Good & Evil

[Forai]

To put it bluntly, I always see comments about the alignment system, and basically I just wanted to start a conversation and see counterpoints

My view on good and evil is this, for an act to be considered good you have to have the intention of it being good, and for it to be evil it has to be malicious

A person wants to poison another person with no other intention then to kill them, They do some research and fail a knowledge check, thinking milk is poisonous to certain people, they get some milk and spike a drink, then prestidigitation to make it taste normal, Drinks the drink and nothing happens

Bam, Evil act

Inversely

Krugthor the paladin has an artifact of holy power to pelor, Carries around because he believes that one day pelor will need it. One day as he's waking up, He sees a shining pelor come down from the sky "Krugthor! I require that [insert symbol] for a war that is coming in the astral plane!" "YAH YAH KRUGTHOR GIVE!", fails a sense motive, knowledge religion (for what pelor would look like) and has NO sensing of anything bad from this

Good act, Helping out a deity and giving an artifact

the 'pelor' in this picture was actually a wizard doppelganger with a flight spell and prestidigitation to make himself glow, Said wizard doppelganger becomes a reoccurring villain using said artifact

I will state GROSS NEGLIGENCE as one of those where alignment would get mucky, The evil example, if he rolled a high knowledge (alchemy) or fill in your own knowledge here, and KNEW milk was not poisonous, Attempting to poison someone with something you knew wasn't poisonous or had reason to believe was not would not affect alignment however swinging your sword around town wildly for no other reason then you can and accidentally critting the barmaid with a vorpal would be a gross negligence example I'd penalize Mr paladin for

What's your opinion people after that wall o' text

[Ravens_cry]

*grabs popcorn*
I have a love/hate relationship with alignment threads. I love responding to them, the give and take of discussion, point and counter point. But there's so many, and the same points are hashed and rehashed literally ad nauseum. . . and there seems to be no right answer. I hate that.

[Harperfan7]

If a person honestly doesn't know (or even think) that an act he did is evil, I don't see him ending up on a lower plane for it.

The evilness of the act would stain the soul of whoever is actually responsible.

I think its as simple as that.

[Eldariel]

Ad Nauseam! (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=174915)

[Bibliomancer]

An interesting idea, but I don't really see it cutting both ways. I'd think that an act would revert to neutral if you don't know what you're doing (similar to all acts by mindless animals being neutral). An evil act done in ignorance would simply count as a neutral act, and vice versa. Attempting to poison someone is not evil, although it is malicious. If it were, evil thoughts (a paladin's flash of irritation resulting in a thought of "I wish they would die") would rapidly condemn all of humanity to the Pit under the Pact Primeval. I think that you're judged by your actions, but a lack of knowledge can negate their affect on one's alignment, positively or negatively.

[Forai]

An interesting idea, but I don't really see it cutting both ways. I'd think that an act would revert to neutral if you don't know what you're doing (similar to all acts by mindless animals being neutral). An evil act done in ignorance would simply count as a neutral act, and vice versa. Attempting to poison someone is not evil, although it is malicious. If it were, evil thoughts (a paladin's flash of irritation resulting in a thought of "I wish they would die") would rapidly condemn all of humanity to the Pit under the Pact Primeval. I think that you're judged by your actions, but a lack of knowledge can negate their affect on one's alignment, positively or negatively.


Re: the "I wish they'd die" That constitutes a desire, but I wouldn't state it constitutes a murder, just the 'want to murder that will not turn to murder'

likewise if you're driving on the road and somebody cuts you off "Jesus that guy needs to have a date with a tree" You're not cutting him off the road to potentially injure/kill him, you're just stating your discontent towards a particular person

Unless you say "I wish so and so was dead" and are knowingly wishing as per the spell, then you know they're going to die and you are the cause of it

[Rainbownaga]

With the artifact of the burning hate Pelor example, would there not be a moral obligation to right the wrong. Just because an act is not perceived to be wrong at the time doesn't mean that the act wasn't wrong.

I would assume to most codes that if someone commits a deed that causes undeserved harm to another that they must do something to atone for their act to be considered 'good'. Neutral, yes, but the pang of guilt they feel should indicate something.

Likewise, someone who poisons someone with milk, realizes their mistake and just shrugs it off is doing a rather lame job of being evil.

[Lysander]

According to RAW being good only requires "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." So you can accidentally promote evil and still be good as long as you attempted to behave in a good manner. In the case of gross negligence your alignment would be determined by whether you attempt to right the wrong you caused.

[Devils_Advocate]

Attempting to poison someone is not evil, although it is malicious. If it were, evil thoughts (a paladin's flash of irritation resulting in a thought of "I wish they would die") would rapidly condemn all of humanity to the Pit under the Pact Primeval.
Unless you're talking to a genie, here's a great big difference between wishing death on someone and actually trying to kill a person. The latter is attempted murder. In fact, what you're saying is quite like "If trying to kill someone were a crime, then we'd all deserve life sentences. Hasn't everyone wanted someone dead at one point or another?"


I think that you're judged by your actions, but a lack of knowledge can negate their affect on one's alignment, positively or negatively.
Why not just judge actions based on intent, rather than consequences? I mean, how would you even actually implement the latter? I'm imagining the DM rolling a bunch of dice and then declaring "Saving the princess begins a long and convoluted series of events that leads to the downfall of the kingdom to legions of demons centuries in the future. You're all Chaotic Evil now." Saying that the party's actions were merely Neutral seems like halfway to doing things the sensible way.

[Geiger Counter]

Personally i think there should definitely be a deity of incompetence who other deities pawn off worshippers to when they have demonstrated stupidity great enough for the deity to reject the worshipper.

[Lysander]

Yes! Fugup, deity of good intentions, incompetence, failure, lack of foresight, and low wisdom. His domains are good, destruction, and madness.

Long ago he attempted to create a kingdom for his followers on Mount Celestia, but failed the creation spell and accidentally summoned it on the road to Avernus. Any deity (or sentient plane) sufficiently fed up with a petitioner can send them to eternally walk in circles on the hell road.

[The Tygre]

.............................Chaos (I do what I want)
...............................................+
...............................................+
Good (For others)<-----------Neutral---------> Evil (For myself)
...............................................+
...............................................+
..............................Law (I do what I must)

Never failed me in the past.

[Thajocoth]

Yes! Fugup, deity of good intentions, incompetence, failure, lack of foresight, and low wisdom. His domains are good, destruction, and madness.

Long ago he attempted to create a kingdom for his followers on Mount Celestia, but failed the creation spell and accidentally summoned it on the road to Avernus. Any deity (or sentient plane) sufficiently fed up with a petitioner can send them to eternally walk in circles on the hell road.

The afterlife for his worshipers could all be one big group therapy session.

[Riffington]

Unless you're talking to a genie, here's a great big difference between wishing death on someone and actually trying to kill a person.

This. A flash of irritation has a long way to go before it gets to an attempt.

[Optimystik]

.............................Chaos (I do what I want)
...............................................+
...............................................+
Good (For others)<-----------Neutral---------> Evil (For myself)
...............................................+
...............................................+
..............................Law (I do what I must)

Never failed me in the past.

I like it. I may just sig that.

[Devils_Advocate]

What if you do what you must, because you can, for the good of all of us (except the ones who are dead)?

[Eldonauran]

I wholeheartedly believe that it is the motivation behind the act that determines whether or not the act was good, evil, lawful or chaotic. It may turn out the decision was a bad one, but that doesn't make it evil (giving artifact to mad wizard). Hell, the decision might have been the right one but that doesn't make it good (killing an innocent to save hundreds of others).

Alignment is not subjective in D&D, it is written as if in stone. People's perception may be skewed due to the fact that they don't know what the motivations were and people may be able to justify certain actions by deceiving themselves but it is ultimately futile.

Wish the real world worked like that, don't ya?

[snoopy13a]

I will state GROSS NEGLIGENCE as one of those where alignment would get mucky, The evil example, if he rolled a high knowledge (alchemy) or fill in your own knowledge here, and KNEW milk was not poisonous, Attempting to poison someone with something you knew wasn't poisonous or had reason to believe was not would not affect alignment however swinging your sword around town wildly for no other reason then you can and accidentally critting the barmaid with a vorpal would be a gross negligence example I'd penalize Mr paladin for



Negligence is when you should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk but do it anyway because you aren't aware of it. Negligence uses a reasonable person standard. Gross Negligence is when you should have really, really, really known better. A homicide with gross negligence is manslaughter in some jurisictions. In others, it is criminally negligent homicide.

Recklessness is when you are aware that your behavior can create a substantial and unjustifiable risk but you do it anyway. Basic reckless homicide is usually manslaughther.

Intentional is pretty much self-explanatory. This is usually murder.

A true idiot who doesn't realize swinging around a vorpal sword is dangerous is not evil but very few people would be negligent in this case. Instead, that behavior would constitute recklessness for the vast majority of people. In fact, that would likely be "depraved heart" recklessness that would constitute malice and a murder charge.

So no, negligence and gross negligence should not be considered evil but they can be punishable. Recklessness, on the other hand, can be considered evil.

[krossbow]

i think half the time issues people have with this system is simply because it makes people uncomfortable.


"This interpretation of the good/evil axis would mean i wouldn't be good... It HAS to be wrong!". People make excuses; people challenge things. They try and find justifications for acts, to argue that the system itself is overly critical.

YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT GOOD. all of us, by very DEFINITION of the alignment axis, are probably neutral. Good is not "average"; good is above and beyond the call. Mother teresa, martin luther king, ect. are good; the average person (I.E., you) would only be good enough to be neutral.

to admit that the system is correct would be to admit one's own faults, which is something people are not willing to do. As ochul would say, deeds, not words.

[Thajocoth]

What if you do what you must, because you can, for the good of all of us (except the ones who are dead)?

I'll be GLaD to clarify that:

Doing what you must is Lawful. Doing it because you can is Chaotic. Doing it for the good of all of us is Good. Killing people in the process of doing it (which is what's hinted at there) is Evil.

So now the alignment should now be quite clear.


i think half the time issues people have with this system is simply because it makes people uncomfortable.


"This interpretation of the good/evil axis would mean i wouldn't be good... It HAS to be wrong!". People make excuses; people challenge things. They try and find justifications for acts, to argue that the system itself is overly critical.

YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT GOOD. all of us, by very DEFINITION of the alignment axis, are probably neutral. Good is not "average"; good is above and beyond the call. Mother teresa, martin luther king, ect. are good; the average person (I.E., you) would only be good enough to be neutral.

to admit that the system is correct would be to admit one's own faults, which is something people are not willing to do. As ochul would say, deeds, not words.

This is so true! And it was earlier today that I realized it about myself... I know people who pretty much match every alignment (except maybe Chaotic Evil... Though I'm not 100% sure...), and the truly Good people I know waste so much time and/or resources doing things that appear to help people, and they think it does, but I can see that it actually doesn't do anything (with one very self-sacrificing exception who's now having incredible financial difficulties as a result. I really wish I could help her out, but I'd need, like, half a mil. And I'd totally loan it to her too). I mean, I'm not an average person by any stretch of the imagination, but I realize that doesn't mean I have to be morally above the average person.

[hamishspence]

.............................Chaos (I do what I want)
...............................................+
...............................................+
Good (For others)<-----------Neutral---------> Evil (For myself)
...............................................+
...............................................+
..............................Law (I do what I must)

Never failed me in the past.

I'm a bit wary of assuming "For Others" and "For Myself" are synonymous with Good and Evil-

its quite possible for acts motivated by "the good of others" to be exceptionally harmful to individuals. And similarly, acts motivated by personal gain do not have to harm others.

Ozymandias in Watchmen uses "preserving the human species" as his excuse for mass-murder.

[Frozen_Feet]

My idea has always been that in case of morality, both the act and the reasoning behind it matter. An evil act done with good intentions is still evil, but less so than evil act done with evil intentions, and so on. Also, alignment isn't binary - it accumulates. One evil act after a thousand good won't send you to the other side immediatly, though that one act will still come to bite you in the arse. Similarly, petting a dog once in a blue moon won't save your soul if you're a pityless mass-murderer, though you'll get you reward for that isolated good act.

I agree that Tygre's graph is quite good. However, to all those people already tearing it down, I have to remind you that no plan survives contact with the enemy - any moral model is bound to fall apart in utter extremes, or if you pull the loose strands apart long enough.

[Eldonauran]

I'm a bit wary of assuming "For Others" and "For Myself" are synonymous with Good and Evil-

its quite possible for acts motivated by "the good of others" to be exceptionally harmful to individuals. And similarly, acts motivated by personal gain do not have to harm others.

Ozymandias in Watchmen uses "preserving the human species" as his excuse for mass-murder.

Yeah. I believe that's called being 'delusional'. Evil does it all the time. It will masquerade as good for as long as it can while doing as much damage as it can. This is the reason I dislike the term 'greater good'.


i think half the time issues people have with this system is simply because it makes people uncomfortable.

Came right out and said it, didn't you? Good job. I agree 100% with your entire post.

[hamishspence]

True- the generalization that strong selfishness and evil alignment tend to be corellated (as are strong selflessness and good alignment is fairly sound in D&D- its the exceptions, for example:

"harmful act for selfless reasons"

"generous act, which involves some quite strong sacrifice, for selfish reasons"

that tend to trip it up.

The most common excuse for an apparently horrible act being "good" seems to be utilitarian- "It was for the good of the many"

[Eldonauran]

The most common excuse for an apparently horrible act being "good" seems to be utilitarian- "It was for the good of the many"

Yeah, I don't buy that whole 'for the good of many/greater good' thing. An evil act is an evil act, especially in the world of D&D. How the deed is judged in the material plane is one matter but you can be sure there will be major repercussions for the people responsible in the after life.

Right and wrong is conditional. Good, evil, law and chaos are absolute.

[Frozen_Feet]

The notion is only problematic if the net result is the first and only thing to be considered - even if evil act causes more good in the long run, it doesn't do squat to redeem the person who did the act.

[DabblerWizard]

I would guess that there are at least a dozen different theories on morality, not to mention numerous subtypes, including modern conceptualizations of classical theories.

Based on an ethics class I took in college, here are some of the major ones.

Consequentialism: To determine if you're committing a "good" act, consider the outcome of your behavior.

- Egoistic Hedonism: The most immediately available pleasure for myself, at any given time, is the only "good" action that matters.

- Classical Utilitarianism: The best kind of life involves bringing about the greatest amount of happiness for as many people as possible, though mental pleasures are inherently better than physical pleasures.

Deontology: To determine if you're committing a "good" act, figure out if you're following the right set of rules. Intent is key.

- Kant's Moral Theory: It is your duty to do good. An act with "good will" is good. Happiness is a largely unimportant goal, and doesn't have an impact on the morality of an action.

Virtue Ethics: To determine if you're committing a "good" act, consider whether you are being a good person, whether you are doing what a good person would do. Both intention and outcome are important.

- Hursthouse: An ethical person doesn't just act morally, they possess (and exhibit) ideal traits, including goodness, honesty, temperance etc, and continue to hone the expression of these traits in their every day lives.

[Math_Mage]

"They tempted me...and I fell, for which I was reviled, for which I paid a heavy price. Yet, had I not fallen, it is very likely that the War of the Lance would have been lost. How does that thread weave into the grand design?"
-Raistlin Majere, Mage of the Black Robes.

No, alignment isn't an easy thing to quantify.

[Erts]

(except maybe Chaotic Evil... Though I'm not 100% sure...)

You don't have to be the Joker to be CE, I there are plenty of real life examples.

I think that the post you were responding to was right, as well as the Tygre's, in general.
I think that while extreme stupid which causes extreme evil, even if the motivation and intention was for good, while it certainly doesn't make the act evil, certainly doesn't make it good. If you tried and failed, then that's good, if you were tricked by something that was totally unseen, then that's good, but I can't see how you could argue that if one blindly does something stupid that is still somehow good.

"The road to hell is paved by good intentions."

(Well, that's not referring to what I mean, but, whatever. Quote seems appropriate there.)

[Wardog]

My view on good and evil is this, for an act to be considered good you have to have the intention of it being good, and for it to be evil it has to be malicious

I agree, for the examples you gave. Attempted murder is as evil* as successful murder (regardless of Sideshow Bob's views), while being tricked into giving something useful to an evil person is not evil in itself.

However, I think there are numerous instances where your rule wouldn't work (or at least have counter-intuitive results). Many of the most evil people in real-life thought they were doing "good" (I won't give examples because that would likely break forum rules).


*At least, if the failure is simply due to your plan not working for some reason. If you failed due to a sudden onset of morality that might be different.




i think half the time issues people have with this system is simply because it makes people uncomfortable.


"This interpretation of the good/evil axis would mean i wouldn't be good... It HAS to be wrong!". People make excuses; people challenge things. They try and find justifications for acts, to argue that the system itself is overly critical.

YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT GOOD. all of us, by very DEFINITION of the alignment axis, are probably neutral. Good is not "average"; good is above and beyond the call. Mother teresa, martin luther king, ect. are good; the average person (I.E., you) would only be good enough to be neutral.

to admit that the system is correct would be to admit one's own faults, which is something people are not willing to do. As ochul would say, deeds, not words.

I'm not sure if that is what the alignment rules intend, but I've often thought that that would be a good way to deal with it. Just as humans are treated as the baseline for racial abilities, average human ethics could be treated as the baseline for neutral alignment. To have an alignment of "Good"/"Evil"/"Lawful"/"Chaotic" you would have to be significantly more good/evil/lawful/chaotic than the average human.

By official rules though, I think your statement that "YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT GOOD. all of us, by very DEFINITION of the alignment axis, are probably neutral. " is half right.

IIRC humans have no preference for any particular alignment, so all alignments should be represented equally in the population. A randomly chosen human probably isn't good (1/3 chance of being good, 2/3 chance of being non-good), but they are no more likely to be neutral than anything else.

[erikun]

Forgive me for posting without reading all the replies.

Alignment is kind of wacky in D&D, and your example in the original post gives the perfect example of how it runs into so many problems. Let's take the example: Evil Overlord tricks Paladin into handing over artifact that will destroy the world. It's a pretty common theme in literature, and entirely possible in-game.

However, it poses several problems for the alignment system. Namely, we either need to accept that: 1.) the Paladin loses all his powers upon handing over the artifact, 2.) unknowingly assisting the destructing of the world is somehow not evil, or 3.) the Paladin can still keep his powers after an evil (or questionable) act. While it isn't too hard to change as a DM, it basically means tossing out the standard interpretation of the alignment system - and just about any situation relating to alignment runs into similar problems.

In short, I don't agree with your analysis because you are trying to change the term of "evil" to fit into the alignment system as written. I feel the problem is simply that the alignment system (and related consequences) is just poorly written and needs redesigned.

[Shadowbane]

.............................Chaos (I do what I want)
...............................................+
...............................................+
Good (For others)<-----------Neutral---------> Evil (For myself)
...............................................+
...............................................+
..............................Law (I do what I must)

Never failed me in the past.

This is definitely the way I think of it.

[Taelas]

Being selfish is a quality of Neutrality, not of Evil.

This would probably be more accurate:

Law: I do what I must...
Chaos: I do what I want...
Neutral (Law-Chaos): I do what I can...
Good: ... for the benefit of others.
Evil: ... regardless of who I hurt.
Neutral (Good-Evil): ... for myself.

[hamishspence]

The odd pairings when two at opposite extremes combine does happen

"I do what I must for the benefit of others, regardless of who it hurts"

(the aforementioned Ozymandias, or other "altruistic villains")

but it tends to be the exception.