PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Question



Crow
2009-11-30, 09:41 PM
I am having trouble determining what alignment this guy would be by D&D's standards;

He fought in some wars, and hates most elves as a result. He has no problems putting the torch to countless peasants' crops so long as it contributes to winning the war (scorched earth). He also looks at killing the enemy as a "job". As a mercenary, he has taken part in many overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth (Think vikings. Nothing personal against those they've raided, if they would just give them the goods, his guys wouldn't have to kill them!) and fame. He also has a family and wife, who he loves, but has cheated on, and would again with the right person.

Soooooo.... Anybody want to take a stab at this?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-30, 09:42 PM
LN, LE, or NE, depending on your definition of the alignments.

erikun
2009-11-30, 09:49 PM
I would say neither good nor evil. He doesn't go out of his way to help people, but he doesn't go around hurting people unless it's his "job". If he takes up mercenary work because "heck yeah I get to stab pesants in the face!" then yeah, he's probably evil. From what I see, though, he's no more evil than a typical adventurer.

Not much to go on in the Lawful-Chaotic scale, although his cheating pushes it closer to Chaotic.

Siosilvar
2009-11-30, 09:52 PM
Probably Lawful or Neutral Evil. Though there might be a case there for Neutral instead of Evil.

Mando Knight
2009-11-30, 09:56 PM
I see nothing that states Lawful. Either True Neutral (with evil tendencies) or NE.

gnomas
2009-11-30, 09:56 PM
I'm going to say neutral, possibly lawful neutral or neutral evil. depending on how loyal he is to his side (is he a patriot or just working for the highest bidder?) and how much enjoyment he takes in his work (were the peasants unfortunate but necessary casualties or were they just added pleasure?)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-30, 10:06 PM
I see nothing that states Lawful. Either True Neutral (with evil tendencies) or NE.

Seconded.

I'd decide which category he's in as a "balancing factor", almost. Because alignment doesn't dictate personality, but is rather dictated by it, it is a purely mechanical construct. Making him "evil" by D&D rules means merely that he is vulnerable to Holy weapons, Smite, et cetera, which makes him weaker. If he needs a weakness, make him evil; if he doesn't need that weakness make him neutral.

Vitruviansquid
2009-11-30, 10:07 PM
Either neutral or evil, depending on how gritty your campaign is.

Guancyto
2009-11-30, 10:24 PM
Neutral Neutral. Evil would be if he were particularly sadistic or relished his duties, as opposed to being something unfortunate that happens to his opponents.

A bad individual to be on the wrong side of, but so is pretty much every adventurer. Even the Good ones.

Andraste
2009-11-30, 11:39 PM
I'd say he's True Neutral or maybe Chaotic Neutral.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-11-30, 11:44 PM
TN.

He's just a guy who succumbs to temptations.

Evil lies in why someone is doing an action. The vast majority of beings are TN, or at least, should be.

El Chupaqueso
2009-11-30, 11:53 PM
The willingness to take innocent lives for personal gain would suggest Neutral Evil to me. But at any rate, he seems like a character with fairly complex motivations, so really, this could go in a number of directions, especially towards True Neutral.

mikeejimbo
2009-12-01, 12:06 AM
I am going to play Devil's Advocate.

I say he is Good of some type. Possibly even Lawful.


He fought in some wars, and hates most elves as a result.

Who said the elves were not themselves evil? This is the same as hating "monsters" because they have evil alignments. Who else hates evil? Good does!


He has no problems putting the torch to countless peasants' crops so long as it contributes to winning the war (scorched earth).

The ends might well justify the means here. Who is the war against? Are these peasants evil? Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are only working those fields as slaves to their evil landlords. Remember that D&D is a pseudo-medieval world, and the feudal system was very poor to those serfs. By burning the crops he is inciting the peasants to rise up against their (evil) lords when the latter come to take their tribute. (At worst, if he were a Paladin, he'd have to atone.)


He also looks at killing the enemy as a "job".

Which is good? Holding a job and doing it without complaint, or having a job and never doing it? As long as this enemy is evil, seems like a good act to me.


As a mercenary, he has taken part in many overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth (Think vikings. Nothing personal against those they've raided, if they would just give them the goods, his guys wouldn't have to kill them!) and fame.

What does he want to do with the personal wealth and fame? There is nothing to indicate that he is stealing from good or even neutral people, for one, and perhaps he wants to use the wealth and fame to set up a charity.


He also has a family and wife,

Possibly good. At least, not evil. Then again evil can love too.


whom he loves, but has cheated on, and would again with the right person.

How do we know that this has hurt the wife? Perhaps she is fine with it. Perhaps this thing is common in his culture. Isn't it kind of arbitrary of us to define monogamy as good and polygamy as evil? I see this as non-evil, neutral at best. Good if his culture encourages him to have lots of children.

(And if anyone thinks I'm serious, I also would like to add that I advocate eating the children as a cure for the famine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal))

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-01, 12:17 AM
I am having trouble determining what alignment this guy would be by D&D's standards;

He fought in some wars, and hates most elves as a result. He has no problems putting the torch to countless peasants' crops so long as it contributes to winning the war (scorched earth). He also looks at killing the enemy as a "job". As a mercenary, he has taken part in many overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth (Think vikings. Nothing personal against those they've raided, if they would just give them the goods, his guys wouldn't have to kill them!) and fame. He also has a family and wife, who he loves, but has cheated on, and would again with the right person.

Soooooo.... Anybody want to take a stab at this?
Neutral.

I mean... he sounds like a typical medieval mercenary - he doesn't rape & pillage (just pillage), he's part of an organization (and takes orders) but doesn't care much for fidelity.

Some text for completeness:

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.

. . .

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
I mean, if he wasn't swinging a sword, he could just be another average peasant - he does what he's told for his job, looks out for himself, but occasionally indulges in vices.

Zeta Kai
2009-12-01, 12:26 AM
Neutral Evil. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

erikun
2009-12-01, 12:26 AM
Oooh, fun! I haven't played with sarcasm in awhile!
(Actually, it would be fun to straight-man this, and point out what I see as evil/not, etc.)


Who said the elves were not themselves evil? This is the same as hating "monsters" because they have evil alignments. Who else hates evil? Good does!
Fighting in a war isn't necessarily evil, unless he joined the army with the promise of slaughter and booty. It isn't generally good, either, unless you're going out to defend an area from an invading force. Most wars involve drafting neutral parties to fight agressive forces, resulting in a roughly neutral outlook unless the individual makes an effort to be good/evil at the time.

Hating elves is right next to hating sparkling vampires in the "almost good" category, so you might have a point. :smallwink:


The ends might well justify the means here. Who is the war against? Are these peasants evil? Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are only working those fields as slaves to their evil landlords. Remember that D&D is a pseudo-medieval world, and the feudal system was very poor to those serfs. By burning the crops he is inciting the peasants to rise up against their (evil) lords when the latter come to take their tribute. (At worst, if he were a Paladin, he'd have to atone.)
Rasing a field isn't quite like butchering random passerbys. Cutting off resources is a common way to fight a war. At worst, it's chaotic for overburning the fields. At best, it's lawful for following the general's orders, and the general sent him off because he was good at it.

Without further information, I'd have to assume he falls in the "overdoing it" category and is chaotic.


Which is good? Holding a job and doing it without complaint, or having a job and never doing it? As long as this enemy is evil, seems like a good act to me.
Holding a job is socially proper but not quite what D&D alignment means by "good." Holding a job would be a lawful trait, though.


What does he want to do with the personal wealth and fame? There is nothing to indicate that he is stealing from good or even neutral people, for one, and perhaps he wants to use the wealth and fame to set up a charity.
Putting yourself (or your family, or the people in your town) over the welfare of others is decidely not good. Neutral at best, closer to evil. It would probably be good if he purposefully was raiding evil encampments, but I'm not hearing anything of the sort.


Possibly good. At least, not evil. Then again evil can love too.
So he's a lover, not a fighter (at home). :smallwink:


How do we know that this has hurt the wife? Perhaps she is fine with it. Perhaps this thing is common in his culture. Isn't it kind of arbitrary of us to define monogamy as good and polygamy as evil? I see this as non-evil, neutral at best. Good if his culture encourages him to have lots of children.
I haven't heard of many people enjoying being cheated on. At best, the word "cheated" indicates that he shouldn't have done so. If he is polygamistic, then seeing another woman (or his other wife) wouldn't be considered cheating. This indicates that he is impulsive (chaotic).

And so, we have a character who is chaotic, and mostly neutral with a taste of evil. I'd call him CN-evil-curious.


(And if anyone thinks I'm serious, I also would like to add that I advocate eating the children as a cure for the famine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal))
They certainly taste good sauteed in butter, I will give you that.

Callista
2009-12-01, 02:35 AM
I'd have said true neutral if it weren't for the raiding; the rest is all common in war, but raiding is specifically targeting non-combatants and often killing them (if he didn't kill anybody, you can still have him as neutral). I'd put him down as NE, but please do remember that this doesn't mean he has to go out and kick puppies to death, raise them as zombies, and let the resulting undead dogs eat their former owners' brains. He isn't a monster the way we'd think of monsters; he's simply the sort of person who is willing to kill people who won't let him steal their stuff. Sounds like a decently realistic evil character to me.

Fhaolan
2009-12-01, 03:22 AM
Insufficent information, believe it or not.

He appears to be firmly on the side of Chaotic, because all of his actions are with the intent of personal gain, with no regard for any greater purpose beyond himself. He's not fighting wars out of patriotism or a code of honour, but for the weath and fame. He doesn't seem to think in terms of 'team' or 'group'. He also is swayed heavily by circumstances (cheating on his wife), which is a chaotic trait.

Good, Neutral, or Evil, however, there isn't enough info, though I'm leaning towards Neutral because of his 'It's just a job' outlook. He seems to have no regard for others as people unless they are immediately of benefit to him. Basically, he's amoral rather than immoral. The question is, is amoral enough to be Evil or not? Animals are by and large amoral, and they ping as Neutral in game terms.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 03:43 AM
"Overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth- think Vikings" sounds pretty evil. Theft is by default "wrong" according to BoVD.

"raiding/pillaging" outside of true warfare, is like banditry- not very easily excusable.

I'd say Evil, possibly Chaotic (breaking commitment to wife).

It's like the barbarians of Ten Towns in book one of the Icewind Dale trilogy- they can be acting evil by attacking people who haven't done anything to earn being attacked.

If he was a rebel raiding an evil king- in order to fund his rebellion, then it might be different- but as it is there doesn't seem to be anything like that.

BoED takes the view, that even raiding the villages of Evil beings, needs a better excuse than "they are evil" or "I need money".

Such as "I need to stop their raids."

So, raiding beings not called out as evil, also needs a better excuse.

Talakeal
2009-12-01, 05:00 AM
Asking an alignment question on a forum? YOU FOOL! YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE UNLEASHED!

But seriously, this guy is definetly evil. Probably not chaotic as he follows orders most of the time, but probably not lawful as he engages in raids and adultry.
He is not "big time" evil, but a subtler more realistic evil. Many people would argue that he is neutral because he is not acting of his own volition, but I do not believe that arguments works, as that would mean that the vast majority of enemy minions the players fight would be neutral, which would make them immune to smiting and holy weapons, not to mention possibly compromising the player's own alignment.

Riffington
2009-12-01, 05:18 AM
Chiming in on the NE.
Torching peasants' crops is not the same as burning modern farmers' fields (which is typically evil anyway, but enough good deeds could outweigh). Those peasants do not have a modern safety net. They starve to death.
Raiding for personal profit with a willingness to kill is also firmly evil. There aren't enough good deeds in the world to make up for that.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 05:21 AM
Yup- Savage Species- people who are OK to members of their "in-group" but persecute those outside it, are Evil. Even if they are kind to their family, friends, and the needy of their society, their behaviour to those outside their society outweighs this.

Possibly the only good excuse for "scorched earth" tactics, is in a situation of total war- and even then, generally only on your own home ground, when its the only way to stop an invading army.

Cespenar
2009-12-01, 05:38 AM
TN. Pretty much a normal soldier.

Though if you look at it from our (modern age) perspective, most things would come out as NE. But that's not how it is.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 07:20 AM
Except than (according to BoED) modern morals are the baseline for what's legitimate for a D&D soldier to do.

No targeting non-combatants.
No refusing to accept surrender.
No aggressive war (must be waged to prevent enemies from continuing their aggression).
No torturing prisoners.

Etc.

It may not be medieval code of conduct- but it is D&D code of conduct.

Optimystik
2009-12-01, 07:45 AM
Neutral Evil, for the reasons hamish and some others have mentioned.

Balford, your avatar is amazing.

Harperfan7
2009-12-01, 08:09 AM
Well let's see.

Loves his wife (more good than anything, but evil people can love)
Cheats on wife (eh...chaotic I guess, but being married in the first place is kinda lawful). C + L = (Neutral)
Destroys livelihoods (evil)
Kills for money (evil)
Is a mercenary, but I don't see any loyalty to law (Neutral)
Doesn't enjoy the killing (somewhat redeeming)

He's obviously not good. Check (LN, N, CN, LE, NE, CE)
I'm not seeing a preference for law or chaos. Check (N, NE)
The fact that he does evil things, but not good things (NE)

It's not clear cut, he's somewhere between N and NE.

I would side with NE.

Megaduck
2009-12-01, 08:11 AM
I am having trouble determining what alignment this guy would be by D&D's standards;

He fought in some wars, and hates most elves as a result. He has no problems putting the torch to countless peasants' crops so long as it contributes to winning the war (scorched earth). He also looks at killing the enemy as a "job". As a mercenary, he has taken part in many overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth (Think vikings. Nothing personal against those they've raided, if they would just give them the goods, his guys wouldn't have to kill them!) and fame. He also has a family and wife, who he loves, but has cheated on, and would again with the right person.

Soooooo.... Anybody want to take a stab at this?

Lawful Neutral leaning Lawful Evil.

To me the fact that he's just doing a 'Job' screams Lawful. He's a little cog in the machine. He's a Mercenary that joins a side and follows orders for pay. He's part of a group and doesn't seem to question it, again Lawful.

He doesn't seem to have any strong convictions that would push him good, nor any strong emotional commitments that would do likewise. He loves his wife (Good) but not enough to be faithful to her (Evil) but not with much passion either way.

his use of scorched earth tactics and pillaging are pushing him evil.

Beelzebub1111
2009-12-01, 08:34 AM
I find that it's not what your intententions are, or what you feel is right that makes you good or evil, it's what you do.

Let's look at King Kaius III from Eberron:
He wants to hold the treaty and keep peace between the nations. A good goal. However He put his grandson in a prison and took his place as king to accomplish this. In the past, he used the corpeses of his enemies to fight for him, and used a very evil "police force" to do his bidding

We could also look at Queen Aurala, who is good because of her actions. Though her goal is to rule all of Khorvare herself, she is doing it through good means, like diplomacy and trade agreements.

So I would say he is either Lawful Neutral or Neutral Evil depending wether he kills for Money or Country.

Gorilla2038
2009-12-01, 09:04 AM
I think its really defined by his culture: Theres a great quote by Eric Flint in his 1632 series about something like this: "There just f'ing up in a f'ed up world".

By the defintions presented, i would say most cultures historically would be evil. Germanic tribes? evil. Vikings? evil. Majority of tribes in Africa prior to european invasion? REALLY evil. (Constant slave trading through raids, then sold to arabs, then to the europeans to send to americas). Sparta, Alexander, Julius Caesar...The list goes on.

Ill take one example:Alexander. Conquered Persian empire for personal glory(evil), killed thousands of people in the cities that resisted(evil), slept with multiple wives(evil)...

In fact, by the defintions presented, i cant think of one culture that has ever been good.

Edit for Further point: Remember, the main basis of western philosophy, (The Bible) was at first not 'Thou shalt not Kill', but Thou shalt not Murder. Theres a key difference that tends to define evil in the modern world, IMO.

Kalirren
2009-12-01, 10:20 AM
Well, given that the alignment system is best suited for the Christian-veneered Viking morality of Beowulf, I'd say this guy is Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil. The only thing he's really done that's not immediately consistent with Lawful is cheat on his wife, and that depends heavily on how he looks at family. Really, if he comes back every winter to spend time with his wife and kids, that would be Lawful enough. He is by no means Good, though whether or not he's Evil is shaky, and I really wouldn't know. That's murky enough that the people who dislike him (read: being pillaged) might think of him as more Evil than Neutral, and those who are with him might think of him as more Neutral than Evil.

root9125
2009-12-01, 10:26 AM
Evil, for forcing the creation of another alignment thread.

mikeejimbo
2009-12-01, 10:40 AM
Evil, for forcing the creation of another alignment thread.

I rescind my previous statement in light of this argument. You have convinced me he's evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 11:41 AM
So I would say he is either Lawful Neutral or Neutral Evil depending wether he kills for Money or Country.

That is highly dependant on whether Country is the aggressor or not. It is possible to be fighting "for country" and still be doing evil.

Conversely, a person who signs up to defend people who are being unjustly attacked, for the money, is not exactly behaving in a Neutral Evil fashion, either.

You could say that the guy who says "I'm in it for the money" is still Neutral rather than evil- if he's defending the innocent, it doesn't really matter that much why he's doing it.

Talakeal
2009-12-01, 12:10 PM
If this guy was an orc instead of a human and part of a band of orcish raiders would that change anyone's opinion of his alignment?

Beelzebub1111
2009-12-01, 12:13 PM
That is highly dependant on whether Country is the aggressor or not. It is possible to be fighting "for country" and still be doing evil.

Conversely, a person who signs up to defend people who are being unjustly attacked, for the money, is not exactly behaving in a Neutral Evil fashion, either.

You could say that the guy who says "I'm in it for the money" is still Neutral rather than evil- if he's defending the innocent, it doesn't really matter that much why he's doing it.

But if he were truly in it for the money he wouldn't care if he was helping or harming people. If it's only for "the good of the country" whether the natioin's leader is good or evil, or even chaotic or Lawful, that is lawful.

But all these motivations are trumped by actions. If he refuses to harm innocents or activly tries to object to his orders to scorch the earth, then it's good.

And this goes both ways as I've said.
Evil means to Good ends makes the character's alignment evil
Good means to Evil ends makes the character's alignment good (Though it is difficult to conceive, Queen Aurala is a perfect example)

If he's following orders to the letter, and is told to do evil things, and does them, that's where the motivation comes into play.

Ormagoden
2009-12-01, 12:15 PM
He forsakes the bonds of marriage and goes around torching fields and raiding neighboring countryside and you guys think he is lawful...sheesh!

He's CN.

A free spirit, bound by no laws.
In it for the money, adventure, fighting, and maidens.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 12:27 PM
Evil means to Good ends makes the character's alignment evil
Good means to Evil ends makes the character's alignment good (Though it is difficult to conceive, Queen Aurala is a perfect example)


I see Queen Aurala as A Good person with an Evil Plan, which, once put into action (it's clear in the Eberron sourcebooks that when she's built up enough armed forces, she will conquer by force) will swiftly change her alignment.

To me, she is good more for what she has done (gotten her country out of the war, and built up its prosperity), rather than what she plans to do- she is a good person who is likely to stop being good very quickly.

on "CN- Free spirit":
CN who robs and murders becomes CE very quickly.

"My country, right or wrong" and "my leader, right or wrong" are more Evil sentiments than Lawful ones.

Kipling's "Danegeld" poem sums up the Viking mentality (and that of people who pay them off) pretty well. It is not good, or even Neutral, behaviour, to demand money with menaces, and take it when they refuse to pay up.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 12:40 PM
While very early D&D, might have had adventurers behave toward "evil races" in a Viking-style fashion, the general rule, was that conquering, raiding, etc behaviour, was by default Evil rather than Neutral.

Almost any FR novel with one nation invading/raiding other nations without provocation, could be relied on to have that nation either be evil, or rapidly slipping toward evil.

horseboy
2009-12-01, 03:57 PM
Except than (according to BoED) modern morals are the baseline for what's legitimate for a D&D soldier to do.

Of course, this just highlights just how incredibly stupid the alignment rules are. According to this thought process every king of every D&D kingdom of every D&D world that, upon assuming power, did not immediately step down for the creation of a parliamentary system would be considered Evil as he violates the tenants of all are equal, separation of church and state and I'm sure many others I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. No, modern morality has no place in a feudal system, the two are antithetical to one another.

Personally, I say the character's alignment depends on the campaign. If it's in Elf lands concerning elven interests he's hella Evil. If it's in Viking land where such behavior is expected and condoned then he's LN with a flaw of infidelity. If he's just stuck in generic kingdom #28 that has nothing to do with anything in his background, TN.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 04:08 PM
Modern morality- not necessarily modern politics (which doesn't have a place on this board, anyway).

Basic principles like "aggression is evil" (BoED also calls out slavery and discrimination as practices that "even if tolerated by the societies, are evil").

The principle can be summed up as:

"just because another culture is Other, does not justify you attacking it- they have to attack you first"

It doesn't say much about how cultures can govern themselves though.

You can be Lawful good, or Chaotic good, and as long as you don't break the basic principles of Goodness (avoid harm wherever possible, except in defense, and even then, try and keep it to a minimum) you are still Good.

Not all D&D cultures are feudal either- elves are highly individualistic, dwarves much less so. But they all, if Good, adhere to the basic rules of not attacking each other without provocation.

Some campaigns don't stick as closely to basic D&D morality as others- some DMs' versions of CN is much closer to the in-game definition of CE.

But this is a difference in the methods of handling alignment that the DM and the players use.

In "generic kingdom X" raiding your neighbours, would be seen as evil by both the raided, and most of the other members of the kingdom- since raids result in retaliations, and an overall decrease in the welfare of everybody.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 04:16 PM
My guess is, that D&D BoED morality was an attempt at clarifying that D&D is not supposed to be entirely :

"Anything you do to evil beings is justified"

or

"Taking other beings' stuff without permission is Neutral, Good if they are Evil"

Instead, it (and BoVD) went back to basic principles like "killing requires justification- and a lot of it" and "stealing is by default wrong- you need a good reason, like stealing the Weapon of Doom from the villain"

- possibly to bring it a bit more into line with modern sensibilities.

Which may be why a lot of players disliked them.

horseboy
2009-12-01, 04:53 PM
Modern morality- not necessarily modern politics (which doesn't have a place on this board, anyway).There's nothing political in that statement, it's all about morality.

Basic principles like "aggression is evil" (BoED also calls out slavery and discrimination as practices that "even if tolerated by the societies, are evil").
Peasants/serfs are just slaves of the land by a different name. You can not have a feudal system and it still be "good" by modern morality, everything about it is "Evil", from the monarchy all the way down.

John Campbell
2009-12-01, 04:54 PM
Alignment is still the single worst concept ever to be introduced into role-playing.

Beelzebub1111
2009-12-01, 04:58 PM
I always figured that aggression wasn't necessarily evil, but selfishness was a defining factor. Doing things for yourself or for others.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 05:03 PM
According to this thought process every king of every D&D kingdom of every D&D world that, upon assuming power, did not immediately step down for the creation of a parliamentary system would be considered Evil as he violates the tenants of all are equal, separation of church and state and I'm sure many others I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

These have little to do with morality.

"all are equal" is not a moral requirement violated by the presence of monarchs. Nor is "the separation of church and state" in a D&D context.


I always figured that aggression wasn't necessarily evil, but selfishness was a defining factor. Doing things for yourself or for others.

Its really more the other way round.

While BoED does make it clear you can't be Good and strongly self-centred, a self-centered perspective does not have to be be evil- as long as it is not allied to actively harming others.

Doing things for yourself is not evil- only harming others because it benefits yourself is evil.

Similarly the person who commits severe Evil acts "for the good of the many" is still evil, even if their actions are altruistic- in a D&D sense.

Ozymandias, from Watchmen, would have committed a very series Evil act in D&D terms- even though he was "being altruistic".

Mr.Bookworm
2009-12-01, 05:10 PM
I am having trouble determining what alignment this guy would be by D&D's standards;

Soooooo.... Anybody want to take a stab at this?

Evil. Probably NE, maybe CE. As someone else said, he's a more subtle and realistic example of Evil than Baron Puppyraper von Dooooooombringer, but he's still on the deep end of the alignment pool.

*breakdown*


He fought in some wars, and hates most elves as a result.

Racism and prejudice are evil in most. While, say, getting ticked off at a particular group of elves might be justified, taking that to the extreme of hating all elves is pretty evil.


He has no problems putting the torch to countless peasants' crops so long as it contributes to winning the war (scorched earth).

Is this necessary? If it's a massive full scale war,


He also looks at killing the enemy as a "job".

Sort of depends on how far he's willing to go. If a guy says, "kill that baby and I'll give you twenty gold pieces", and he says "I'll do it for forty", definitely evil. But if he's a regular mercenary (i.e. a private soldier that gets paid for doing solidering), I'd say neutral, but if he's the previously outlined psychotic willing to do anything for enough money (or somewhere slightly below that), then definitely evil.


As a mercenary, he has taken part in many overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth (Think vikings. Nothing personal against those they've raided, if they would just give them the goods, his guys wouldn't have to kill them!) and fame.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt evil. Killing people for no reason other than personal gain is one of the cornerstones of the Evil alignment.


He also has a family and wife, who he loves, but has cheated on, and would again with the right person.

A fairly minor act of evil and chaotic-ism.

Note that this is my own personal opinion and you are free to disagree.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 05:16 PM
BoVD acts-

"betrayal" considered evil unless you have a very good reason-

(most people would not consider betraying the main villain, to be evil, if the reason is based on the harm the villain is doing)

"theft"- again- evil by default. Needs very good justification to avoid this.


So I'd agree that the acts are evil and if the character is doing them routinely, their alignment should be evil.

horseboy
2009-12-01, 05:18 PM
These have little to do with morality.

"all are equal" is not a moral requirement violated by the presence of monarchs. Nor is "the separation of church and state" in a D&D context.
Either all are equal and it's wrong to kill orcs for just being orcs or there's a double standard to allow some to be more equal than others, and it's okay for monarchs to rule over slaves. Monarchs rule simply because of who's crotch they get yanked out of and because god(s) say that they have the right to do it and to question them is to question the god(s). They assume power in an immoral fashion, from a modern prospective, and perpetrate the immoral power structure, therefore are inherently Evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 05:27 PM
According to BoED "it's wrong to kill orcs simply for being orcs."

On systems- it clarifies in DMG2 that D&D peasants/serfs are not slaves. The monarch owns the land hires it out to the nobles, the peasants had been hired by the nobles to work it, in return for some use of the land for their own purposes, and this agreement is carried on by the descendants of the original monarch and peasants.

Monarchs assuming power is not "immoral from a modern perspective" - there are very few universals in modern morality, and "monarchy is immoral" is not one of them.

"Theft is immoral" and "murder is immoral" however, are. In practice, there are no societies without at least some concept of property rights.

Which is not to say that there are not evil monarchies in D&D- just that, in the context of the game, monarchy is not considered evil.

Elven realms are usually monarchies- and are as far from feudal as you can get.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 05:36 PM
The important issue is: Does the basic D&D moral code forbid "raiding for personal gain" in general?

Sounds a lot like "oppressing, hurting, and killing others" which the PHB calls out as Evil.

It also sounds like "theft" and possibly "murder". Which BoVD calls Evil.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-01, 05:36 PM
The problem with BoED is it confuses Exalted with good. Or doesn't define the difference well. Many of the things it suggests seem more appropriate for exalted good and not just good to do.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-01, 05:43 PM
If this guy was an orc instead of a human and part of a band of orcish raiders would that change anyone's opinion of his alignment?

Because the society an orc fights for is different from the society a human fights for, I'd say that my opinion would change. Not much, though. Instead of "NE, possibly, vaguely N"; it would be "NE, possibly, vaguely CE". Still NE.

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 05:45 PM
Some things. Some it says "Doing this is not good" rather than "doing this is evil.

But it's not just BoVD. Cityscape states that slavery is evil and discrimination in an official sense, with, say, half-orcs, or dwarves, or some other group, being officially discriminated against under the lar is "beyond the pale of what can be considered Good.

You could have a Neutral city with a racial underclass, but not a Good one.

BoED and BoVD, while sometimes tricky, clarify an awful lot. Not all the answers are comforting though.

BoVD states very clearly that lying is one of those things that is "not evil if the reason is sufficiently good" though- not every "normally evil" act gets this.

It is possible to be Good-aligned and commit Evil acts on a small scale- but if it becomes a routine and regular practice, there should probably be alignment slippage.

Fiendish Codex 2 provides a very rough scale- answers questions like "is theft not as bad as murder?" (Answer- yes) and "is torture more evil if it is more severe?" (answer- yes).

hamishspence
2009-12-01, 05:48 PM
I lean to the view that (at least in 3.5) alignment is mostly cultural.

if a person is acting a bit like an orc- raiding foreign countries for personal gain- he should have the same alignment as an orc.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-01, 09:40 PM
Good characters are described as helping others and Evil characters are described as harming others. Or maybe Good characters protect the innocent and Evil characters harm the innocent, and Neutral characters simply have compunctions against harming the innocent.

The problem here is that "others" is an extremely broad group. No one relates to everyone in the world in the same way. "Innocents" is also a very broad group, or maybe a very narrow group, depending on how we define "innocent". The alignment section of the PHB certainly doesn't clarify what the word is supposed to mean in this context. Obviously, if we define it in terms of alignment, then the alignment descriptions become recursive, complicating things further.

Furthermore, the whole general notion of causing things to happen to other people is surprisingly vague when you look at it closely. What does it mean to cause something? That things would have gone differently if you hadn't taken the action that you did? But that implies that, for each given choice you could have made, there's one way things would have gone as a result. That implies a sort of determinism that in turn implies that you couldn't have done other than you did, in which case the whole counterfactual scenario is impossible to start with.


Cheats on wife (eh...chaotic I guess, but being married in the first place is kinda lawful). C + L = (Neutral)
If making and then breaking a promise is Neutral, what's Chaotic? Avoiding making promises in the first place? I had rather thought that the Chaotic trait was breaking promises, not avoiding them.


I see Queen Aurala as A Good person with an Evil Plan, which, once put into action (it's clear in the Eberron sourcebooks that when she's built up enough armed forces, she will conquer by force) will swiftly change her alignment.

To me, she is good more for what she has done (gotten her country out of the war, and built up its prosperity), rather than what she plans to do- she is a good person who is likely to stop being good very quickly.
Is it necessarily non-Evil to manifest a psionic power simply because this is a purely mental action? I think it's safe to say that, no, some instances of manifesting powers are Evil acts.

Is it non-Evil to start a rock-slide that might crush a town below, because it also might not? It certainly seems like "merely" endangering lives ought to be Evil, barring sufficient justification.

Setting up a bomb that won't go off until ten years from now hardly seems non-Evil simply because it won't take effect for a long time.

Plotting some sort of murderous plan increases the likelihood that you'll actually murder people in the future. It is a purely mental action that endangers the lives of others over the long term.

Alignment ain't the weight all your past deeds. It's what you're liable to do in the future. What you've done in the past influences your alignment because practice makes doing stuff easier -- including making choices to harm or to help others. If you're in the habit of, say, mugging people, that makes it likely that you'll mug people because that's how habits work. Doesn't mean that you can't sincerely renounce that activity given sufficient motivation, and thus instantaneously change your alignment. Magic is not required for this, though it can help.


"My country, right or wrong" and "my leader, right or wrong" are more Evil sentiments than Lawful ones.
So... if you're willing to do Good acts if your leader is Good, and willing to do Evil acts if your leader is Evil, that's an Evil trait, even if your leader is in fact Good?

If "would hypothetically do Evil deeds under the right circumstances, although they are not in fact under those circumstances" is an Evil trait, then I'd wager that the average person has a whole pile of such Evil traits. And if that works, why doesn't "would hypothetically do Good deeds under the right circumstances, although they are not in fact under those circumstances" work as a Good trait?

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 03:52 AM
It might not solely be the weight of past deeds, but that does play a big part- it is acts, more than intentions, that determine alignment. Intentions matter, but only to a degree.

Alignment is fluid- just because Aurula is NG now, doesn't mean she will stay NG.

It is the willingness to obey orders no matter what the order, that I see as an Evil tendency. Whether Lawful or Chaotic, a Good person is someone who is willing to defy such an order. BoED makes this clear- a Paladin may be Lawful Good, but they are Good first, and will not obey an order to do evil.

2xMachina
2009-12-02, 06:17 AM
Alignment dictates actions, not the other way round right?

So...

Would a Lawful person act like that? Yes, maybe, except for cheating. So, probably not.
Chaotic? Maybe. Following orders make it a bit iffy though.
So, I'll settle on Neutral for that axis.

Good? Nope, not at all
Evil? Yeah, they would act like that.
Neutral? I would think a neutral might act that way too.

Either TN or NE, depending on motivations.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 06:25 AM
Actions dictate alignment.

Alignment (generally) dictates a person's attitude to certain actions.

A Good character will dislike the notion of betraying people- because of their alignment, they are less likely to commit certain actions.


Because actions are entirely the perview of the player, a DM cannot say "You're Lawful Good- you can't do that"

What they can say is "Doing that will count as a minor Chaotic and Evil act"

Or even "Doing that will cause your alignment to change".

2nd ed made it clear that a sufficiently serious act (even with good motives) was grounds for an instant alignment change from Good to Evil, in both the PHB and DMG.

3rd ed said "alignment changes usually take some time (weeks) but there are exceptions" The example given was Evil to Good. But the reverse is equally possible.

BobVosh
2009-12-02, 06:30 AM
I would rate him as LE or NE.

This is off the first post, I skipped most the rest.

onthetown
2009-12-02, 07:27 AM
Neutral of some sort; I'm torn between lawful and chaotic because he's dedicated to an organization to the extent of doing whatever they say at their whim, but he's forsaking marriage laws whenever he pleases. True Neutral would be my guess.

Just because the organization might be evil, doesn't make the people who follow it evil. It might have started out neutral and slowly gone to evil, or some other instance where the people weren't always burning and pillaging towns. He's only evil if he enjoys it... If he does, I'd say Neutral Evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:35 AM
"he's only evil if he enjoys it" isn't really valid in D&D.

People who do evil things because they have been ordered to do so, are no less in danger of alignment slippage, than people who do it because they like it.

Pretty much any well-intentioned extremist is going to dislike the things they do- but see it as necessary. Yet it is the things that they do, that determine where their alignment is heading.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-02, 04:49 PM
It might not solely be the weight of past deeds, but that does play a big part- it is acts, more than intentions, that determine alignment. Intentions matter, but only to a degree.
But actions can be characterized by their intended consequences. They can also be characterized by their expected consequences. Theoretically you can characterize actions by their actual consequences, but this is actually a vague notion, as I discussed before. (It also has potentially bizarre implications. Can the alignment of an action already taken change as its consequences continually unfold?)

Which categorization schema(s) decide(s) the alignment of an act?


It is the willingness to obey orders no matter what the order, that I see as an Evil tendency.
Could you describe what you mean by "Evil", and also what you mean by "Neutral" and "Good"?

I personally see willingness to harm innocents as Evil, willingness to help innocents as Good, and unwillingness to do either as Neutral, to the extent that willingness is both existent and aligned.

(Is what you're willing to do under a given set of circumstances the same as what you will do if placed in those circumstances? If not, then what does "willingness" refer to?)


Actions dictate alignment.

Alignment (generally) dictates a person's attitude to certain actions.
So, actions dictate alignment, which dictates attitudes. So actions indirectly dictate attitudes. ... Oh! I get it now!

The act of, e.g., poisoning people isn't Evil because it indicates greater disregard for the welfare of others than, say, setting living people on fire. It's Evil because doing it automagically decreases your regard for the welfare of others. And since that in turn makes it likelier that you actually will harm people (or allow them to be harmed), this makes using poison into something that Good characters would tend to oppose, so long as they're aware that it has this effect.

If you just assume that characters' actions influence their general moral and personal attitudes in whatever ways that the books indicate that they do, with complete disregard for whether this is realistic, intuitive, or cohesive, then I suppose that you can resolve a lot of the apparent inconsistencies in the rules regarding alignment. You can even throw in a house rule arbitrarily making any sort of action you like any alignment you like. It can even be something that would clearly be of the opposite alignment in a remotely sensible game.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 05:54 PM
Willingness to obey orders to harm innocents, is willingness to harm innocents.

Not all acts are only evil because they "harm innocents" though.
According to both BoED and FC2, torture is Evil, whether the victim is "innocent" or not.


Concerning "alignment dictates attitudes" the point to be made was (as written) the attitude the character is supposed to have, is tied to alignment, in PHB:

with its comments about evil beings, at best, being lacking in compassion,

good beings being altruistic and willing to make sacrifices for others

and neutral beings "having compunctions against harming the innocent"

So, in a metagame sense, the alignment of the character, dictates the "attitudes" of that character.

Every book that raises the issue from, BoVD, to DMG, to BoED, to Fiendish Codex 2 states flatly that "actions dictate alignment"

Some (BoVD, BoED, FC2) state that "some actions are evil regardless of intent" and Fiendish Codex 2 even has a scale saying how evil they are.

So. "acts dictate alignment" is a basic axiom in D&D.


On "alignment dictates certain basic attitudes": The closest thing to a grey area is Savage Species- which states the evil guys can be loving and compassionate to their in-group, and cruel to those outside that in-group.

Thus refuting PHB's "evil guys are either simply lacking in compassion, or outright sadistic"- with a third option- "kind to the few, cruel to the many"

ghashxx
2009-12-02, 06:22 PM
It's not like alignment is some kind of prison that once you decide what your character's alignment is then they're locked inside it unable to do anything outside of those bars. Alignment is just a word description about the very basics on how your character views the world and what kind of things they're likely to do.

Example time: Friar Tuck lets say. The good portly friar isn't going to knowledgeably light a man on fire and just let him burn. I think that's a safe basic assumption. The reason for this isn't because his alignment is ______ good, but rather his alignment is ______ good because he wouldn't do anything like that. Instead he might knock the guy unconscious. It's the good friar's actions that dictate his alignment.

Now at the same time there's intentions. So while knocking people unconscious isn't anything compared to lighting them on fire, it can still be evil. If you're knocking them out so you can sneak by them without killing them then that's good. If you're knocking them out because it's more fun to hurt them then to sneak past then that's an evil act.

So if you do things which are evil, either because of the act itself or the intentions behind it or a combination of both, then of course your alignment should shift away from good. If you're doing evil things willingly then that indicates that you're not much of a nice person, or at the very least you have very flexible morals so you get shifted to neutral and not all the way to evil. The alignment simply represents your character's basic persona.

So if you're evil then you don't approve of evil things because you're alignments says you're ______ evil. You enjoy evil things because you're a wicked nasty horrible person inside, because you're evil (in the common sense of the word, not D&D term here).

Now everyone roll fort saves or get critted by massive text.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-02, 06:43 PM
While actions, in-universe, are based on alignment; we don't know the character's alignment for certain. All we know is their actions, and we guess at the alignment of the fictional character we have created. If the character takes certain actions, we change the alignment guess, making it seem as though actions determine alignment. When you walk into an orphanage and kill all the babies, you were evil before the slaughter, but the players only know that after the slaughter occurs. Functionally, actions seem to determine alignment.

And saying "alignment determines actions" is all too easily read as "alignment should be a straightjacket".

Harperfan7
2009-12-02, 07:08 PM
If making and then breaking a promise is Neutral, what's Chaotic? Avoiding making promises in the first place? I had rather thought that the Chaotic trait was breaking promises, not avoiding them.

Hmmm. The PHB states that chaotic characters will "do what they promise if they feel like it." So, you're right.

I was thinking that, in terms of judging this guys alignment, that one lawful act and one chaotic act would balance overall to a neutral act. Say, for instance that if you save a persons life, then have a change of heart later on and murder somebody, is the first act no longer good?

Anyways, I would think that a chaotic person wouldn't get married in the first place, but I guess that's just me.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 07:30 PM
Anyways, I would think that a chaotic person wouldn't get married in the first place, but I guess that's just me.

This is the "all or nothing" crap that I hate about Alignment.

I can be an anarchist who thinks the government is oppressing my freedom, taxation is theft, and authority must prove itself to be respected, but I can still make a sacred and binding commitment to my true love.

Say I'm a swashbuckling rogue (not a Swashbuckler or a Rogue by class, just that I'm roguish and buckle my swash). I happily break laws with which I disagree, seduce other men's wives and would sooner steal than work for wages. Safe to say Chaotic, no?

But what if, at the same time, I consider my word to be my bond, would gladly die for a companion, would sooner fight an unwinable duel than endure or run from an insult, and make a point never to attack an unarmed foe or stab a man in the back?

This is not inconsistent for a character straight out of Dumas, but not one who fits into the nine space grid of D&D.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-02, 07:36 PM
Say I'm a swashbuckling rogue (not a Swashbuckler or a Rogue by class, just that I'm roguish and buckle my swash). I happily break laws with which I disagree, seduce other men's wives and would sooner steal than work for wages. Safe to say Chaotic, no?

But what if, at the same time, I consider my word to be my bond, would gladly die for a companion, would sooner fight an unwinable duel than endure or run from an insult, and make a point never to attack an unarmed foe or stab a man in the back?

This is not inconsistent for a character straight out of Dumas, but not onbe who fits into the nine space grid of D&D.
Sure he does - Chaotic Good

Behold the wonder of RAW:

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Really, don't those two descriptions fit said character perfectly?

The real problem with alignment is that there are people who never read the TSR D&D chapter on Alignment; it isn't any different from the stuff in the SRD, but it does a better job of laying a groundwork for the system.

All you have to do is look at the SRD and you can classify any character within those Nine Alignments. There are certainly some edge cases, but that just means there isn't enough information to decide, not that alignment is stupid.

Harperfan7
2009-12-02, 07:41 PM
This is the "all or nothing" crap that I hate about Alignment.

I can be an anarchist who thinks the government is oppressing my freedom, taxation is theft, and authority must prove itself to be respected, but I can still make a sacred and binding commitment to my true love.

Say I'm a swashbuckling rogue (not a Swashbuckler or a Rogue by class, just that I'm roguish and buckle my swash). I happily break laws with which I disagree, seduce other men's wives and would sooner steal than work for wages. Safe to say Chaotic, no?

But what if, at the same time, I consider my word to be my bond, would gladly die for a companion, would sooner fight an unwinable duel than endure or run from an insult, and make a point never to attack an unarmed foe or stab a man in the back?

This is not inconsistent for a character straight out of Dumas, but not one who fits into the nine space grid of D&D.

I'd say your example is neutral on the law-chaos axis, because he has a bunch of both. He fits.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 07:50 PM
Sure he does - Chaotic Good




In all honesty, I'd write CG on my sheet and play it that way, but here we have people arguing that "chaotic characters wouldn't get married" and other drivel. What I'm trying to establish is that you can have a character with traits from several conflicting Alignments, but that are perfectly reasonable in a character.

This is why the "What Alignment would Han Solo/Sam Vimes/Malcolm Reynolds be?" threads always end up in disagreement.

If the Alignment system were objective and clear, there would be widespread agreement.

Harperfan7
2009-12-02, 07:55 PM
But what if, at the same time, I consider my word to be my bond, would gladly die for a companion, would sooner fight an unwinable duel than endure or run from an insult, and make a point never to attack an unarmed foe or stab a man in the back?
who fits into the nine space grid of D&D.

I see 3 lawfuls and 1 good. Chivalry and chaotic don't really get along. But then, they consider Drizzt chaotic, so whatever.

Also, "but maybe it's just me" apparently doesn't count for anything.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 08:04 PM
I see 3 lawfuls and 1 good. Chivalry and chaotic don't really get along. But then, they consider Drizzt chaotic, so whatever.

Also, "but maybe it's just me" apparently doesn't count for anything.

Chivalry is a personal code of conduct. The Three Musketeers fight illegal duels, because a duel is the only acceptable way for a gentleman to respond to certain slights. They clearly brazenly disrespect the legitimate authority of the law of the land in keeping their personal code of honor.

While having a strict code of conduct is arguably lawful, it doesn't mean you will respect "legitimate authority." If you join a gang, you had best respect their code of conduct, but you clearly don't respect the legitimate authority of the government or police or courts.

I apologize if I went off at half **** at your post, but your last statement summed up the brick wall against which I have been beating my head for three threads now.

Riffington
2009-12-02, 08:28 PM
This is why the "What Alignment would Han Solo/Sam Vimes/Malcolm Reynolds be?" threads always end up in disagreement.

CN/NG/CG.


If the Alignment system were objective and clear, there would be widespread agreement.
No there wouldn't. This is the internet, where you get as much disagreement on the question "is bacon suitable for vegetarians".




I can be an anarchist who thinks the government is oppressing my freedom, taxation is theft, and authority must prove itself to be respected, but I can still make a sacred and binding commitment to my true love.

Say I'm a swashbuckling rogue (not a Swashbuckler or a Rogue by class, just that I'm roguish and buckle my swash). I happily break laws with which I disagree, seduce other men's wives and would sooner steal than work for wages. Safe to say Chaotic, no?

But what if, at the same time, I consider my word to be my bond, would gladly die for a companion, would sooner fight an unwinable duel than endure or run from an insult, and make a point never to attack an unarmed foe or stab a man in the back?

This is not inconsistent for a character straight out of Dumas, but not one who fits into the nine space grid of D&D.

You are Chaotic. Even your "opposing evidence" paragraph contains chaotic or chaotic-friendly stuff. You haven't given enough information to tell good/neutral/evil, of course, but that wasn't your goal.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-02, 09:29 PM
Willingness to obey orders to harm innocents, is willingness to harm innocents.
Yes, the former is a subcategory of the latter. Duh. Though I don't see how this addresses any of my points...


Not all acts are only evil because they "harm innocents" though.
Nor did I state, nor mean to imply, that that is the case.


Concerning "alignment dictates attitudes" the point to be made was (as written) the attitude the character is supposed to have, is tied to alignment, in PHB
What do you mean by "is supposed to have", here? Specifically, how does the meaning change if we replace that phrase with just "has", if this changes the meaning at all?


So, in a metagame sense, the alignment of the character, dictates the "attitudes" of that character.
What do you mean by "in a metagame sense"? Does this relationship correspond to something different in-game, and if so, what is it?


The closest thing to a grey area is Savage Species- which states the evil guys can be loving and compassionate to their in-group, and cruel to those outside that in-group.

Thus refuting PHB's "evil guys are either simply lacking in compassion, or outright sadistic"- with a third option- "kind to the few, cruel to the many"
Actually, the PHB says that "[a] creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment" (emphasis mine). The problem is that that's very vague. Are your general attitudes precisely those few broad perspectives that apply to your approach to everything, or are they just how you approach most things?

Suppose that a dwarf is compassionate towards most people, but actively seeks to hurt dark elves. He wants to make "the drow" suffer because of how "the drow" devastated his clan, and the fact that most of the particular dark elves that he attacks didn't personally do that, and that some of them didn't even do anything wrong, doesn't deter him.

The same dwarf could commit many very Good acts or many very Evil acts, depending on the circumstances he finds himself in. And this could happen without a change in attitude on his part... unless his attitude gets automagically adjusted.

Basically, behavior is circumstantial. How a person interacts with his environment depends on both the person and the environment. So either two people of the same alignment can greatly differ in how morally they act, or two people of the same basic intrinsic nature can have very different alignments. I find both of those possibilities counterintuitive. Quite frankly, I suspect that the alignment system was structured around moral intuitions that are mutually incompatible, and that this is at the root of its... if not outright inconsistency, then at least incoherence.

"Behavior changes one's intrinsic nature, regardless of how unrealistic this might be" does not strike me as a satisfying solution to this problem.


I was thinking that, in terms of judging this guys alignment, that one lawful act and one chaotic act would balance overall to a neutral act. Say, for instance that if you save a persons life, then have a change of heart later on and murder somebody, is the first act no longer good?
False analogy. False dichotomy. An insincere promise neither remains Lawful nor retroactively ceases to be Lawful once you break it, because it wasn't Lawful in the first place. If anything, it was Chaotic because it was dishonest. On the other hand, making a sincere promise might count as Lawful. I think that that's how Planescape: Torment did it.

I think that the Chaos of breaking a sincere promise might outweigh the Law of making it, though, since you're both breaking your word and being flexible, changing your mind. But then, maybe we should also count some of the cases where the promise was kept as Lawful.


Really, don't those two descriptions fit said character perfectly?
No, they don't. The conclusion that a thieving adulterer is altruistic because he'd give his life for a close friend seems dubious at best. Mostly because in this context, it implies that he's especially altruistic, rather than at all altruistic to some degree, like, y'know, the vast majority of human beings. Also, he'd do what he promised even if he didn't feel like it.

Actually, sacrificing yourself for others to whom you're personally committed is explicitly within the bounds of Neutral alignment. I'm honestly not sure where you're getting Good here, except perhaps from the long-standing but bizarre expectation by some folks that Chaotic characters will act one step more Evil than their alignments say. (Even, nay especially, the CE ones. :smalleek:)


What I'm trying to establish is that you can have a character with traits from several conflicting Alignments, but that are perfectly reasonable in a character.
Well, alignments do tend to overlap with each other, but I'm not convinced that this is a failing. It seems like a key to getting the system to work at all, given the how broad each alignment has to be in order for the alignments to theoretically cover everyone. If a Neutral guy is kind to his friends and cruel to his enemies, it does not seem inappropriate to say that each of those traits is an instance of a more general trait, and those more general traits are opposed to each other, and balance out in this case.

One problem is how much to weigh specific things in the balancing, but another problem is what the general traits we're supposed to be looking at in the first place are. If Law is supposed to be adherence to a standard of honor, which standard of honor? Any damn standard you feel like? Is it about honesty, or devotion to well-established institutions? If those are both supposed to be instances of a more general trait, what is it? If Chaos more than the absence of Law, what is it? And if Chaos is simply the absence of Law, what's Neutrality?

Law and Chaos are so vague that they're often associated with traits that do not inherently have anything to with interpersonal interaction at all. Planning? Spontaneity? Organization? Insanity? Emotion vs. Stoicism? These are not moral nor ethical traits and do not belong in alignment at all.


Even your "opposing evidence" paragraph contains chaotic or chaotic-friendly stuff.
It's Lawful or Lawful-friendly stuff, dude.

Consistently keeping your word, even when it hurts, is Lawful and not Chaotic. Being a reliable friend? Reliability is a Lawful trait. Fighting fair and unwillingness to tolerate insults are instances of honor. Honor is a Lawful trait.

This is assuming that we're actually going off of the d20 alignment descriptions.

Haarkla
2009-12-02, 10:10 PM
I am having trouble determining what alignment this guy would be by D&D's standards;

He fought in some wars, and hates most elves as a result. He has no problems putting the torch to countless peasants' crops so long as it contributes to winning the war (scorched earth). He also looks at killing the enemy as a "job". As a mercenary, he has taken part in many overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth (Think vikings. Nothing personal against those they've raided, if they would just give them the goods, his guys wouldn't have to kill them!) and fame. He also has a family and wife, who he loves, but has cheated on, and would again with the right person.

Soooooo.... Anybody want to take a stab at this?
This guy is evil. He looks at killing as a job, is a bigot (against elves), has no problems attacking innocent civilians and destroying their livelyhood, takes what he wants and kills those who resist, and has cheated on his wife.

He is probably Neutral Evil.

Riffington
2009-12-02, 10:14 PM
It's Lawful or Lawful-friendly stuff, dude.

Consistently keeping your word, even when it hurts, is Lawful and not Chaotic. Being a reliable friend? Reliability is a Lawful trait. Fighting fair and unwillingness to tolerate insults are instances of honor. Honor is a Lawful trait.

This is assuming that we're actually going off of the d20 alignment descriptions.

Sorta-kinda-not really. Your word. Not the word of your liege or your town council. Companion not strangers as prescribed by your duties. Not clear where you added in reliability (read too much into "word is bond"?), but unwillingness to tolerate insults is a Chaotic's honor. A Lawful man must swallow his pride much more often. A Lawful honor does not come from personal pride, it comes from loyalty/fealty/the Constitution. A different animal, and one much more willing to abide an insult. The "fighting fair" stuff you're probably right about, but the paragraph included a rather limited set of fighting fair rules.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 10:18 PM
Well, alignments do tend to overlap with each other, but I'm not convinced that this is a failing. It seems like a key to getting the system to work at all, given the how broad each alignment has to be in order for the alignments to theoretically cover everyone. If a Neutral guy is kind to his friends and cruel to his enemies, it does not seem inappropriate to say that each of those traits is an instance of a more general trait, and those more general traits are opposed to each other, and balance out in this case.



Overlap is one thing, facets from diametrically opposing Alignments probably shouldn't. If there was a debate over whether a character was CN or CG or N, that I can understand, but if we come up with LN or CN, or CG, that's not "overlap."

I think my example is a reasonable character who could be lumped in a bunch of different categories, depending on the action witnessed. Pinning him down, I would think be difficult.

Callista
2009-12-02, 11:33 PM
I think its really defined by his culture: Theres a great quote by Eric Flint in his 1632 series about something like this: "There just f'ing up in a f'ed up world".

By the defintions presented, i would say most cultures historically would be evil. Germanic tribes? evil. Vikings? evil. Majority of tribes in Africa prior to european invasion? REALLY evil. (Constant slave trading through raids, then sold to arabs, then to the europeans to send to americas). Sparta, Alexander, Julius Caesar...The list goes on.

Ill take one example:Alexander. Conquered Persian empire for personal glory(evil), killed thousands of people in the cities that resisted(evil), slept with multiple wives(evil)...

In fact, by the defintions presented, i cant think of one culture that has ever been good.

Edit for Further point: Remember, the main basis of western philosophy, (The Bible) was at first not 'Thou shalt not Kill', but Thou shalt not Murder. Theres a key difference that tends to define evil in the modern world, IMO.That's because most cultures are not Good. In fact, I think you are right in saying that, for the most part, the best you can hope for is Neutral. Individuals can be Good-aligned, but for an entire human culture to manage it is just plain impossible. Humanity is mostly true neutral. Thankfully modern cultures tend to be different flavors of neutral rather than straight-out evil (I think I've mentioned somewhere around here that the USA tends to have a basically CN mindset, for example)... occasionally evil, but I can't think of a single example of a Good real-life country, if you don't count the first few years of the most idealistic nations on the planet (after which they quickly degenerated to neutral or sometimes evil).

But this adds another complication: Even in Evil cultures (Vikings, let's say), where Evil acts are condoned or encouraged, most people are still true neutral. So if you want to create a realistic country, you can actually create an Evil Empire with most of its citizens--and most of its soldiers--being true neutral, even if they're not being oppressed by your BBEG. Just average, everyday joes who were told, "Here, your assignment is to guard the Evil Fortress of Evilness. What, don't like it? Well, good luck trying to find a different job in this economy." Lovely little moral conundrum, that. It's easy enough to go and slaughter your basic evil consorting-with-demons wizard, but the guy who guards his front door, or the guy who delivers his eye of newt every second Thursday? Not so easy.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-02, 11:45 PM
Overlap is one thing, facets from diametrically opposing Alignments probably shouldn't.
Facets of diametrically opposed alignments mix together in the middle Neutral alignment. Neutral basically is the overlap between Good and Evil, or Law and Chaos. (Alternately, rather than the roughly equal presence of both, it can be the absence of either.)

But anyway, my point was that, on the one hand, there's clarifying which things are covered by each of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil. Which is a complicated issue in itself. But once you've done that, there's still the matter of figuring out where on a given spectrum a character falls, which can be difficult to do even if you've already worked out a clear set of standards.

I'd say that, if, after you've established what each of the alignments is, you could still persuasively argue that a character is Lawful or Chaotic, that strongly indicates that he's actually Neutral. Similarly, if he's strongly Good and strongly Evil, that adds up to Neutral. Even if this is an earth-shaking individual whose deeds and traits are of such magnitude that there's surely a very significant surplus on one side of an alignment axis, in absolute terms... if, after ten minutes of consideration, you still can't figure out which side of the axis the surplus falls on, you're probably best off just calling him Neutral. That's the only practical way to implement the system.

In practice, that makes your alignment more about the relative difference between your Goodness and your Evilness, your Lawfulness and your Chaoticness. Fine. So be it. Upon reflection, I actually think that makes more sense in a whole bunch of ways.

Riffington
2009-12-03, 07:43 AM
Incidentally, Musketeers "straight out of Dumas" (neutral on the law-chaos scale if not the good-evil) are much more lawful than Mike's examples. The Musketeers do not believe authority needs to prove itself - they believe it must be obeyed even when it's proved itself evil - unless it's actually treasonous. Richelieu is their archenemy. They thwart his plans whenever they can get away with it. But when their duty is to follow Richelieu's orders and defend Richelieu's words with their lives - the do their duty. They follow the laws that apply to Musketeers (by and large) even when those are onerous.

dsmiles
2009-12-03, 07:56 AM
Neutral.

I mean... he sounds like a typical medieval mercenary - he doesn't rape & pillage (just pillage), he's part of an organization (and takes orders) but doesn't care much for fidelity.

I mean, if he wasn't swinging a sword, he could just be another average peasant - he does what he's told for his job, looks out for himself, but occasionally indulges in vices.

Seconded. Definitely not lawful or good. I don't see him as evil, and chaotic doesn't fit, because he can take orders and doesn't seem to rebel against authority.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 08:03 AM
Most criminal organizations probably prefer simply robbing people to doing more than that- since it results in outrage and crackdowns.

That doesn't make violent criminals neutral merely because they are "less evil" than they have the opportunity to be.

What makes "raids" so different from mugging writ large- when its not in time of war?

The general rule is "violent criminals are Evil," I think- maybe in the Wikipedia summary of alignment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

It does appear to say that- though I suppose it could have been gotten wrong.

that said, given the phrasing

"if they didn't pay up we wouldn't have had to attack them"

it seems to me that the organization the mercenary belongs to, is just a thinly veiled criminal organization specializing in blackmail (in the old sense, when blackmail meant "pay or be robbed")

Gorilla2038
2009-12-03, 01:01 PM
Well, it seems your saying all, perhaps the best word would be unrighteous, killing is evil: No disagreement in a real world sense, but in D&D terms its problematical.

That means only people who hunt and kill only things that are pure evil can still be Good. Afterall, an orc is a living, intelligent creature, one who breathes, loves, and might have children and a wife.

Does that sound fair?

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 02:03 PM
Not really. Its not that killing is evil in all circumstances- just that these particular circumstances, seem particularly dubious.

Its a bit like a hold-up man who shoots the person when they refuse to give up their money- most people would say that is Evil.

By contrast, a person defending themselves against such a hold-up man- and killing them in the process, would not be deemed to be acting Evil- people have the right to defend their own lives from attackers.

This is the best justification for adventuring- villages are being raided- and the adventurer goes out and puts a stop to the raids.

If the DM is feeling generous, there might even be a non-violent solution.

In Origin of PCs, Roy discovers that there was a misunderstanding, that the orcs are not there with aggressive intentions, and the orcs leave in peace.

Much to the the disgust of Roy's fellow party members at the time.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-03, 05:34 PM
The original character engages in scorched-earth tactics. Most cultures do not. Scorched-earth is liable to kill many people through famine. That is rather evil. Many historical cultures live through plunder and mass killings and the like. But not all of them are evil (if they are all evil, the following argument is irrelevant).
That's because generally they use a semblance of proportional force. Killing the enemy army full of men with wives and children and moral lives is proportional force, necessary to stop the threat, and not terribly evil. Dooming many peasants to death by famine, especially when you don't need to quell their rebellion or anything of the sort, is fairly evil.

Shpadoinkle
2009-12-03, 06:26 PM
I'd say he's TN with some mild NE leanings.

Riffington
2009-12-03, 09:18 PM
Well, it seems your saying all, perhaps the best word would be unrighteous, killing is evil: No disagreement in a real world sense, but in D&D terms its problematical.

That means only people who hunt and kill only things that are pure evil can still be Good. Afterall, an orc is a living, intelligent creature, one who breathes, loves, and might have children and a wife.

Does that sound fair?

Well, what are you doing to orcs? Are you defending a town against orcish invaders, responding to lethal force with lethal force? Or are you hunting down orcs just because they are orcs, and slaughtering them?

If your goal is to hunt intelligent beings down and kill them for who they are (as opposed to what they've done), you are evil. I don't see a problem here from any D&D point of view.

deuxhero
2009-12-03, 09:41 PM
Is it only elfs he is raiding/killing? In that case as far as I understand the alignment system, it makes him Chaotic Good.

If he does non-elfs, CN.

Gorilla2038
2009-12-04, 12:14 AM
Well, what are you doing to orcs? Are you defending a town against orcish invaders, responding to lethal force with lethal force? Or are you hunting down orcs just because they are orcs, and slaughtering them?

If your goal is to hunt intelligent beings down and kill them for who they are (as opposed to what they've done), you are evil. I don't see a problem here from any D&D point of view.

Thats the real problem isnt it? People are saying that alignment is objective: that is that killing in self defense is right, and not killing in self defense is wrong.

If thats the case, the NG adventurer that goes and hits up the local dungeon to grind goblins for loot is evil*. Doesnt this make it impossible to be a Good adventurer, in a campaign in which the DM isnt willing to throw out any pure evil baddies?

*(Personally, i think apathy is more neutral, but hey, thats me.)

P.S. Always nice to see another sluggy fan. Internet Air Five.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-04, 12:52 AM
Sorta-kinda-not really.
YA RLY!


Your word. Not the word of your liege or your town council.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos)

This is assuming that we're actually going off of the d20 alignment descriptions.


Companion not strangers as prescribed by your duties. Not clear where you added in reliability (read too much into "word is bond"?)
If someone "would gladly die for a companion", I sorta assume that you can generally count on him to back you up. You can certainly count on this guy to do what he says. In what sense is he unreliable? What do people need him to do that he doesn't do?


unwillingness to tolerate insults is a Chaotic's honor. A Lawful man must swallow his pride much more often. A Lawful honor does not come from personal pride, it comes from loyalty/fealty/the Constitution. A different animal, and one much more willing to abide an insult.
So, is that based on anything in a rulebook, or did you just make that up?

And I thought that you were sayin' that personal loyalty ain't Lawful a moment ago. Maybe you used overly broad terminology here for what you meant?


The "fighting fair" stuff you're probably right about, but the paragraph included a rather limited set of fighting fair rules.
Well, what's more likely: That those are the only combat restrictions he abides by, or that they're part of a more general respect for fair play?

To me, they look they're both applications of the principle "An opponent should not be denied the ability to defend himself", and I would expect other applications of that principle.


Is it only elfs he is raiding/killing? In that case as far as I understand the alignment system, it makes him Chaotic Good.

If he does non-elfs, CN.

A lawful evil villain ... condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.
I'd be downright worried about you if you hadn't added that qualifier. I'm a bit curious as to just what misconception led you to your conclusion. Care to enlighten me?


Thats the real problem isnt it?
How is it a problem?


People are saying that alignment is objective: that is that killing in self defense is right, and not killing in self defense is wrong.
Eh? No one here has suggested that pacifism is Evil. Not that I noticed.


If thats the case, the NG adventurer that goes and hits up the local dungeon to grind goblins for loot is evil*.
I'm pretty sure that you have to remove "NG" from that statement to get anything that anyone actually thinks; I don't think that anyone thinks that you can be Neutral Good and also Evil. :smallconfused:

Maybe what you mean is that the archetypal D&D Good Guy murders green, ugly, fanged people and takes their stuff, and so doing that should make you an official Good Guy in D&D? Or maybe that Good and Evil creatures are just supposed to be opposing factions that kill each other for no in-game reason, instead actually being characterized as different from each other? Is any of that what you're trying to say?


Doesnt this make it impossible to be a Good adventurer, in a campaign in which the DM isnt willing to throw out any pure evil baddies?
Um... Not at all. The DM need only "throw out" "baddies" that attack the PCs or innocent people for whatever reason. They don't have to all be demons who want to torture your soul for a million years. Instead of pure Good versus pure Evil, you can just have relatively normal, mundane Good against relatively normal, mundane Evil.

Riffington
2009-12-04, 04:56 PM
If someone "would gladly die for a companion", I sorta assume that you can generally count on him to back you up. You can certainly count on this guy to do what he says. In what sense is he unreliable? What do people need him to do that he doesn't do?
Really? I know plenty of people who would die for their closest friend but would be late to their own funeral. Willingness to put in a lot of effort/suffer a lot of pain/die for something one believes in is completely unrelated to whether one is reliable. This guy seduces married women and breaks laws. Not necessarily very predictable.



So, is that based on anything in a rulebook, or did you just make that up?

It's based on something in a rulebook: "obedience to authority". More importantly it's based on something in history: duelling. Virtually universally, every society has had to find ways to reduce duelling and other violent responses to insults. Whether the society has made it outright illegal or simply difficult and formulaic, the rules are designed to reduce the response that the average person would want to bring to bear. A lawful person must respect those rules and wait for satisfaction (or forgo it entirely). A chaotic one may hasten his satisfaction - and the sheer number of illegal duels fought by Musketeers (the era we are talking about) make it clear that the Chaotic man may satisfy his honor with blood whereas the Lawful man is more likely to have to sit and take it (if from a superior) or try to come up with a retort (if the insult is not from a superior)



And I thought that you were sayin' that personal loyalty ain't Lawful a moment ago. Maybe you used overly broad terminology here for what you meant?
Loyalty to a person based on your friendship with him is Chaotic.
Loyalty to an institution or authority based on tradition is Lawful.



Well, what's more likely: That those are the only combat restrictions he abides by, or that they're part of a more general respect for fair play?
Dunno, and neither do you.



Um... Not at all. The DM need only "throw out" "baddies" that attack the PCs or innocent people for whatever reason. They don't have to all be demons who want to torture your soul for a million years. Instead of pure Good versus pure Evil, you can just have relatively normal, mundane Good against relatively normal, mundane Evil.

Very much agreed.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 05:04 PM
I was thinking that (at least based on his characterization in the first post) he was fairly close to "normal, mundane Evil"

Savage Species characterization of at least some forms of Evil as "loyal and loving to friends and family- horrible to those outside their in-group" seems to fit well with this.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-04, 05:12 PM
I was thinking that (at least based on his characterization in the first post) he was fairly close to "normal, mundane Evil"

Savage Species characterization of at least some forms of Evil as "loyal and loving to friends and family- horrible to those outside their in-group" seems to fit well with this.

But that describes neutral according to PHB.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 05:22 PM
Neutral: "Has compunctions against harming the innocent"

The Savage species Evil guy has no problem with that- if, they are "the enemy"

Though this is more Evil with Neutral Shadings.

PHB Evil alignment focusses more on the evil personality type with them being either lacking in compassion and killing if convenient, or killing for sport.

Whereas Savage Species evil is more the guy who goes off to work, commits atrocities, comes home, and plays with his family.

I find this kind of evil a bit more realistic in many ways. And scarier, often.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-12-04, 05:28 PM
I am having trouble determining what alignment this guy would be by D&D's standards;

He fought in some wars, and hates most elves as a result. He has no problems putting the torch to countless peasants' crops so long as it contributes to winning the war (scorched earth). He also looks at killing the enemy as a "job". As a mercenary, he has taken part in many overseas raids in pursuit of personal wealth (Think vikings. Nothing personal against those they've raided, if they would just give them the goods, his guys wouldn't have to kill them!) and fame. He also has a family and wife, who he loves, but has cheated on, and would again with the right person.
Some flavor of Evil. If you really need written precedent, willingness to kill for cash is what assassins have.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 05:33 PM
which is another example of massive contention.

Its not so much the killing for cash that's the issue (a lot of adventuring can come across as a bit like this "Kill this monster, and we will give you big reward") more who he is killing.

"raids in pursuit of wealth" combined with "if they didn't give us the goods, we wouldn't have to kill them" makes him seem like the nastier kind of pirate or highwayman.

"Your money or your life" applied to whole towns or villages, instead of individuals.

That and the "Think Vikings" which made me think of the whole Danegeld issue.

Riffington
2009-12-04, 05:36 PM
But that describes neutral according to PHB.

PHB: People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 05:39 PM
Defining innocent can be tricky.

Still "raids in pursuit of personal wealth" does make it sound like the victims haven't done anything in particular to "deserve" being raided.

The bit about "Scorched Earth" also seems to suggest he has no problems with actions that cause "ordinary peasants" to suffer and die, as long as it gets him what he wants- a win.

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 07:21 PM
I'd say probably neutral evil, though depending on things unsaid he might be lawful or chaotic.

How does he deal with authority figures, tradition? Does/would he cheat at cards? Does he feel loyalty to any particular institutions?