PDA

View Full Version : Two Layers of alignment



Aeromyre
2010-08-15, 11:09 PM
Ok so I've been thinking
What if you had 2 layers of alignment, for instance having good motives but evil methods
Some would simply call it neutral.
So a character is in a universe where the earth has been conquered by a tyrannical empire and he is part of the highest government organization until he is ordered to kill innocent people.
He betrays his organization and kills anyone willing to work for the government. He wants to over throw the empire so people can have a better life without high taxes or simply having the chance of being murdered for next to nothing by the government.

So I bet you'll all say he's chaotic neutral, but what do you think about the two layers idea?

Zodiac
2010-08-15, 11:17 PM
Generally speaking it is intent which is counted for alignment, but actions do matter. This is of course subjective, but people usually agree there is such a thing as going too far, so no, the ends do not justify the means.

So I would say that if the hypothetical person would be good if it was literally the only option for him to take to avoid catastrophe, but without mitigating effects would be neutral or even evil.

For example if the goal is to save nature, and the conclusion is wipe out civilization, the two layer method would be misleading.

Elfin
2010-08-15, 11:19 PM
What if you had 2 layers of alignment, for instance having good motives but evil methods?

That's answered by a single question: do the ends justify the means?

Personally, the character you described sounds evil to me, since they kill without trial, without discretion, and without reason other than membership of a certain group. I'd peg them as Chaotic Evil, the classic rebel turned villain.

But since his intentions are Neutral or Chaotic Good, and his actions are Chaotic Evil, CN is a possibility.

Aeromyre
2010-08-15, 11:23 PM
Generally speaking it is intent which is counted for alignment, but actions do matter. This is of course subjective, but people usually agree there is such a thing as going too far, so no, the ends do not justify the means. So I would say that if the hypothetical person would be good if it was literally the only option for him to take to avoid catastrophe, but without mitigating effects would be neutral or even evil. For example if the goal is to save nature, and the conclusion is wipe out civilization, the two layer method would be misleading.

I like your logic.

I have another example for the law/chaos axis
You have a covert operative he works undercover often breaking laws or does unethical things to do his job, he lies, cheats people, steals, even kills but all in the name of order.
Thoughts on him? Do you feel the same way Zodiac

Zodiac
2010-08-15, 11:47 PM
I have another example for the law/chaos axis
You have a covert operative he works undercover often breaking laws or does unethical things to do his job, he lies, cheats people, steals, even kills but all in the name of order.


The tricky thing about law v. chaos is that its difficult to have a clear definition. For me, law is basically deontology and chaos is consequentialism. Being lawful means following societal norms and obligations to achieve ends, whereas being chaotic means using ends to justify means.

If it is the operative's duty to commit these actions and he is expected to behave in this manner, then yes he would be lawful. In order to be chaotic, he would have to behave in a way considered unorthodox by what society would expect.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 02:38 AM
Generally speaking it is intent which is counted for alignment, but actions do matter. This is of course subjective, but people usually agree there is such a thing as going too far, so no, the ends do not justify the means.

Champions of Ruin takes a pretty strong line on this- routinely doing evil acts makes for an evil alignment regardless of "good intentions".

And, in general, some acts will be evil regardless of the intent.

That said, a person's overall personality can play a big part- some beings can be evil entirely because of their personality, without ever having committed any evil deeds. A newborn chromatic dragon, according to the RAW on Always X alignment, in MM. Or a saintly person who has just been hit with a Helm of Opposite alignment and failed his save- Evil, despite no evil deeds yet.

So, you could have, at one end of the spectrum, a person who is only evil because of their deeds- routinely torturing the "not innocent"- their personality is still mostly that of a Good person- won't harm the innocent, makes sacrifices to protect the innocent.

And at the other end of the spectrum, you could have someone who is only evil because of their personality.

Most Evil characters will have a bit of both though.

Ulmaxes
2010-08-16, 03:37 AM
I find this distinction helpful: how the character perceives himself, and how he "truly" is. Example: most evil dictators don't know or care if they are actually evil. Most would claim otherwise even to themselves. But most of us would classify the guy who slaughters millions of his own innocent people to be fairly chaotic evil.

When trying to think out a character or setting, that helps me a lot: is this bad guy evil for the sake of loving evil, or is he deluded about his own alignment?

Example: most people are neutral. They like to think they would be classified as "good", but very few actually perform acts of unusual kindness or stand up against wrongdoing when it's not completely safe and cozy for them. Book of Exalted Deeds has some great stuff on that.


That's just what came to mind for me.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-16, 04:04 AM
There is essentially no one that is evil for the 'sake of being evil'. While in D&D there is objective evil, in-universe even fiends don't consider themselves evil (see my sig, for instance). That doesn't mean they don't acknowledge that others (perhaps even a majority) see them as evil, but they do not agree.

To truly believe oneself evil, one must have complete understanding and acceptance that what one is doing is wrong, and have no justification, extenuating circumstances, or any other compelling reason to behave that way, other than to do something you, personally, believe is wrong and abhorrent. There are a handful of individuals who might fit this description, but that number is tiny compared to the majority of people who are evil because it is the right thing to do (and thus not evil) from their point of view.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-08-16, 04:10 AM
One of the old WoD games used a mechanic like the OP suggests: nature and demeanor. Of course being WoD it was all emo and angsty, which is why we 90s goths loved it so. :smallbiggrin:

Your demeanor was how you appeared to the outside world - often your conscious efforts to appear to be a certain way, or even believing you are that way and trying to act accordingly.
Your nature was how you really are, underneath your outer appearances - the fear of failure and bullying that drives you to hurt the ones you love, or the crippling desire for attention that makes you do whatever the alpha male says, or whatever secret motivation you wanted. You could have the same demeanor and nature.

In the cases above, we need to make some decisions: the evil doer who strives towards good - is he inwardly evil, but outwardly trying to do good, or is he a good guy only using evil means? What we decide will dictate how he shows up on a detect evil spell, and what alignment we record on the character sheet. The rest goes in role playing notes.
The undercover cop - assuming he's acting on orders, he's lawful. He's so lawful that he's prepared to go against his nature to get his duty done. My word, that's so lawful it hurts. He's an awesome tragic figure.
On the other hand, if he starts to get into it, and starts to climb up the criminal ladder and take over the mafia, disregarding his duty as a cop - then he's chaotic. He's given up on his orders and embraced crime.

Ultimately, this should be optional. I don't really think it needs to even be made into a rule set.
It's an extra layer to alignment that can be summed up in a discussion with your DM and then just role played.

DemLep
2010-08-16, 04:22 AM
I use a "layered" or "double" alignment system that is slightly different from your idea, but I think pegs people better. The first alignment is the character's personal alignment and the second is their social alignment. So the personal alignment deals with the inner view of the character and the second is how the outside world perceives them. The social alignment can change very easly, but the personal one takes big events to change.

Edit: The above post beat me to it. I knew I heard of it in another system, but could remember which one.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 09:17 AM
So a character is in a universe where the earth has been conquered by a tyrannical empire and he is part of the highest government organization until he is ordered to kill innocent people.

He betrays his organization and kills anyone willing to work for the government. He wants to over throw the empire so people can have a better life without high taxes or simply having the chance of being murdered for next to nothing by the government.

So I bet you'll all say he's chaotic neutral, but what do you think about the two layers idea?
Depends : does "anyone working for the government" include Innocents?

If so, he's Neutral at best - killing Innocents for cause, and presumably, provocation. If not, then he's Good. However, if he starts firebombing random civilians for "aiding" The Enemy, he's going to be Evil - a Well Intentioned Extremist, to be sure, but Evil all the same.

He could be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic; we need more information. Was he working with the Man because it was the lawful authority (Lawful), or because it was the best game in town (Neutral) or because he had no choice (Chaotic)?

Remember: the Nine Alignments System is an Objective morality system. Intent or subjective belief matters very little, although actual knowledge matters somewhat.

...what exactly did you mean by a two-layer Alignment system? :smallconfused:

DemLep
2010-08-16, 09:22 AM
I think he means like a cube, instead of the square of the nine alignment system. Adding depth to the alignment system. (pun intended)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 09:25 AM
I think he means like a cube, instead of the square of the nine alignment system. Adding depth to the alignment system. (pun intended)
But I don't understand what use that is, aside from confusing everyone.

"My guy thinks he's a LG hero of the people, but he actually acts like a CE selfish-bastard."

Isn't that just the same as saying "I'm a CE selfish-bastard who thinks he's a true hero of the people?"

Why bother writing down an Alignment that has no practical impact on your character's actions? There's nothing that says a CE selfish bastard can't save an orphanage when the cameras are rolling, but it'd be very odd for him to switch from being selfless and selfish without any apparent reason.

EDIT: Note that the oWoD system didn't actually deal with Objective morality at all in its Nature/Demeanor system - it was a pair of superficial traits that, IMHO, bring more confusion than clarity to the game. Underneath it all was the True Morality System (Humanity in Vampire, Honor in Werewolf) which was purely objective.

DemLep
2010-08-16, 09:39 AM
More Like my character is Chaotic-Good-Evil. Chaotic as he is opposed to the law as viewed by others, Good in that he has good intent in his deeds, and Evil as in what he actually does is seen as evil by others.

Like I said a cube. Three down, Three across, Three back. Match-mix as your heart desires.

Telonius
2010-08-16, 09:43 AM
If you're going to introduce a third axis at all, I'd suggest this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828).

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 09:55 AM
Depends : does "anyone working for the government" include Innocents?

If so, he's Neutral at best - killing Innocents for cause, and presumably, provocation.

If the "cause" is insufficient, it's probably Evil rather than Neutral.
For example, someone who works for the government, but in a menial role, who there isn't really a good reason to kill.

The problem is that D&D does not define "Innocents"- so it ends up being DM's discretion what counts as an "innocent" and what doesn't.

Can a Good-aligned person be "not Innocent"?
Can an Evil-aligned person be "Innocent"?

To be innocent, must you not have ever committed evil deeds?

If so- that means that an Evil-aligned newborn chromatic dragon, or a saintly person that has just failed a save against a Helm of Opposite Alignment, is an "Innocent"

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 10:02 AM
If the "cause" is insufficient, it's probably Evil rather than Neutral.
For example, someone who works for the government, but in a menial role, who there isn't really a good reason to kill.
Very true.

No, I meant my comment more in the "playing reckless with government lives." A Good character never plays recklessly with life - Innocent or otheriwse - but a Neutral character won't make personal sacrifices to protect Innocent life; they just have qualms about taking them.

For example, if being messy with a bomb might endanger some government clerks working at the torture-prison but a messy bomb is necessary to successfully freeing the Fearless Leader of La Resistance, then a Neutral character would go with the messy bomb. A Good character, on the other hand, would be willing to undertake great personal risk to safeguard the lives of those clerks.

hamishspence
2010-08-16, 10:09 AM
No, I meant my comment more in the "playing reckless with government lives." A Good character never plays recklessly with life - Innocent or otheriwse - but a Neutral character won't make personal sacrifices to protect Innocent life; they just have qualms about taking them.

For example, if being messy with a bomb might endanger some government clerks working at the torture-prison but a messy bomb is necessary to successfully freeing the Fearless Leader of La Resistance, then a Neutral character would go with the messy bomb. A Good character, on the other hand, would be willing to undertake great personal risk to safeguard the lives of those clerks.

If the Neutral character's "qualms" are strong enough, they'll almost never take innocent lives. even if they won't generally rush to save them at great risk to themselves. They might save them whenever it won't mean a great risk though.

"Personal sacrifices" isn't necessarily "not choosing to use the messy bomb" it may be more "when unforeseen circumstances reveal that the innocents will be endangered by the messy bomb, the character will risk themselves to rescue those innocents."

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 10:28 AM
If the Neutral character's "qualms" are strong enough, they'll almost never take innocent lives. even if they won't generally rush to save them at great risk to themselves. They might save them whenever it won't mean a great risk though.

"Personal sacrifices" isn't necessarily "not choosing to use the messy bomb" it may be more "when unforeseen circumstances reveal that the innocents will be endangered by the messy bomb, the character will risk themselves to rescue those innocents."
Oh sure, but risking the failure of an important mission over the injury (and possible death) of collaborators with The Man doesn't sound like a "small risk" situation.

For reference:

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.
Of course, this isn't the point of this thread. I'm still curious how this "two layers" system is supposed to work. As far as I can tell, it's just adding a non-functional layer on top of the Nine Alignments System.

Beelzebub1111
2010-08-16, 12:11 PM
I generally use the following rule:
"If you have to ask if something would be considered evil, it probably is." I'm not USUALLY strict on alignment, but it's not something you can find loopholes in or try to weasel your way around and stay the same alignment.

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-16, 06:03 PM
What if you had 2 layers of alignment, for instance having good motives but evil methods
Some would simply call it neutral.

Yes, even I would tend to call this neutral. My normal rule of thought on this is that good is unable to play by the same rules as evil. If good were to resort to evil acts to further its cause, it would become evil (or at least neutral).

You can have multiple layers of alignment, but the questions of morality that D&D raises with its aspects of good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality is probably not the best system. And although, I generally don't allow alignment effects in game such as detect/protection spells, these are things you would have to address. How does smite evil work if the character believes himself to be good? How does detect evil work if the character believes himself to be good? Ect, ect, ect.

Although I love D&D, I generally find it difficult for people to play in the alignment system. All characters really need is a sense of motivation and personality. Everything else, IMO, is superfluous and doesn't really enhance the gaming experience. Relating this to the OP: the motivation would be the character's perceived alignment (the problem is that this is too limiting for my own tastes). The personality would be the perceived alignment of the character (once again too limiting for my tastes).


But I don't understand what use that is, aside from confusing everyone.

It would give players a feeling of depth. Where as a single layer makes characters rather shallow and doesn't take into account their motivations. Yes, it probably is confusing, especially since alignment has always been rather subjective. We have a tendency to associate good and evil by our own personal standards. Since each individual has a different view on what constitutes good and evil this holds true.


"My guy thinks he's a LG hero of the people, but he actually acts like a CE selfish-bastard."

Isn't that just the same as saying "I'm a CE selfish-bastard who thinks he's a true hero of the people?"
IMO, no it isn't. In one example the character has a sense of depth. He is fighting for a cause greater than himself, unfortunately people just don't understand. In the other example, he has become delusional, probably killing indiscriminately.


Why bother writing down an Alignment that has no practical impact on your character's actions? There's nothing that says a CE selfish bastard can't save an orphanage when the cameras are rolling, but it'd be very odd for him to switch from being selfless and selfish without any apparent reason.

EDIT: Note that the oWoD system didn't actually deal with Objective morality at all in its Nature/Demeanor system - it was a pair of superficial traits that, IMHO, bring more confusion than clarity to the game. Underneath it all was the True Morality System (Humanity in Vampire, Honor in Werewolf) which was purely objective.

Alignment always has a practical impact on a character's actions, whether it is the alignment that is perceived by society or by the character. In the oWoD relationship between Nature/Demeanor and Humanity: The character's nature determined how he was able to regain Willpower; his Humanity expressed what kind of moral/immoral actions he was willing to commit; his Demeanor was the only trait that didn't actually have a game mechanic, except that was suppose to be how the player perceived his character acting. Fortunately, White Wolf released the paths of enlightenment when they released the Sabbat. This allowed for concepts that didn't quite fall into line with the whole generic morality system described using Humanity.

In general, I get the impression that you follow the behavioralists school of thought. Meaning that it doesn't matter how you justify your actions, the fact is what you do is the only thing someone can accurately quantify.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-16, 06:12 PM
In general, I get the impression that you follow the behavioralists school of thought. Meaning that it doesn't matter how you justify your actions, the fact is what you do is the only thing someone can accurately quantify.
Well, if you must be blunt, I accept that - barring telepathy - the only way to determine a character's general moral and personal attitudes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) is through revealed preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference). Since the Nine Alignment System is predicated on objective morality, you need to use objective measures to understand it. Applying subjective beliefs to the Nine Alignments System makes a hash of the whole thing.

Despite your characterizations above, the "two-layer" approach is equivalent to the current system - expect that people need to specify a contradictory "subjective alignment" which is still bound by the objective layer. There is nothing stopping someone from saying "my LG character believes he is a true free spirit - yet he cannot help but imposing his personal beliefs on everyone else as if they were law" now; the two-layer approach would just say "I'm a LG who thinks he's CG." It adds nothing but further constraints on RP - which is ostensibly what the two-layer system wants to remove, no?

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-16, 08:52 PM
Well, if you must be blunt, I accept that - barring telepathy - the only way to determine a character's general moral and personal attitudes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) is through revealed preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference). Since the Nine Alignment System is predicated on objective morality, you need to use objective measures to understand it. Applying subjective beliefs to the Nine Alignments System makes a hash of the whole thing.

Yes, often I feel the only way to get to the heart of a matter is to be blunt. I apologize if this is offensive to you.

Actually, D&D assumes the ability to reveal ones moral attitude through divinations like detect evil. Also, it is accepted that Paladins being champions of good and order are able to go out and slay evil. The problem comes in with the Book of Exalted Deeds. It describes how it would be wrong for a good being to go out and destroy an inherently evil orc village without provocation other than it is evil by its very nature.

If something can be evil by its very nature without having committed an evil act, then objectivity has been left out of the equation.


Despite your characterizations above, the "two-layer" approach is equivalent to the current system - expect that people need to specify a contradictory "subjective alignment" which is still bound by the objective layer. There is nothing stopping someone from saying "my LG character believes he is a true free spirit - yet he cannot help but imposing his personal beliefs on everyone else as if they were law" now; the two-layer approach would just say "I'm a LG who thinks he's CG." It adds nothing but further constraints on RP - which is ostensibly what the two-layer system wants to remove, no?

No, the two-layer approach doesn't want to remove any constraints on RP. The only real purpose of the two-layer approach is to add a sense of depth to ones character. Stepping away from D&D, this can be more easily shown in oWoD. In the oWoD system, the player was free to change their character's Demeanor when ever the situation called for it, much the same way we do in RL. However, in D&D we are often penalized for acting against the "objective" or perceived alignment.

I have to admit that your position is a completely valid point of view. It has been argued by other Behavioralists since the 1950's. And although this is generally the view I take when dealing with people, when gaming I typically go for a more existentialist view of things. And yes this is somewhat of a contradiction, but one that I'm more than willing to live with.

hamishspence
2010-08-17, 02:43 AM
Yes, often I feel the only way to get to the heart of a matter is to be blunt. I apologize if this is offensive to you.

Actually, D&D assumes the ability to reveal ones moral attitude through divinations like detect evil. Also, it is accepted that Paladins being champions of good and order are able to go out and slay evil. The problem comes in with the Book of Exalted Deeds. It describes how it would be wrong for a good being to go out and destroy an inherently evil orc village without provocation other than it is evil by its very nature.

If something can be evil by its very nature without having committed an evil act, then objectivity has been left out of the equation.

I've mentioned once or twice that Evil alignment can sometimes be based on deeds, sometimes on personality, and sometimes on both.

A newborn Chromatic dragon is Evil, by a strict reading of the MM, despite never having committed an evil act. So is a saintly-good character who has failed a save against a Helm of Opposite Alignment and become evil. And so is a newly created member of many undead types.

Conversely, a person's personality may mostly fit Good (won't harm the innocent, makes sacrifices to help the innocent) but their deeds may, by BoED and Champions of Ruin, fit with an evil alignment- routinely torturing the "not innocent" for the personal pleasure it brings them, and maybe out of a desire for revenge.