If selfishness = complete disregard for other people's feelings and needs, then it's neutral, bordering on evil.

But it's a difficult distinction to make.

[Fiery Diamond]

I never said the law itself was evil. I said the people who made it are. The paladin may find some of their ideas decent

Oh. Well, I wouldn't call them Lawful Evil laws then. Just laws in a society where the law-makers are Lawful Evil. You said they were "LE" laws. This was a misunderstanding based on usage of terms, then. My apologies.


We see things differently here then.

Apparently. Altruism is what Good is, and I don't think that Altruism and Apathy can readily co-exist. You'll either be mostly one or mostly the other. If you're mostly apathetic then I wouldn't say you are Good.


Take your everyday citizen IRL. The average human being. I view that as the bare minimum for NG alignments.

Except that the everyday citizen is more likely to be bastard than saint. If you fall somewhere well in-between rather than leaning on one side or the other too heavily, that's Neutral, not Good.


That's a personal issue. I view Good and Evil as tangible energy in DnD, thus I feel the need to put a little more Evil in Evil.

I suppose that makes some sense...but if you were a player in my a game I ran and claimed your character was somewhere in the Good categories, you'd be in for a shock when I told you you were actually Neutral. Definitely a personal difference. We wouldn't be very compatible roleplayers.



I'm sorry, what? If mankind was evil-inclined, why can I ride a bicycle 8+miles/day without getting shanked? Humankind is more Neutral, or even Good-aligned than Evil. If it were the other way around, then a third of our population could be found in prisons on a 2 or 3 year sentence at the very least. I highly doubt 1/3 of the human population has commit crimes worthy of 2 years in jail. Maybe 1/8th, but that's a bit much (there are 60 billion+ people on the planet).

On the other hand, can you leave your wallet on the parking lot just outside of a convenience store and reasonably expect it to get returned to the front desk? I'd call returning it to the front desk a Neutral act, not a Good act. A Good act would be to look at your license and try to track you down to personally ensure it got returned to you. Taking it is an Evil act. Leaving it there on the ground is also a mildly Evil act, since in leaving it there it is likely that someone else will steal it and the person leaving it there knows it.




So both of you believe Humans are Bastards? Got news for you: You're jaded. The internet isn't a good basis for an example of the human population. The internet exaggerates things so much that it isn't funny.

Not exactly. I believe you don't have to be a complete bastard in order to be Evil. You only have to be more bastard than not bastard. (not "more bastard than saint" but "more bastard than not bastard"). Also, I consider cussing someone out just because you're upset and not bothering to apologize afterwards to be an Evil act.

[hamishspence]

Possible, and PHB2 does say that "Outside of moral absolutes, and ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number"

However, there are those moral absolutes, acts defined as "always evil" by one book or another.

Even if the intention is good (save a lot of people) and the overall consequences are arguably good (a lot of people are saved, and one is dead) if the act was murdering an innocent person in order to save the group, it's generally considered extremely questionable.

BoED's approach is "an evil act is an evil act no matter how good the intentions and consequences are"

Other books (Heroes of Horror) suggest that "a character can be Neutral (but not good) if they commit evil acts but have very good intentions"

But generally, those evil acts are minor ones, such as casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor.

Serious evil acts tend to turn the character Evil if they start committing them on a regular basis, according to Champions of Ruin.

[Willis888]

It depends on who you ask. Some people tell me "Greed is good" - usually said between mouthfuls of caviar while taking a break from cracking the whip on a wage slave.

I think the idea of Selfishness itself is Neutral, and the actions that you take to acquire the object of your desire can push your personal alignment in either direction.

[hamishspence]

yes- some writers do choose to conflate Selfishness with Self-interest when arguing that

"The credo that selflessness is the only way to be Good, is a very poor one"

[Fiery Diamond]

Ignore it all you want, your genetics are a very real and important factor in determining identity. Like all facts, this one does not require your belief for it to remain true.

No disagreements with this.



The idea is that continuity is important to living things. Life is able to create life, and thus continue into the future. This is what makes life life. Thus, as the most intrinsic quality of life, it is the most important.

...NO. I mean... what the hell? This is part of the scientific definition of life, but how in the * does that make it the most intrinsic or most important? By this reasoning, people who are infertile are somehow "lesser" or "not really life." The hell?


In its most basic form, continuity consisits of passing genetic information on to later genreations. Since resources are limited, each individual is in potential competition with others. The more resources you are able to acquire and use to promote your genes to later generations, the more successful you are.

In its most basic form, continuity consists of continued existence over the passing of time, not of reproduction. Therefore, this little paragraph is false.


By promoting the welfare of your offspring, you are contributing to your continued success. Similarly, since we reproduce sexually, contributing to the welfare of your mate similarly enhances our success.

Note my previous response. Reproduction is irrelevant to "success." "Success" is "staying alive."



By promoting the welfare of other familial relations you can contribute to your success indirectly since your siblings, parents and cousins also carry a portion of your genetic material.

Irrelevant, as noted above.


The question of non-realted family members was raised. This matter is, in its most basic form, related to safety. If you have a herd or group or clan where not all individuals are related, all members of that group can still contribute to the safety of all other group members. By contributing to the safety of the group, there is a chance that my personal chances for success will continue. This is not the case for all animals, Tigers are solitary because thier chances for success are not enhanced by grouping.

This assumes a scientific reasoning for human activity, when, in fact, much human activity is detrimental to things such as safety. Driving a racecar is actively endangering, as are many other things people seem to find enjoyment in. The fact is (and I'll reiterate what you said, the fact does not need your acceptance of it in order to be true) that humans quite frequently act against our "better interests" (as defined scientifically, which is what you are going on). It is logical to conclude, therefore, that one cannot assume human activity is driven by what is scientifically in our best interests.


In the case of human beings, we have the capacity to identify ourselves based on more than our genetics. There is value given to the continuity of tradition, culture, "the family name" and so forth. By sharing common history and experience, extended, non-related, and adopted family members come to form just as much of a person's identity as their genetics. By promoting the welfare of your family members, your success is enhanced. Your identity and memory will continue into the future with these people even if your genes do not.


And this seems to have no relationship to what you said earlier. You seem to be equating genetics with social structure. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Either our decisions are based around our genetics (as you claim) or they are based around something else. You can't substitute that something else in and say "it uses the same subconscious reasoning as genetically-motivated action does". That's ludicrous.


The thought process can continue through the community, regional and national levels of organization, but I'd hope the idea has adequately been conveyed, my fingers are getting tired. Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope it was worth reading.

And thus you conclude with once again equating social structure to genetics. A false equation.

Oh, and... you seem to think that your view is what the majority of people think is the case? No. No, it is not.

[Keshay]

Self-Edited due to re-reading when not in an over-caffinated insomniac state. Original post was unnesessarily condescending and confrontational.

Myrmex has done a terrific job of explaining the mistakes made in the post I was originally responding to.

Thanks Myrmex.

[gdiddy]

Easy and quick test if an action or intent is evil in my game, with decreasing levels of evil:

1) Is the action evil in itself? (eg, Premeditated Murder, Consorting with Devils)

2) Does the execution of the action violate the dignity or bodily integrity of an innocent? (eg, Curses, Mayhem)

3) Does the act put innocents at senseless risk? (eg, Fireball spamming, Firing a bow into a marketplace)

4) Does the actor do any of these things with knowledge that the above questions will be answered yes, even if that is not their main objective when there was another option? ()

5) Anything else, even if wrong, selfish and misguided, is not an Evil act.

This is subjective, but well established when I DM. I find having set boundaries can reduce a lot of conflict when you have paladins running around.

[FatR]

Books have different opinions about this. I, personally, use this simple distinction between levels of selfishness:

Unwilling to actively help people and make sacrifices for them (unless there is some direct benefit in it, so helping your family/close friends/comrades in arms generally doesn't count as a "sacrifice") = Neutral.
Willing to actively harm people and sacrifice them for your selfish ends = Evil.

[Myrmex]

Human's primary instinct is preservation of race, not preservation of self. Sure, the trigger is internal, but the cause for e.g. sacrificing your life to save your kid is racial preservation and as such, completely altruistic.

"Preservation of race" is a meme used to trick you out of resources. The discussion here is non-kin altruism. Doing nice things for relatives is selfish.


Just like to point out that the thesis of that book is an opinion based on observation, not a scientific theory on par with the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity.

The Selfish Gene Theory is the prevailing paradigm in evolutionary biology, atm. It has its problems, but enough counter-evidence has yet to accrue for it to be overturned.



...NO. I mean... what the hell? This is part of the scientific definition of life, but how in the * does that make it the most intrinsic or most important? By this reasoning, people who are infertile are somehow "lesser" or "not really life." The hell?

It just means that an infertile organism is unable to directly reproduce. It can still increase its fitness (ie, spreading more copies of its genes) by helping family members.


In its most basic form, continuity consists of continued existence over the passing of time, not of reproduction. Therefore, this little paragraph is false.

The first sentence has problems, but in no way affects this bit:

Since resources are limited, each individual is in potential competition with others. The more resources you are able to acquire and use to promote your genes to later generations, the more successful you are.

Which is basically the state of evolutionary theory today.


Note my previous response. Reproduction is irrelevant to "success." "Success" is "staying alive."

lol. "Success" is called "fitness" and is typically measured by the number of offspring an individual has. Inclusive fitness is the sum total of all offspring an organism produces, plus any offspring from family members it helped raise. So a homosexual with no children that successfully helps his sister raise two children has an inclusive fitness of 1. His sister has an inclusive fitness of 2.


Irrelevant, as noted above.

Not at all irrelevant. Ground squirrels give warning calls when predators are around, despite the risk of increasing the predator's chance of eating them

Can you formulate a hypothesis of why ground squirrels may call when a predator is around?

I'll do it for you, then tell you the results of research.

If the selfish gene theory is correct, then ground squirrels should make alarm calls only when relatives are around. And this is precisely what happens. The animals call much more frequently when a relative is near by than when a non-relative is near by.


This assumes a scientific reasoning for human activity, when, in fact, much human activity is detrimental to things such as safety. Driving a racecar is actively endangering, as are many other things people seem to find enjoyment in. The fact is (and I'll reiterate what you said, the fact does not need your acceptance of it in order to be true) that humans quite frequently act against our "better interests" (as defined scientifically, which is what you are going on). It is logical to conclude, therefore, that one cannot assume human activity is driven by what is scientifically in our best interests.

Sexual selection. Look it up.


And this seems to have no relationship to what you said earlier. You seem to be equating genetics with social structure. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Either our decisions are based around our genetics (as you claim) or they are based around something else. You can't substitute that something else in and say "it uses the same subconscious reasoning as genetically-motivated action does". That's ludicrous.

You know what's ludicrous? False dilemmas.
He's not equating genetics with social structure, he's explaining how they both operate on similar principles, despite having radically different mechanisms. It's kind of like how you can use networking theory to explain ecological community structure. A server & the distribution of mammalian neatropic carnivores aren't literally the same, but you can use the same models to explain both.


Oh, and... you seem to think that your view is what the majority of people think is the case? No. No, it is not.

Of course not. Most people prefer to believe the easy, nice, cuddly things they're raised to believe. But for most people who attempt to study reality using the most powerful tools for modeling what's really going on, most agree that it goes like that.

[Riffington]

I love that the problem here is not with the definitions of Good/Evil, but with the (far murkier) definition of Selfish.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Neutral. There is no such thing as a non-selfish act.

Only if you define selfish as "anything that could concievably be considered to give me any sort of benefit, however small or nebulous". Going by a rather more ordinary definition, such as this one (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish)


1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
3 : being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>

Then by definitions 1 and 2 (emphasis mine) it's evil. 3 is biology, and has nothing to do with DnD alignment.

[hamishspence]

If a person's decisions are made "without regard of others" but do not cause harm to others- how are they evil?

What if, despite being "without regard of others" they even cause others to benefit?

I prefer to put the emphasis on "excessively" which implies that it is causing harm. Excessive selfishness is indeed harmful.

However, you could make the case that excessive selflessness also might cause more harm than it counters- in the cases where, out of "selfless motives" the person (who has dependants) pours all their wealth into a cause which only benefits slightly from it.

Net result? Them, amd their family, are suffering severely.

[Eloel]

Neutral. There is no such thing as a non-selfish act.

This.

/thread