Alignment Debate

[Drakevarg]

Because nobody's gonna shut up about it anyway.

Anyway, trying to move a particular alignment debate out of Kyuubi's Good Sayings For A Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152726) thread, since it's kinda derailing that.

But feel free to introduce unrelated alignment wankery.

[Mastikator]

Scratching your butt, what alignment is that, and does it make paladins fall?

[Drakevarg]

Chaotic Evil. Not only will it make a Paladin fall, their patron diety will strike them down on the spot for it.

[Greenish]

Scratching your butt, what alignment is that, and does it make paladins fall?It's a chaotic act, so minor scratching is okay, but if you make a habit of it, your alignment may change, causing you to fall.

[Taelas]

Moving the discussion over here...


You're already involved when you saw the man hanging there. Leaving him to fall would be evil.

No.

What you are suggesting would be the same thing as suggesting that because you were in a hotel lobby while a murder took place there, you're now their accomplice.

Saving the man (and stopping the murder) is a Good act. Failing to perform a Good act isn't Evil -- simply Neutral.


A DM could easily rule that your refusal to act made you Neutral. Or even Evil for willingly allowing the death of billions. You still fall.
He could, but a DM can do anything, so what's your point?

If he follows RAW, he couldn't make him Evil. He could make him Neutral, but that's stretching the rules to an extreme.


Doesn't matter if it pales in comparison. The point of the arguement is that there is not always an option utterly devoid of Evil consequences.
I'm objecting to the idea that it would turn him Evil. It wouldn't, unless his intentions in sacrificing himself has nothing to do with saving anyone -- if he just wants the opportunity to kill millions of people personally rather than letting the artifact do it passively, then he's clearly Evil, as the Good of the act is a consequence, not the goal. But if he does it to save the Upper Planes? Definitely not an Evil act, overall.


"All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Not saving a damsel in distress, or helping someone clinging to a cliff face is not always evil... you may simply be incapable of doing so. But, by your "always", not moving your free and capable arm three inches to push a button that will keep a group of orphans from being gassed is "neutral."
That would be correct. (Note that watching a group of orphans being gassed for fun is an Evil act on its own.)


Because, to the best of my knowledge, it has no official source. A lot of people use it, but it's not part of the defined cosmology, nor the definition of Neutral Good.
It is used for a reason.


Unless, of course, there is a conflict between Law and Chaos in the service of good. Do you try to overthrow a tyrannical government, or do you work from within to fix things? Law and Chaos will both CHOOSE. Neutral runs into the same ethical delimma of someone having to choose between good and law, or good and chaos.
A Neutral Good person can choose both. A Lawful person will always choose the Lawful path.


And seeking balance between them... Neutrality... is the same issue, when there is a conflict between Law and Chaos.n Because Law and Chaos are forces, you cannot ignore them, any more than you can ignore Good and Evil. Neutrality is the position that strikes a balance between them, not the absence of them. A NG person doesn't refuse to take part in the Law and Chaos debate... he's someone who is committed to the line between them of them.
That is simply ONE KIND of Neutral, not the quintessential one. There are those who simply do not care one way or the other as well as those who are committed to a balance.

[WildPyre]

I have to strongly disagree here.


Itches are chaotic, therefore the act of scratching and destroying and itch MUST be a lawful act.

Scratch away good paladin, scratch away.

[Drakevarg]

What you are suggesting would be the same thing as suggesting that because you were in a hotel lobby while a murder took place there, you're now their accomplice.

You're not their accomplice, but as a Paladin you're in a position to avert this travesty and by failing to do so you are criminally negligent. No Paladin would go unfallen for their belief that doing nothing is an acceptable choice.


If he follows RAW, he couldn't make him Evil. He could make him Neutral, but that's stretching the rules to an extreme.

You still fall.


I'm objecting to the idea that it would turn him Evil. It wouldn't, unless his intentions in sacrificing himself has nothing to do with saving anyone -- if he just wants the opportunity to kill millions of people personally rather than letting the artifact do it passively, then he's clearly Evil, as the Good of the act is a consequence, not the goal. But if he does it to save the Upper Planes? Definitely not an Evil act, overall.

May be so, but my point stands. It wasn't an Evil act, but Evil happened as a direct consequence of your actions.

[Gauntlet]

That would be correct. (Note that watching a group of orphans being gassed for fun is an Evil act on its own.)

I would say that refusing to prevent an evil act at absolutely no cost to you or to one else (It's evil, I could stop it, but I'm not going to and there are no mitigating circumstances) is an evil thing to do. Whether it counts as an evil 'act' is debatable, but I would say it was evil.

It differs from the 'murder in a hotel lobby' in that trying to stop it would no doubt have consequences.

Good act = put the safety of others above your own
Neutral act = put the safety of yourself above that of others
Evil act = deliberately cause harm to others without due reason

that's how I would handle it anyway (consider this entire posed by 'in my opinion).

[Fayd]

Saving the man (and stopping the murder) is a Good act. Failing to perform a Good act isn't Evil -- simply Neutral.

In broad terms, not doing a good act could be seen instead as an sin of omission under some paladin codes. It could very well be an evil act, IF you have the capability to prevent the evil from happening. If you see a man dangling from a cliff, holding on for his life, helping him is Good. Not helping him is leading to his death. Ergo Evil. Pushing him off is also Evil. And kind of being a jerk.

[Taelas]

You're not their accomplice, but as a Paladin you're in a position to avert this travesty and by failing to do so you are criminally negligent. No Paladin would go unfallen for their belief that doing nothing is an acceptable choice.
"Criminally negligent" is a legal term which has no application to alignments. A paladin does not fall for being criminally negligent, unless it is also a gross violation of their code.


You still fall.
Because of a DM's whims, not because of the rules. This has no bearing on this discussion. A single act does not change your alignment except under extreme circumstances, and they would have to be far more extreme than "doing nothing".


May be so, but my point stands. It wasn't an Evil act, but Evil happened as a direct consequence of your actions.
Yes, that is obvious. As I said, a paladin cannot do this without falling.

[Drakevarg]

"Criminally negligent" is a legal term which has no application to alignments. A paladin does not fall for being criminally negligent, unless it is also a gross violation of their code.

It can have a HUGE application to alignments when they are objectively built into the fabric of reality.


Because of a DM's whims, not because of the rules. This has no bearing on this discussion. A single act does not change your alignment except under extreme circumstances, and they would have to be far more extreme than "doing nothing".

"Do nothing, and allow the complete destruction of the Higher Planes as a direct result" is the extreme circumstance here.

[Eldonauran]

May be so, but my point stands. It wasn't an Evil act, but Evil happened as a direct consequence of your actions.

I would argue that since the act wasn't evil, the Paladin does not fall. Evil may have been done as a consequence of his actions (ie, after the act, not part of the act) but the Evil done is not the Paladin's fault. The fault (Evil) lies solely with the entity that created the artifact.

Even though I do not agree with the Paladin's choice (sacrificing himself to destory the artifact) and believe that he should always find another way (or his DM deserves to die, horribly, for putting him in that circumstance), if a Paladin should choose to give up his Paladin-hood in order to save as many lives as he can, that is his choice.

[GenPol]

Just throwing a comment in not knowing the specifics of the debate...


... if a Paladin should choose to give up his Paladin-hood in order to save as many lives as he can, that is his choice.

I would argue that that is a pretty successful paladin...

[Drakevarg]

I would argue that since the act wasn't evil, the Paladin does not fall. Evil may have been done as a consequence of his actions (ie, after the act, not part of the act) but the Evil done is not the Paladin's fault. The fault (Evil) lies solely with the entity that created the artifact.

I wasn't arguing that the Paladin would fall. I was arguing that Evil happened as a direct consequence of his actions. This entire debate was spurred by someone's remark that "there was always a third option" utterly devoid of any negative consequences. This scenario was cooked up on the spot in an attempt to subvert this idea.

Admittedly I was eventually proven wrong, but I could probably come up with a more airtight no-win scenario.

[Taelas]

I would say that refusing to prevent an evil act at absolutely no cost to you or to one else (It's evil, I could stop it, but I'm not going to and there are no mitigating circumstances) is an evil thing to do. Whether it counts as an evil 'act' is debatable, but I would say it was evil.

It differs from the 'murder in a hotel lobby' in that trying to stop it would no doubt have consequences.

Good act = put the safety of others above your own
Neutral act = put the safety of yourself above that of others
Evil act = deliberately cause harm to others without due reason

that's how I would handle it anyway (consider this entire posed by 'in my opinion).
You're contradicting yourself. A person who fails to perform a Good action is not deliberately causing harm.

Yes, there's a difference in risk, but under the assumption that failing to save a man is Evil, failing to stop the murder would simply be a lesser form of that. It is a more serious situation, with more direct consequences.

Most people would, if there is no or little cost to themselves, save a stranger. People like being helpful -- you feel good about yourself afterwards. But it is not an Evil thing to avoid doing it. You look askance at someone who doesn't help because you feel there's no reason to avoid helping.



In broad terms, not doing a good act could be seen instead as an sin of omission under some paladin codes. It could very well be an evil act, IF you have the capability to prevent the evil from happening. If you see a man dangling from a cliff, holding on for his life, helping him is Good. Not helping him is leading to his death. Ergo Evil. Pushing him off is also Evil. And kind of being a jerk.
This is simply not true. The fact that there is no consequence means it is not as strongly a Good act as an act that has consequences -- it's still a Good act to save them, and not doing a Good act is not Evil.

Pushing him off is an entirely different ball game, obviously.


It can have a HUGE application to alignments when they are objectively built into the fabric of reality.
.... you lost me.

Criminal negligence has nothing to do with alignments. At all. It is a legal term. An act of criminal negligence can be any alignment whatsoever depending on circumstances.


"Do nothing, and allow the complete destruction of the Higher Planes as a direct result" is the extreme circumstance here.
Except they are not "allowing" it. They are simply not stopping it. It is not their responsibility. They did not start it. They are simply not performing a Good act which would save the Upper Planes.


I would argue that since the act wasn't evil, the Paladin does not fall. Evil may have been done as a consequence of his actions (ie, after the act, not part of the act) but the Evil done is not the Paladin's fault. The fault (Evil) lies solely with the entity that created the artifact.

Even though I do not agree with the Paladin's choice (sacrificing himself to destory the artifact) and believe that he should always find another way (or his DM deserves to die, horribly, for putting him in that circumstance), if a Paladin should choose to give up his Paladin-hood in order to save as many lives as he can, that is his choice.
He can choose not to kill millions of innocent people who have done nothing to deserve their fate. (The fact that they would die anyway is beside the point; action is what matters here.) He would still be Lawful Good, and he would probably feel it is ludicrous to Fall for such an action, but he would. He did an Evil act in choosing to kill millions of innocent people. The fact that it was a consequence of a much greater Good act (sacrificing himself to save the Upper Planes) matters not a wit in determining whether he Falls or not.

[Greenish]

No.

What you are suggesting would be the same thing as suggesting that because you were in a hotel lobby while a murder took place there, you're now their accomplice.That's a different matter entirely.

Saving the man (and stopping the murder) is a Good act. Failing to perform a Good act isn't Evil -- simply Neutral.Going out of your way to look for people who might be in trouble to help them would be Good. Allowing someone to die because of negligence is Evil. Neutral wouldn't go out of his way to find people to help, but he wouldn't refuse to save someone's life at no expense or risk for himself.

[Taelas]

That's a different matter entirely.
Going out of your way to look for people who might be in trouble to help them would be Good. Allowing someone to die because of negligence is Evil. Neutral wouldn't go out of his way to find people to help, but he wouldn't refuse to save someone's life at no expense or risk for himself.

This is completely and utterly wrong. Saving someone, whether it is from choking to death on a piece of chicken, or whether it's taking a bullet for them, is a Good action. It is not Neutral. One is less Good than the other, but "less Good" does not mean "Neutral". There are varying levels.

A Neutral person who is utterly and completely devoted to being Neutral -- meaning he refuses to perform any Good or Evil act whatsoever -- would not help. They would simply observe, if anything.

[Drakevarg]

Criminal negligence has nothing to do with alignments. At all. It is a legal term. An act of criminal negligence can be any alignment whatsoever depending on circumstances.

...

Except they are not "allowing" it. They are simply not stopping it. It is not their responsibility. They did not start it. They are simply not performing a Good act which would save the Upper Planes.

Yes it IS their responsibility. They're a PALADIN. Doing Good is their JOB. They are in the position to avert a travesty and did nothing. Thus they allowed it to happen.

[Theodoxus]

Bwah? Seriously? This is what you're arguing?

What level is this Paladin who's encountered a 'do nothing and the Upper Planes vanish' scenario?

Trust me, he's either so far over his head in responsibility, it doesn't matter what he does, he's toast. Or he's so high level that he'll have contingency plan after contingency plan, and probably a host of epic wizards on hand to help with those plans that the scenario is not the moralistic quagmire you're claiming.

The whole concept of falling needs to be struck right out of 3.x - thank goodness WotC saw the error of their ways in 4e. The gods don't choose their champion to then be tormented and tossed aside on the whim of the DM.

Obviously, by RAW you can certainly play that way - but that takes all the fun out of the game for the average player.

The thought experiments always go out into left field so quickly - If you HAVE to play this silly game, why not do it with actual things that could actually happen to average paladin characters of typical levels... like, 3 - 9 or so.

Sheesh.

[Drakevarg]

Or he's so high level that he'll have contingency plan after contingency plan, and probably a host of epic wizards on hand to help with those plans that the scenario is not the moralistic quagmire you're claiming.

This is scenario that sheer arcane power is utterly incapable of handling. With the exception of containing tha sacrficial backlash in a portal box to a Plane whose destruction would not result in either the Blood War ending or killing millions of non-Evil beings, wizards could do nothing about this.


The thought experiments always go out into left field so quickly - If you HAVE to play this silly game, why not do it with actual things that could actually happen to average paladin characters of typical levels... like, 3 - 9 or so.

Sheesh.

It's an extreme scenario to make an extreme point.

[Eldonauran]

This entire debate was spurred by someone's remark that "there was always a third option" utterly devoid of any negative consequences

Not to argue semantics, but I recall that it was actually "There was always a third option" given a choice between two evils. Negative consequences are always part of the problem.


He can choose not to kill millions of innocent people who have done nothing to deserve their fate. (The fact that they would die anyway is beside the point; action is what matters here.) He would still be Lawful Good, and he would probably feel it is ludicrous to Fall for such an action, but he would. He did an Evil act in choosing to kill millions of innocent people. The fact that it was a consequence of a much greater Good act (sacrificing himself to save the Upper Planes) matters not a wit in determining whether he Falls or not.

Again, I would argue that the evil does not lie with the paladin, only with the entity that created the artifact. In this circumstance, with the foreknowledge that his act will harm other but save more (how did he come across this knowledge anyway, given he has an unknown amount of time before it goes off), what else can he do? All he can do is apologize and make the sacrifice. But this is beside the point, I am an advocate for the third 'non-evil' option and I would pursue this with relish.

Now, if I had been the Paladin, things would have turned out differently. I would not make the sacrifice and allowed the higher planes to be destroyed. My duty, my life, my very being is devoted to protecting and saving the weak and helpless. The GODS are NOT helpless. If they are unable to save themselves, then they deserve to be replaced with a new generation of good gods (this will happen eventually). I would be one of those Paladins that would spurn my own God if ordered to perform an evil act in the service of Good and Law. Paladins are barred from performing evil act or they fall. Standing by and watching the higher planes get destoryed while you are protecting the very source of their divine power (let's not forget that gods rely on worshippers for their power) is what I consider the best option of the two choices. Who knows, maybe you will rise to take their place?

Gods are not infallible. Paladins know their duty and must stick to it, even if it brings about the apocalypse. He will still be there, fighting until the end. Evil may take his blood, his life or his very soul but a true Paladin will never willingly give up his life to Evil. He will take as many of them down with him as he is able and go into the abyss of the after life with a roar of righteous victory still written on his lips.

[Drakevarg]

A Neutral person who is utterly and completely devoted to being Neutral -- meaning he refuses to perform any Good or Evil act whatsoever -- would not help. They would simply observe, if anything.

And this person would not be a Paladin, and as such not the individual that this scenario was presented to.


If they are unable to save themselves, then they deserve to be replaced with a new generation of good gods (this will happen eventually).

With Evil essentially given free run over the universe? Unlikely.

[Telonius]

I suppose it all turns on whether or not Good is concerned with fault or responsibility.

I'm a manager. If one of my underlings screws up, I get yelled at by my superior. What the underling did isn't my fault, but it is my responsibility.

If Good turns on fault, then the Paladin should let the whole multiverse be destroyed rather than do even the most minor of evil acts. If it turns on responsibility, he should take the fall for the world, and accept his just punishment.

[Drakevarg]

I suppose it all turns on whether or not Good is concerned with fault or responsibility.

I'm a manager. If one of my underlings screws up, I get yelled at by my superior. What the underling did isn't my fault, but it is my responsibility.

If Good turns on fault, then the Paladin should let the whole multiverse be destroyed rather than do even the most minor of evil acts. If it turns on responsibility, he should take the fall for the world, and accept his just punishment.

I would argue responsibility.

[Taelas]

Yes it IS their responsibility. They're a PALADIN. Doing Good is their JOB. They are in the position to avert a travesty and did nothing. Thus they allowed it to happen.

A paladin does not fall for not performing Good actions. He falls for failing to be of a Lawful Good alignment (which means if he doesn't perform Good actions for a good, long while, he'll fall), or for performing an Evil action, or for grossly violating his code of conduct. None of this happens.

There are other options that have nothing to do with interacting with the artifact directly -- which I am assuming he's doing. That's not what I was responding to, though. You said 1 or 2, and I said he could do 1 without falling. He could attempt to evacuate the Upper Planes (he'll fail, since there are far too many people, but it's something), he could try to find someone who can stop the artifact (like whoever created it in the first place, or a god, or any other powerful being)... I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of; I think quite a few were mentioned in the original thread. I am also assuming that none of those options actually succeed -- he can't evacuate everyone on the Upper Planes, and whoever created the artifact could probably kill him with no effort whatsoever. But trying and failing would not cause him to fall either.

If he simply sits on his rear and does absolutely nothing, he would fall for grossly violating his code of conduct (which stipulates that he must help innocents in need, provided they do not use that help for Evil or Chaotic ends). But if he attempts to do something other than detonate the artifact and kill millions, even if it is futile, even if it is in vain, he doesn't fall.


And this person would not be a Paladin, and as such not the individual that this scenario was presented to.
I am simply saying how it is a Neutral act, which means a paladin can do it -- they do not fall for performing Neutral actions.

(Depending on interpretation and how many he doesn't help, you could say he falls through "grossly violating his code of conduct", but doing so for failing to help one person is rather extreme.)

[Drakevarg]

No, he wouldn't fall. But falling isn't the issue. The issue (at least in this scenario) is that any option (other than the one brought up in the other thread that actually beat this) would have Evil consequences. These conseqences aren't the Paladin's fault, but they happened. The arguement that spurred the scenario was that there is always an option devoid of Evil consequences, not that there is always an option that won't cause the Paladin to fall.

[Eldonauran]

With Evil essentially given free run over the universe? Unlikely.

Not unlikely. As I said, if that Paladin had been created by me, I would have sadly waved goodbye to the current gods of Good while packing my supplies to take the fight to the depths of hell. The gods of neutrality would have to step up to preserve the natural order and things would have reached a balance, I believe, in a very short time. Hell, such a powerful artifact interferring in the ranks of the divine might be one of the few things to get Ao's attention if he wasn't the one behind it in the first place.

Refusing to perform an evil act is not the same as allowing one to happen. There is nothing you can do (or so I have been told) that will prevent it from happening. Good beings are going to die, regardless. Those in the higher planes are no longer your responsibility. Yes, you want to save them but you duty, your code, insists that you protect the innocent. If you can do both, DO IT or try to and fail, but at least you tried. If not, you don't really have a choice (ie, read as I don't really have a choice, as this is what I would have done and how I would have reasoned/justified it, shortly before I would do serious harm to my DM)


Evil consequences

Ehem. 'Evil actions or choices'. What happens as a consequence does not change the alignment of the act.

[Drakevarg]

Not unlikely. As I said, if that Paladin had been created by me, I would have sadly waved goodbye to the current gods of Good while packing my supplies to take the fight to the depths of hell.

Considering that you draw your power from the Higher Planes, which no longer exist, I think that'd be a pretty short fight.


The gods of neutrality would have to step up to preserve the natural order and things would have reached a balance, I believe, in a very short time. Hell, such a powerful artifact interferring in the ranks of the divine might be one of the few things to get Ao's attention if he wasn't the one behind it in the first place.

Assuming the Neutral Gods were poweful enough to stem the tide.


shortly before I would do serious harm to my DM)

If this would lead you to OOC violence, you put too much stock into the game and I'll have to remember to bring a loaded firearm to the table with me if by some quirk of fate I ever wind up playing with you.


Ehem. 'Evil actions or choices'. What happens as a consequence does not change the alignment of the act.

Not debating the alignment of the act. Debating that "and they all lived happily ever after" isn't always an option.

[Eldonauran]

Considering that you draw your power from the Higher Planes, which no longer exist, I think that'd be a pretty short fight.

Interesting. But incorrect. It is true a lot of paladins draw their power from being the Champion of Good Gods, there are plenty of paladins that serve Lawful Neutral Gods that are still quite present (You do only have to be within one alignment step of your deity). Even if my character had lost his divine gifts, he still has his code to abide by. Even if he is a fighter without his feats, he still possesses his magic items and can still follow his code.


Assuming the Neutral Gods were poweful enough to stem the tide.

Yep, no arguements there. Its still an option though.


If this would lead you to OOC violence, you put too much stock into the game and I'll have to remember to bring a loaded firearm to the table with me if by some quirk of fate I ever wind up playing with you.

Hmm, did I forget the [/sarcasm] tags...? My mistake. Not that I wouldn't be a little upset that the DM went way out of his way to screw over the universe and my paladin in one go, but I would never really bring physical violence to the table. There's always my turn at DM to get you back. (Borrowing you own words: an extreme example for an extreme point)


Not debating the alignment of the act. Debating that "and they all lived happily ever after" isn't always an option.

Ok, we got down to the basic arguement here. I agree completely with you on this point. However, just because it isn't always an option doesn't mean a Paladin shouldn't strive for it anyway. A Paladin is plagued by failure and every so often gets it right. He is a man after all. He is just a man that would give just about any and everything to make sure Good prevails (aside from commiting evil acts).

A Paladin may be hated by everyone for the consequences of what he has done and he may even hate himself for not being able to stop it all, but he is comforted that he did what was 'right' and in the end, that is all that matters.

[Drakevarg]

Hmm, did I forget the [/sarcasm] tags...? My mistake. Not that I wouldn't be a little upset that the DM went way out of his way to screw over the universe and my paladin in one go, but I would never really bring physical violence to the table. There's always my turn at DM to get you back.

No harm no foul. I forgot [/sarcasm] myself. Or rather since you left yours out I assumed it'd be okay if I did the same.


Ok, we got down to the basics arguement here. I agree completely with you on this point. However, just because it isn't always an option doesn't mean a Paladin shouldn't strive for it anyway. A Paladin is plagued by failure and every so often gets it right. He is a man after all. He is just a man that would give just about any and everything to make sure Good prevails (aside from commiting evil acts).

A Paladin may be hated by everyone for the consequences of what he has done and he may even hate himself for not being able to stop it all, but he is comforted that he did what was 'right' and in the end, that is all that matters.

I would never argue that a Paladin shouldn't strive for the epitome of Goodness. However, I live under a Knight in Sour Armor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightInSourArmor) philosophy. I don't believe that "happily ever after" exists. Doesn't mean I'm not going to strive for it.

[Eldonauran]

I would never argue that a Paladin shouldn't strive for the epitome of Goodness. However, I live under a Knight in Sour Armor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightInSourArmor) philosophy. I don't believe that "happily ever after" exists. Doesn't mean I'm not going to strive for it.

Knight of Sour Armor? For the real world, I can see the merits and how it would apply but as a far as a character in the D&D universe? I would find it very, very, very unlikely that any Paladin would live under such a philosophy. They have direct exposure to the purest forces of Good and Law and actively strive for the good of all. Fighting just because they believe it is right ... I'm sorry but I don't think that is enough to stay in that fight for any length of time, given the type of sacrifices they have to make.

I guess this is the main reason I like playing D&D. I can leave my real world philosophy and belief in the real world and completely adopt a different way of thinking when playing my character. Everything is meant to be black and white in D&D, even if shades of grey appear occasionally.

[Drakevarg]

Everything is meant to be black and white in D&D, even if shades of grey appear occasionally.

And now we've gone and opened another can of worms. Yay!*

I personally never like to play DnD with Black and White Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndWhiteMorality). Sure, that may be "canon", but see my signature in regards to how highly I regard that factoid. Even allowing for things like detect evil, in my campaigns such designations are made by the gods. So for example Orcs are "Always Evil" because Corellon Larethian bloody well said so.

Even when I'm a player and not a DM I play it this way. I have two LE characters in different campaigns right now. One is a respected member of the community and has dreams of world domination because he honestly believes he could run the place better. The other is an axe-murdering sociopath who will swing right around to the most loyal bodyguard you will ever meet if you can earn his respect.

*"Yay" may or may not be sarcasm. I honestly don't know.

[Greenish]

Everything is meant to be black and white in D&D, even if shades of grey appear occasionally.Eberron, woot!

[Eldonauran]

And now we've gone and opened another can of worms. Yay!*

I personally never like to play DnD with Black and White Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndWhiteMorality). Sure, that may be "canon", but see my signature in regards to how highly I regard that factoid. Even allowing for things like detect evil, in my campaigns such designations are made by the gods. So for example Orcs are "Always Evil" because Corellon Larethian bloody well said so.

Even when I'm a player and not a DM I play it this way. I have two LE characters in different campaigns right now. One is a respected member of the community and has dreams of world domination because he honestly believes he could run the place better. The other is an axe-murdering sociopath who will swing right around to the most loyal bodyguard you will ever meet if you can earn his respect.

*"Yay" may or may not be sarcasm. I honestly don't know.

Playing style differences aside, I can repect how you play D&D that way and can even see the appeal, but its not for me. Black and White just make more sense to me and where the little spots of grey pop up, I do my best to accept them and move past. No system is perfect and you will find the flaws if you look hard enough.

I see alignments as pregenerated personalities and you only have to fill in certain blanks to make an interesting character. Swap a few with another alignment to create a juicy internal conflict mechanism and what the character squirm as it decides whether or not to follow one or the other instincts. And, above all, I try very, very hard not to bring real world personalities into the D&D world. They mix like water and oil and then some crazy comes by with a lit cigarette. It does not end well.

[Drakevarg]

Playing style differences aside, I can repect how you play D&D that way and can even see the appeal, but its not for me. Black and White just make more sense to me and where the little spots of grey pop up, I do my best to accept them and move past. No system is perfect and you will find the flaws if you look hard enough.

I see alignments as pregenerated personalities and you only have to fill in certain blanks to make an interesting character. Swap a few with another alignment to create a juicy internal conflict mechanism and what the character squirm as it decides whether or not to follow one or the other instincts. And, above all, I try very, very hard not to bring real world personalities into the D&D world. They mix like water and oil and then some crazy comes by with a lit cigarette. It does not end well.

Hm. Well, personal taste debates never get anyone anywhere, so...

Rorschach's alignment! Discuss.

I'm thinking Lawful Good, leaning on Lawful Neutral.

[Eldonauran]

Hm. Well, personal taste debates never get anyone anywhere, so...

Rorschach's alignment! Discuss.

I'm thinking Lawful Good, leaning on Lawful Neutral.


Ah, interesting topic... I disagree completely. I'll go point by point... Using D&D alignment system.

Short answer: Chaotic Neutral

Good: Absolutely not! While Rorschach fights for the 'greater good' (hate that term) he does underhanded and often blatently evil things to get it done. Good people do not torture others.

Evil: There is strong indication for this alignment, however, a person that does evil in the service of good can not be completely evil. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Good vs Evil: I would rule him Neutral on this axis. His heart is in the right place but he is waaaaay off track with his methods.

Lawful: Rorshach? Following the Law? Ha! But Lawful =/= following the law. Its more of an instinct for order and structure. Rorshach doesn't exhibit any natural inclination to following order except as far as punishing those that deserve it. Lawful? Possible but unlikely. He doesn't leave those inmates alone for very long in prison does he? Hell, they already paid for their crimes and are serving time.

Chaotic: Rorshach does what needs to be done, as he feels it needs to be done, how it needs to be done and where it needs to be done. He doesn't care one way or another what a person does as long as it doesn't harm another. There is strong evidence towards chaotic alignment here. "I'm not locked in here with you. You are all locked in here with me!"

Law vs Chaos: I would think him chaotic on this axis. He does exhibit some justified lawful behavior but its not uncommon for a chaotic character to allow due process when the end results are the same.


Anyway, that's my reasoning.

[Drakevarg]

Thing is, Rorschach has VERY strong standards. That's alot of his schtick. While Chaos changes on its own whims, Rorschach has hard and fast rules and will NEVER bend from them. He doesn't follow the law in the sense of "what is legal/illegal", he follows his own personal code of conduct and heaven help you if you breech his standards.

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

Rorschach might not qualify as Good because of his methods, but he can't be evil, since his intetions ARE Good. In this case, I'd say Lawful Neutral who WANTS to be Lawful Good.

[Eldonauran]

Thing is, Rorschach has VERY strong standards. That's alot of his schtick. While Chaos changes on its own whims, Rorschach has hard and fast rules and will NEVER bend from them. He doesn't follow the law in the sense of "what is legal/illegal", he follows his own personal code of conduct and heaven help you if you breech his standards.

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."

Rorschach might not qualify as Good because of his methods, but he can't be evil, since his intetions ARE Good. In this case, I'd say Lawful Neutral who WANTS to be Lawful Good.

Actually, I will comprimise with you and agree with Lawful Neutral. I didn't allow for his 'incredibly high standards'. He does have a very, very specific code of conduct. Even if he wants to be good, he is not going to get there, not with his methods. He has waaay too much anger and hate in his heart and enjoys what he does to the bad guys waaaaay, waaaaaaay too much.

Lawful Neutral, though I still think he's a bit crazy. He'd be a great Ex-Paladin/Grey Guard. Hell yes, he would.

[Drakevarg]

Actually, I will comprimise with you and agree with Lawful Neutral. I didn't allow for his 'incredibly high standards'. He does have a very, very specific code of conduct. Even if he wants to be good, he is not going to get there, not with his methods. He has waaay too much anger and hate in his heart and enjoys what he does to the bad guys waaaaay, waaaaaaay too much.

Lawful Neutral, though I still think he's a bit crazy.

You don't need to be sane to be Lawful. God knows my LE Gnoll isn't...

Hrm. That was suprisingly easy. What other alignment issues can we discuss that will spark several pages worth of heated debate?

[ScionoftheVoid]

Hrm. That was suprisingly easy. What other alignment issues can we discuss that will spark several pages worth of heated debate?

Alignment restrictions? "Why do you have to be Chaotic to get angry?", "Why can't Bards be Lawful?", etc. I've not yet seen anything against the Druid's alignment restriction, which is interesting since it prevents the more extreme, character-defining alignments (though of course they don't have to be character-defining, whether or not alignment deserves to be is a bit too heated I think, I don't want to encourage the straightjacket crowd). Just a suggestion.

[Drakevarg]

Well, you only need to be non-Lawful to rage... which of course don't make complete sense either. Does Rorschach strike you as level-headed?

Speaking of which, if it wasn't for the non-Lawful requirement I could totally see Rorscach as a Barbarian.

[Eldonauran]

Well, you only need to be non-Lawful to rage... which of course don't make complete sense either. Does Rorschach strike you as level-headed?

Aww, you don't need to be able to rage to lose your mind and flip out. Even Paladin's get flooded with anger and righteous rage. I think that its whether or not you get any kind mechanical bonuses that is the problem. Apparently, chaotic (non-lawful) characters can lose their temper so badly that they get mechanical bonuses.

That's how I think about it anyway.

[The Glyphstone]

You don't need to be sane to be Lawful. God knows my LE Gnoll isn't...

Hrm. That was suprisingly easy. What other alignment issues can we discuss that will spark several pages worth of heated debate?

Ooh, I know - what does it take to qualify as Evil? Does a bartender who is rude and insults all his customers ding the Evilmeter? What if he waters his drinks? Laces them with addictive drugs? Is a man Evil if he constantly thinks about and dreams of murdering people, but never actually acts on it?

[Eldonauran]

Ooh, I know - what does it take to qualify as Evil? Does a bartender who is rude and insults all his customers ding the Evilmeter? What if he waters his drinks? Laces them with addictive drugs? Is a man Evil if he constantly thinks about and dreams of murdering people, but never actually acts on it?

Oh, that's ... easy. :smallfrown:

Total and complete disregard for everything and anything and the willingness to exploit it, even to the extent that it harms another, to further your own agenda.

Defining it was easy. Applying that to the small examples listed above. That's ... harder. :smallsigh:

I'd say lacing his drinks with addictive drugs was the blatently evil action of the group. The others just show he is a jerk. The dreaming is another matter. That man is disturbed. If he likes the dreams and actively participates in them while sleeping, oh yes. Evil. If they bother him, he;s tormented but not evil.

[AtopTheMountain]

Ooh, I know - what does it take to qualify as Evil? Does a bartender who is rude and insults all his customers ding the Evilmeter?No. Unpleasant to be around, but not Evil.
What if he waters his drinks?Not Evil; just a cheat. Perhaps coming close to thinking about maybe being evil, though.
Laces them with addictive drugs?Definitely.
Is a man Evil if he constantly thinks about and dreams of murdering people, but never actually acts on it?
Ooh... that's a tough one. I'm going to say yes; in the end, it's your innermost thoughts that count, not just your actions.

[Frozen_Feet]

A person who revels in the idea of evil but never acts on such urges is not evil. He's unlikely to be good, but just thinking nasty thoughts isn't enough to push him to the deep end of the alignment pool. In the given example, he doesn't need to murder anyone to be evil, but unless his disturbedness reflects in his behaviour in some way, it has no effect.

[Taelas]

A person who revels in the idea of evil but never acts on such urges is not evil. He's unlikely to be good, but just thinking nasty thoughts isn't enough to push him to the deep end of the alignment pool. In the given example, he doesn't need to murder anyone to be evil, but unless his disturbedness reflects in his behaviour in some way, it has no effect.

This. Neutral leaning towards Evil, which is unusual, but hardly shocking.

The bartender who cheats by watering his drinks is probably also in the same category. Addictive drugs... that would depend on their effects, exactly. Drugs (and poisons) are hard to quantify.

Fantasies are just that: fantasies. If he is not otherwise mentally disturbed, and never acts on it, he's not Evil. Everyone has stray thoughts they would probably not be proud of it they became known -- that doesn't make them Evil.

If he wants to act on it, but doesn't do so out of fear of reprisal, it's a bit harder. Probably still Neutral, but with a stronger Evil bend, and if he ever got into a situation without said reprisal, he'd probably go over.

[2xMachina]

Paladin: I fall? Fine, I go Paladin of Tyranny and start killing your plot important people and raiding your magic shops going off the railroad.

Blergh, alignment debates.

[hamishspence]

BoVD actually mentions negligent actions as one of the possible things that should be deemed Fall-worthy- on a scale of whether an act is Evil or not.

If your negligence leads to somebody's death:

"At this point Zophas (the named paladin) isn't exactly a murderer, but he should probably Fall until he makes some kind of atonement"

This was, however, negligent action- negligent inaction is harder to define.

Does a paladin have a duty to try and prevent evil acts that are taking place near him, that he has the means and opportunity to prevent?

And if he fails in that duty, if he deliberately chooses to not try and prevent it, is this an evil act?

BoED calls handing somebody over to be tortured (even if the person is thoroughly evil and the torturers a legitimate authority) an evil act.

Suggesting you do bear some responsibility for the acts of others, if you can take steps to prevent them. "It's not me torturing him" is not an excuse.

[Frozen_Feet]

One good thing to remember: Paladins and Exalted characters have much stricter rules imposed on them than other Good people. All those "for the greater good" things that involve sacrificing innocent people, would not cause a Good character to immediatly become non-Good... but a Paladin would surely be sent running for atonement, because such compromises aren't allowed from them.

I personally think that gods take both fault and responsibility into account, and see if the sum of the action or inaction are enough to make the paladin fall. Not catching every pick-pocketer in a major town... eh, maybe a paladin should, but not doing that is hardly fall-worthy. Not stopping a public beating when one has the power to do so... now that's something the paladin might fall for, because refusing to act is clearly violation of his position as an exemplar of good.

Also, as a hint for all paladin players: there's a magic item that has a direct hotline to your god of choice for determining whether an action or inacation would cause falling. Heck, as a DM I'd allow even a non-magical version; call it "Paladin Manual of Operations". :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

I personally think that gods take both fault and responsibility into account, and see if the sum of the action or inaction are enough to make the paladin fall. Not catching every pick-pocketer in a major town... eh, maybe a paladin should, but not doing that is hardly fall-worthy. Not stopping a public beating when one has the power to do so... now that's something the paladin might fall for, because refusing to act is clearly violation of his position as an exemplar of good.

This sounds about right. You can't prevent all evil deeds, but when evil deeds take place in front of you and you do nothing when you have the power to prevent them, this might count as an "evil act of omission"



The bartender who cheats by watering his drinks is probably also in the same category. Addictive drugs... that would depend on their effects, exactly. Drugs (and poisons) are hard to quantify.

The Eberron Campaign Setting book suggest that the bartender who cheats on his wife, and cheats his customers, is Evil rather than Neutral.

If Evil is fairly common, with around a third or so of the humans of a D&D setting being Evil- then it seems likely that most Evil characters in the setting will be of this type- "petty evil"- lying, cheating, bullying, etc.

"Cheating" is, after all, listed in the BoVD as a typical evil act.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think lot of debates are sparked by the misconception that just because the Alignment Grid has only two axises, there are only two dimensions to actions as well. Lot of time is then spend trying to decide what those dimensions are.

However, Good and Evil as well as Law or Chaos can be broken into smaller pieces. I personally often use the 7 virtues and 7 deadly sins to measure acts. Some virtues and sins effect the Law - Chaos axis more strongly, while others lean more on the Good - Evil axis; the alignment or deed of a character is then decided by looking at what virtues he has or lacks, and how strong those virtues are. In a fantasy setting, their application is easy, and helps greatly in analysing any given act.:smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

This site seems similar- it has a list of sins for all 9 alignments.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

[Coidzor]

So, what would the hit be to throw someone condemned to death into a pre-set mind-rape trap back to tabula rasa?

[true_shinken]

This is completely and utterly wrong. Saving someone, whether it is from choking to death on a piece of chicken, or whether it's taking a bullet for them, is a Good action. It is not Neutral. One is less Good than the other, but "less Good" does not mean "Neutral". There are varying levels.

A Neutral person who is utterly and completely devoted to being Neutral -- meaning he refuses to perform any Good or Evil act whatsoever -- would not help. They would simply observe, if anything.
You should really read the Book of Exalted Deeds, man. You are not thinking as good like it is on D&D at all.

[Ravens_cry]

So, what would the hit be to throw someone condemned to death into a pre-set mind-rape trap back to tabula rasa?Depends, how painful is the mind rape? How much suffering does it incur, while it is happening? If not any or no more then an ordinary punishment, then this may indeed be a mercy. In a way, you killed them, as was already lawful, but didn't kill the body. If the mind gets chance to redevelop, then it is quite literally a second chance at life.

[hamishspence]

You should really read the Book of Exalted Deeds, man. You are not thinking as good like it is on D&D at all.


true- BoED does state that when you help someone, but sacrifice nothing, or help yourself by helping the other person, the act is Neutral at best.

In effect, helping others for selfish reasons, is a Neutral act.

In core, it states that Neutral people are committed to others by personal relations- if a Neutral person sees a friend in trouble, they will likely risk themselves to help them, but they won't put themself at risk for a stranger.

However, there is nothing stopping a Neutral person from helping others for pay, or helping them when doing so will not put them at risk. Or hlping them when they see something they can gain from it- specifically, a person who now owes them a favour.

It seems from BoED and BoVD, that for the purposes of determining whether an act is a Good act, motives matter, and for the purposes of determining whether an act is an Evil act, motives generally don't matter.

Hence, if you torture people, even for Good reasons (to get valuable lifesaving information, say, or as part of the initiation to an Evil society which you are joining in order to sabotage and destroy it), that act of torture is still an evil act.