PDA

View Full Version : What alignment is someone who only has 1 of the 2 "necessary" Good traits?



hamishspence
2010-09-15, 06:33 AM
Specifically, those from the SRD:


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

Example 1: A person believes making personal sacrifices to help others is immoral. However, they protect innocent life, because they enjoy doing so- and feel emotional pain when the innocent are under attack, and believe the gain in enjoyment outweighs the risk (and that the pain in guilt of letting the innocent be attacked, would outweigh the gain in personal safety).

This person has one trait (protects innocent life) but not the other (makes personal sacrifices.

Example 2: A person is feeble and a little physically cowardly. When innocents are under attack, they generally do not try and defend them (though they might yell for help). However, they live a life of personal sacrifice to help others, spending a great deal of time, money, physical and mental effort on charity and kindness, at considerable personal cost to themselves.

This person has one trait (makes personal sacrifices to help others) but not the other (protects innocent life).

Are either good enough, to qualify as Good-aligned?

I personally would say both could qualify.

KillianHawkeye
2010-09-15, 06:43 AM
Example 1 is probably Neutral, leaning towards Good. Helping people because it's fun isn't really enough to be considered Good in my book, since they don't really care about the person they're helping. They're basically in it for themselves, and their needs just happen to coincide with what is in the best interests of other people.

Example 2 is a bad example, since he does protect the innocent to the degree of which he's capable. I'd say he is Good aligned.

For somebody who does a lot of charity work (personal sacrifice) but chooses not to protect people (rather than being incapable), I guess it would depend on why they choose that path. If they're too cowardly to protect people from danger, then they are only doing good things when it is safe and convenient to do so. That makes them Neutral, since they're only willing to sacrifice up to a point.

Selfishness is a Neutral quality. If you help people, but still put yourself first, you are going to be Neutral with Good tendencies.

Grogmir
2010-09-15, 06:45 AM
re example 1)

I have trouble concieving a character that gains enjoyment from helping others - but only does so as they are forced to because of "emotional pain", that also thinks helping others is immoral.

If you are saying they wont go out of their own way - or put themselves risk to help others then thats unaligned.

"the gain in enjoyment outweighs the risk" That would make it Chaotic Neutral in old money.

Example 2)
This one is IMO not a PC. Then it makes more sense. I can envisage a NPC character than helps Good but is a weakling when faced with physical threats. This person IS portecting innocent life though - just not with their sword. Would be lawful Good NPC for me. Never a PC.

Hope that helps -
Grog

pingcode20
2010-09-15, 06:50 AM
On the other hand, isn't emotional pain on seeing people hurt a classic hallmark of a strong conscience? Assuming this isn't Geas-type magic, and instead a legitimate personal quality.

The rationalisation strikes me as just that - a rationalisation. Their personal beliefs tell them that it's wrong to go out of their way to help the innocent, so they rationalise it away by saying 'I'm not really sacrificing anything to help these people, I'm giving them safety in exchange for my emotional well being'.

In fact, I'd argue that in general such an individual would qualify for both key aspects and is simply in denial about the latter.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 06:51 AM
For 1, there's also the element of "Failure to protect people causes massive twinges of conscience- which he doesn't want to experience".

For person 1, good deeds are pleasurable "Good Feels Good" and evil deeds (or failure to do good deeds when they're really really called for) painful.

Person 2 is the sort of person willing to sacrifice a great deal to help others- but a little too fearful to physically protect others.

Both would, if good, have "Neutral tendencies" and be the kind of Good character that occurs in a setting where nearly a third of the human population are Good, and a similar proportion Evil.

Still, for some D&D (Eberron? Heroes of Horror?) I think they could qualify.


re example 1)
I have trouble concieving a character that gains enjoyment from helping others - but only does so as they are forced to because of "emotional pain", that also thinks helping others is immoral.
Not "helping others is immoral" "making sacrifices is immoral". Quite a big difference.

Person 1 might subscribe to a philosophy very similar to Objectivism.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 08:00 AM
If I was DMing for someone who wanted to play an atypical character of their alignment, it might work out like this:

Player: "I want to play a Good character who does not make personal sacrifices to help others"
DM: "OK- but they'll have to be a seriously dedicated protector of the innocent, with little or no Evil traits, to compensate"

Player: "I want to play an Evil character who is not willing to debase or destroy the innocent"
DM: "OK- but they'll have to be a seriously enthusiastic Evildoer in other ways"

Player: "I want to play a Neutral character who does not lack the commitment to help strangers"
DM: "OK- but they'll need at least a minor Evil trait to go with it"

Better IMO, than simply saying "You can't do that, the PHB forbids it".

Peregrine
2010-09-15, 08:05 AM
It seems to me that in some ways, these two "Good traits" are two parts of the same thing. One who protects innocent life is sacrificing something to do so, even if it's just the opportunity to go do something else. And one who makes sacrifices to help others is, in some manner, "protecting" others, if only from poverty and hardship.


Example 1: A person believes making personal sacrifices to help others is immoral. However, they protect innocent life, because they enjoy doing so- and feel emotional pain when the innocent are under attack, and believe the gain in enjoyment outweighs the risk (and that the pain in guilt of letting the innocent be attacked, would outweigh the gain in personal safety).

Borderline Good/Neutral. Probably Lawful. They see "protecting others" as appropriate behaviour, but care little for the people themselves -- certainly they care about people less than about their philosophy. Yet they nevertheless must be making some sort of sacrifice, taking some sort of risk, to protect innocent life. (Maybe some day they're gonna have a bit of a philosophical crisis trying to reconcile that with their abhorrence for sacrifice. :smalltongue:)


Example 2: A person is feeble and a little physically cowardly. When innocents are under attack, they generally do not try and defend them (though they might yell for help). However, they live a life of personal sacrifice to help others, spending a great deal of time, money, physical and mental effort on charity and kindness, at considerable personal cost to themselves.

Definitely Good, no question. Not Exalted, but Good.

I guess that means that I see sacrificing for others as more central to Good than protecting the innocent?

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 08:14 AM
Yet they nevertheless must be making some sort of sacrifice, taking some sort of risk, to protect innocent life. (Maybe some day they're gonna have a bit of a philosophical crisis trying to reconcile that with their abhorrence for sacrifice. :smalltongue:)

Its probably a case of- from their perspective, doing things they enjoy, and avoiding emotional situations that they hate (guilt) is no sacrifice- even if there are risks involved.

BoED does suggest that protecting the innocent for personal profit is Neutral rather than good- but if it's emotional profit the person is after, maybe it's different?

If protecting the innocent for no physical gain can qualify as a slightly good act, than the person can be one who commits (slightly) good acts all the time, and never commits evil acts, allowing them to be Good.

In 2nd ed, such a character might fit the CG archetype of "selfish but good-hearted"- selfish- because they never do anything they don't want to do or enjoy doing- good-hearted because what they enjoy doing greatly benefits others.

Tengu_temp
2010-09-15, 08:16 AM
Protecting innocents is making personal sacrifice to help others. You're putting your life on the line for their sake.

Cubey
2010-09-15, 08:18 AM
Not to mention time and effort, which you could spend pursuing more selfish goals. Unless your character is explicitly in it only for money or other rewards (such as favors or fame), helping others is enough to be Good.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 08:19 AM
May depend on your definition of sacrifice- generally a sacrifice is giving up something you really value- including "your spare time".

If the person is doing exactly what they most want to do- is it really sacrifice?


Unless your character is explicitly in it only for money or other rewards (such as favors or fame), helping others is enough to be Good.

The other reward might be "the enjoyment" possibly with an element of "the pleasure of knowing lives have been saved by you". Might not be enough to move it into Neutral.

Besides rewards- theres also doing something because you feel you will be (emotionally) punished (even if only by yourself) for not doing so- which may play a part.

Cubey
2010-09-15, 08:24 AM
When you think like that, nobody is really Good.

"I will give up my life to protect these people - because I want to!" means you want to make this choice and ergo it's not sacrifice.

I cannot agree with this definition.

Feeling good about performing a good deed is not a reward, because it's not something substantial (payment), nor something that gives you a significant advantage over others (Mafia-like favor). Likewise, emotional punishment is enough of a motivation for a Good person, if they are the ones who will feel guilty rather than having this guilt imposed by others.

Tengu_temp
2010-09-15, 08:24 AM
It's not a sacrifice if you're doing it for other reasons - fame, money, obligation, whatever. Though it's worth noting that a hero who does good deeds and tries to fool everyone, including himself, that he does it for selfish reasons and not because he's actually good, is a fairly common anti-hero archetype.

jmbrown
2010-09-15, 08:24 AM
Protecting innocents is making personal sacrifice to help others. You're putting your life on the line for their sake.

What Tengu said. The very act of protecting something is personal sacrifice in itself. If someone is being beaten up by a bully and Character 1 steps in, even if his goal is only to beat up the bully and defending the person is secondary on his list of concerns, he's still sacrificing his own health and well being to help that person. If that same person is in trouble by something else and he doesn't help, then "Good Character Trait 2" doesn't apply either making the character neutral.

Example number 2 is in the exact same boat. He can't literally step in and start swinging fists but by giving to charity and spending resources on the weak, he is protecting them. Obviously if someone is starving and you give them bread, you just saved their life. If that person gets beat up and you don't step in because you fear for your life but you still care about that person, then you either A) run for help or B) treat the person's injuries afterward.

The good traits are mutually exclusive. You can't have one without having the other. If you lack one then you lack the other and are instead neutral.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 08:31 AM
When you think like that, nobody is really Good.

"I will give up my life to protect these people - because I want to!" means you want to make this choice and ergo it's not sacrifice.

Only if you assume that only unselfish deeds, and only sacrifices, are good acts.

If you allow mildly selfish Good deeds to still qualify as Good, there's no problem.

Baalthazaq
2010-09-15, 08:33 AM
Hmmm... an alignment thread. This is going to get messy.


In philosophy, the debate is "Does altruism exist?"

The reason this question is around is "can you do something you don't want to do"? Now on the face of it, yes, obviously you can. I don't want to give money to charity, I want the money, but I give it anyway.

However, altruism in an absolute sense would mean picking the option that doesn't reward you in *any* way. Societal acceptance, acceptance from your deity, acceptance from yourself, feeling good about yourself, feeling ok about yourself, are all things "bought" with this money that goes to charity.

If there is literally nothing that made you do something, then (the argument goes) you wouldn't have done it.

Now if you follow a code and it makes you behave in some way against your desires (Islamic Zakat for example demands a certain percentage of your wealth goes to charity) you could argue for it being Lawful rather than good (I don't want to argue about heaven and the afterlife), but I think saying that it cannot be altruism because he feels good about it, is over analyzing altruism.

Basically, as you said, emotional gains don't count. That you feel good about helping others might actually be what makes you good.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 08:37 AM
The question is- when they know that doing this act will make them feel good- and that's a big part of what makes them choose to do it- is the act still good even if somewhat "selfishly motivated"?

I'd say, yes it is.

Conversely, a person who does acts that make them really feel bad and gain them nothing, could be said to be "making a sacrifice" if they do them anyway for the benefit of others- but if that act is a severe violation of somebody's rights, it might be both altruistic, and evil.

jmbrown
2010-09-15, 08:37 AM
It's not a sacrifice if you're doing it for other reasons - fame, money, obligation, whatever. Though it's worth noting that a hero who does good deeds and tries to fool everyone, including himself, that he does it for selfish reasons and not because he's actually good, is a fairly common anti-hero archetype.

I don't believe this. A sacrifice is literally a "loss" or something given for something gained. A personal sacrifice is just that; using your own resources for something else. I know society we attach a more substantial meaning to it philosophically/religiously (of which I can't get into on the forums), but in the case of non-theological definition of the word, sacrifice is willingly giving something up. A personal sacrifice doesn't have to be made with good intentions, it just has to be made period.

The difference between a good character and a neutral character is whether or not they'll continue with their sacrifice if the return isn't justified. A good character can ask for money or expect a reward, but, if the reward isn't offered they will still offer their services if the cause is right. A neutral character may help the innocent but if the reward isn't offered he packs his bags and leaves. Both characters still make sacrifices but the neutral character doesn't if the return isn't justified.

Tiki Snakes
2010-09-15, 08:39 AM
This is a much more interesting question than I expected, actually.
I'm going to chime in with the following;

I believe that helping other people because you enjoy it and feeling emotional pain when the innocent are under attack is basically the default source of 'altruism'.

The idea of doing good because it's right, as some kind of noble sacrifice, just doesn't wash with my understanding of human psychology. At the end of the day, if you listen to the most self-sacrificing people in real life, they will usually say something about how they derive a lot of gratification or satisfaction from the work and so on.

I've been tempted on several occaisions to play a 'true' altruist. Someone who, for whatever reason, helps other people at risk to themselves but hates doing so and gains no existencial emotional benefit from doing so.

I'm probably both exaggerating and mangling the psychology of the situation, I'm sure. But it seems to fit with the idea of emotions as controlling, social-triggers. We feel discomfort about letting other members of our society suffer because by helping, we are more likely to be helped in return, so our body forces us into the course that, perhaps more in the distant past, increases our own odds of survival. That's how I see it, anyway.

YMMV

Tengu_temp
2010-09-15, 08:48 AM
The difference between a good character and a neutral character is whether or not they'll continue with their sacrifice if the return isn't justified. A good character can ask for money or expect a reward, but, if the reward isn't offered they will still offer their services if the cause is right. A neutral character may help the innocent but if the reward isn't offered he packs his bags and leaves. Both characters still make sacrifices but the neutral character doesn't if the return isn't justified.

I'm inclined to agree with that.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 08:57 AM
Of course, if the reward is emotional pleasure- then the only way the hedonistic hero will be tempted to walk away, and not leap to their aid next time, is when they are confronted with extreme ingratitude.

One of the possible philosophies associated with CG:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

is suggested to be ethical hedonism- the belief that pleasure is intrinsically good and should be maximized where it doesn't conflict with the rights of others.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-15, 09:18 AM
The Examples

Example 1: A person believes making personal sacrifices to help others is immoral. However, they protect innocent life, because they enjoy doing so- and feel emotional pain when the innocent are under attack, and believe the gain in enjoyment outweighs the risk (and that the pain in guilt of letting the innocent be attacked, would outweigh the gain in personal safety).
So, he doesn't view placing his life in danger for strangers as a "personal sacrifice?" In any case, defending total strangers in this fashion is Good; we'd need to know more about his "personal sacrifice" beliefs to see whether he just has bloodlust or what.


Example 2: A person is feeble and a little physically cowardly. When innocents are under attack, they generally do not try and defend them (though they might yell for help). However, they live a life of personal sacrifice to help others, spending a great deal of time, money, physical and mental effort on charity and kindness, at considerable personal cost to themselves.
Here we have someone who would be willing to help Innocents - likely even sacrifice his life for them - if he thought it would help. In fact, it would seem like this person would be willing to protect Innocents in non-violent contexts - against legal persecution or other indignities.
The issue here is that your two clauses have a great deal of overlap. Making personal sacrifices to help others (i.e. strangers) implies many of the same sorts of actions that "protect the Innocent" does - shelter them from harm; support them in their time of need. Likewise, the classic "protect the Innocent" involves sacrificing your personal safety for strangers.

A better example would be that of an Invincible Warrior - he wins every conflict he enters and cannot be harmed. He does not make a "personal sacrifice" by entering combat; if he gets his jollies by fighting to protect people that does not alone make him Good. If he then refuses to aid strangers in non-combat situations (e.g. defending the unjustly accused, giving food to the hungry) he is now demonstrating a general unwillingness to make personal sacrifices to help others.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 09:25 AM
There may be times when "making a personal sacrifice to help another" is not necessarily a Good act.

A normally very moral person embezzles a lot of money and then gives it to the needy- knowing he will eventually be caught and punished.

He sacrifices his moral standing, his happiness, and so on- for others- but he has violated other people's rights. Such a sacrifice may not be good, and might (if the violation is severe enough) even be evil.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-15, 09:31 AM
There may be times when "making a personal sacrifice to help another" is not necessarily a Good act.

A normally very moral person embezzles a lot of money and then gives it to the needy- knowing he will eventually be caught and punished.

He sacrifices his moral standing, his happiness, and so on- for others- but he has violated other people's rights. Such a sacrifice may not be good, and might (if the violation is severe enough) even be evil.
Yes, obviously. Even a strict textualist can read the Good definition and see that.

* * * *

The important point is that the information in your original scenario is insufficient to do more than suggest Good - and the criteria you're building around have substantial overlap which makes it problematic for use as a thought experiment.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 09:37 AM
Question is- can someone be Good through committing good deeds, and not committing evil deeds, without having all the "Good personality traits"?

Not all sacrifices are good acts.

Are all good acts, sacrifices?

If not, than a person who only practices non-sacrifice Good acts (but is so wired that their acts nearly always involve "helping the innocent" and "protecting the innocent")

might be "Good because they're a doer of good deeds, and not evil ones" rather than "because all their general moral and personal attitudes coincide with Good".

This can be the counterpart of the "can a person be Evil through being an eager evildoer, even if they're not willing to debase or destroy the innocent" question- which quite a few people considered feasible.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-15, 10:01 AM
Question is- can someone be Good through committing good deeds, and not committing evil deeds, without having all the "Good personality traits"?

Not all sacrifices are good acts.

Are all good acts, sacrifices?
You've focused too much on actions, and not on their general system of beliefs - that is to say, their Alignment.

Your Warrior Scenario, for example, seems incoherent to me. What kind of individual willingly risks their life in battle for Innocents and then says "I don't make personal sacrifices for Innocents."

I can understand a Knight in Shinning Armor who slays the dragon and then says "now, good people, you must rebuild your village with your own hands." He believes that the best way for people to become better is for them to help themselves - but when they cannot help themselves, he is willing to bring self-help into their reach. He is Good.

On the other hand, someone who likes to fight for the crowd obviously isn't interested in protecting Innocents-as-Innocents; he is happy getting good PR. He is not Good; he is Neutral at best.

The Cowardly Donor, OTOH, is clearly willing to protect the Innocent in the only way he can. "Protect the Innocent" isn't always about throwing your self in front of raging trolls; sometimes it is defending the unjustly accused or giving shelter to a stranded traveler. He is Good.

jpreem
2010-09-15, 10:03 AM
The "if it feels good to do then it is not a virtue" thing irks me.

( Have heard honest to god sentiments like that in real life)

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 10:04 AM
What kind of individual willingly risks their life in battle for Innocents and then says "I don't make personal sacrifices for Innocents."

Someone who (consciously or otherwise) weighs their actions with the question "Will this make me happier?" combined with "does the happiness gain outweigh the risks?" and, if yes- leaps into action.

As it happens, for them, helping others makes them happier. Their actions are, from their point of view not sacrifices, but trades.


The "if it feels good to do then it is not a virtue" thing irks me.

( Have heard honest to god sentiments like that in real life)

Same here- which is why I think a case can be made that whether an act is a sacrifice or not, does not entirely determine whether it's a Good act or not.


.
A better example would be that of an Invincible Warrior - he wins every conflict he enters and cannot be harmed. He does not make a "personal sacrifice" by entering combat; if he gets his jollies by fighting to protect people that does not alone make him Good.

Superman is an Invincible Warrior (except where Kryptonite and the like are involved) but doesn't just protect the innocent from enemies, but from misfortunes they are in danger of being killed by. If he did so because he liked the feelings it gave him, and considered those feelings a worthwhile trade for his time, would he suddenly become nongood?

jmbrown
2010-09-15, 10:08 AM
Of course, if the reward is emotional pleasure- then the only way the hedonistic hero will be tempted to walk away, and not leap to their aid next time, is when they are confronted with extreme ingratitude.

One of the possible philosophies associated with CG:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

is suggested to be ethical hedonism- the belief that pleasure is intrinsically good and should be maximized where it doesn't conflict with the rights of others.

There are "hedonistic" deities in BoED like Chaav but they practice emotional, sexual, and stimulating experiences. It's okay to enjoy fine foods, wear fine clothing, and generally enjoy the pleasures of life provided you don't encroach on someone else, you don't waste or splurge in excess, and you teach others how to enjoy themselves.

Even good people frown on these (still good) gods because it's such an alien concept to the average good D&D worshiper who believe piety and goodness usually means sacrifice and humility. The average person thinks a holy man-of-the-cloth stays in the cloth... unless of course he's decked out in crazy ridiculous armor, robbing ancient dungeons, and slaying monsters without prejudice (or in the case of undead, with prejudice).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-15, 10:19 AM
Superman is an Invincible Warrior (except where Kryptonite and the like are involved) but doesn't just protect the innocent from enemies, but from misfortunes they are in danger of being killed by. If he did so because he liked the feelings it gave him, and considered those feelings a worthwhile trade for his time, would he suddenly become nongood?
Certainly not!

There is nothing in the Alignment system that penalizes people who enjoy protecting the Innocent or making sacrifices to help others. Now, if they are only performing actions for hedonic reasons then you start running into problems.

Essentially, having "protect the Innocent" as part of your general system of beliefs means you don't stop protecting the Innocent just because there's something more entertaining to do. If you would choose "feeling good" over "protect the Innocent" you are not Good.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 10:27 AM
For this guy "protecting the innocent" tops the list of "things that make him feel good" so the conflict is highly unlikely to come up.

Peregrine
2010-09-15, 10:29 AM
A better example would be that of an Invincible Warrior - he wins every conflict he enters and cannot be harmed. He does not make a "personal sacrifice" by entering combat; if he gets his jollies by fighting to protect people that does not alone make him Good.

Thus far, we have (as hamishspence pointed out) Superman. He's not in danger from (most of) the things he does to protect the innocent. This actually has a lot in common with the frail, cowardly charity worker from the OP, as bizarre as that may seem. Both of them do Good in a way that they are quite capable of accomplishing, while not doing something else commonly perceived as Good. But this omission is defensible on the grounds that they have some sort of "limitation", which means that if they did try to do it (if the frail coward tried fighting gangs, or if Superman found himself a life-threatening situation to jump into), it's unlikely that they would accomplish anything Good.


If he then refuses to aid strangers in non-combat situations (e.g. defending the unjustly accused, giving food to the hungry) he is now demonstrating a general unwillingness to make personal sacrifices to help others.

This on the other hand would clearly demonstrate an unwillingness to sacrifice where it's definitely possible to do so. It's morally similar to a cowardly donor who's filthy rich and gives a lot out of his wealth (as Superman gives out of his boundless strength), but who refuses to do other things -- comparatively small things, maybe, but well within his limitations -- that would require actual sacrifice.

jmbrown
2010-09-15, 10:41 AM
Thus far, we have (as hamishspence pointed out) Superman. He's not in danger from (most of) the things he does to protect the innocent. This actually has a lot in common with the frail, cowardly charity worker from the OP, as bizarre as that may seem. Both of them do Good in a way that they are quite capable of accomplishing, while not doing something else commonly perceived as Good. But this omission is defensible on the grounds that they have some sort of "limitation", which means that if they did try to do it (if the frail coward tried fighting gangs, or if Superman found himself a life-threatening situation to jump into), it's unlikely that they would accomplish anything Good.

Superman also has to deal with minimizing collateral damage. I don't think Superman has the same aversion to killing that Batman does, but Superman generally pulls his punches, purposefully avoids wreaking too much havoc in crowded areas, and always saves the innocent when endangered which sometimes allows the badguys to get away. The quintessentially "good" heroes' biggest weakness is when the villain tosses a burning object at the cliche child standing off to the sidelines.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 11:42 AM
If you would choose "feeling good" over "protect the Innocent" you are not Good.

One case where the person might do it- they work themselves hard, but not quite as hard as they could.

They could work a fraction harder, protect a tiny percentage more of innocents- but in the process a great deal of the joy would go out of it- and it would be, in effect "sacrificing their happiness in order to protect the Innocent (just a tiny bit more)"

That, from their point of view, would be an immoral act committed against themselves- to them, they count as an innocent too, and overworking themselves would be "debasing and oppressing the innocent"

The character may be one of the nicest hedonists around- but they're still a hedonist.

Would this unwillingness to overwork themselves to the point of destroying their own happiness, make them Neutral? I don't think it would.

"Even Superman needs to take a break once in a while" so to speak.

Starbuck_II
2010-09-15, 11:48 AM
It's not a sacrifice if you're doing it for other reasons - fame, money, obligation, whatever. Though it's worth noting that a hero who does good deeds and tries to fool everyone, including himself, that he does it for selfish reasons and not because he's actually good, is a fairly common anti-hero archetype.

But anti-heroes aren't anti-heroes because they do it for money, fame, obligation, etc.
They are anti-heroes because they don't act in heroic terms to get the job done.
Heroes status is based on means not ends.

Look at Booster Gold who saves people for fame and because it is right thing to do. (but mostly for fame). He isn't a anti-hero because he defeats villians heroically not because he wants fame.

MarkusWolfe
2010-09-15, 11:50 AM
Not to mention time and effort, which you could spend pursuing more selfish goals. Unless your character is explicitly in it only for money or other rewards (such as favors or fame), helping others is enough to be Good.

So.....if I help an old man unload heavy bags of flour from his cart or open doors for strangers, I'm good aligned?


Of course, if the reward is emotional pleasure- then the only way the hedonistic hero will be tempted to walk away, and not leap to their aid next time, is when they are confronted with extreme ingratitude.

One of the possible philosophies associated with CG:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

is suggested to be ethical hedonism- the belief that pleasure is intrinsically good and should be maximized where it doesn't conflict with the rights of others.

Bookmarked.

Question to add to the debate: If I'm chaotic good and I overthrow an evil tyrant, how much of my kicks should come from defeating evil and how much from liberating the people?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-15, 01:18 PM
One case where the person might do it- they work themselves hard, but not quite as hard as they could.

They could work a fraction harder, protect a tiny percentage more of innocents- but in the process a great deal of the joy would go out of it- and it would be, in effect "sacrificing their happiness in order to protect the Innocent (just a tiny bit more)"
No, I'm talking about "do you want to get high or save the orphan" sort of situations. Being Good doesn't mean protecting every Innocent, but it does mean that you value protecting Innocents.

Trying to salami-slice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics) Alignment into a utilitarian calculation obfuscates Alignment more than it clarifies. "What makes you happy" has nothing to do with Alignment - it's like asking whether being fat means you're Good or Evil; it is trying to tie a new variable into a system that does not consider it.

People do things for many reasons: duty, approval, self-satisfaction, etc. However, Alignment does not particularly need to be tied to different forms of motivations - it is only "a creature’s general moral and personal attitudes." Of those general attitudes, the definitions of each Alignment considers only a select sub-group.

The Good/Evil Axis, for example, considers the following:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

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.
Any other factors must be tied to the listed traits evaluated when determining Alignment. Being blue-eyed, rude, carefree or sarcastic have no intrinsic bearing whatsoever on a creature's Alignment; what makes them happy has relevance only insomuch as it touches their attitudes towards the lives of Innocents - are they to be preserved, destroyed, or left alone?

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 01:30 PM
Specifically, those from the SRD:
Example 1: A person believes making personal sacrifices to help others is immoral. However, they protect innocent life, because they enjoy doing so- and feel emotional pain when the innocent are under attack, and believe the gain in enjoyment outweighs the risk (and that the pain in guilt of letting the innocent be attacked, would outweigh the gain in personal safety).

This person has one trait (protects innocent life) but not the other (makes personal sacrifices.

Depends on why he thinks it's immoral. If it's because he believes that giving too much to others creates dependence, and prevents them from learning self-sufficiency, even though he wants to, you could make the argument that he is self-sacrificing. He is sacrificing his comfort and desire to help people in order to do what he thinks will benefit them more in the long run - a kind of tough love stance.

So, he's somewhere in the neutral-to-good spectrum, depending a little more on what is motivating him.


Example 2: A person is feeble and a little physically cowardly. When innocents are under attack, they generally do not try and defend them (though they might yell for help). However, they live a life of personal sacrifice to help others, spending a great deal of time, money, physical and mental effort on charity and kindness, at considerable personal cost to themselves.

This person has one trait (makes personal sacrifices to help others) but not the other (protects innocent life).

Are either good enough, to qualify as Good-aligned?

I personally would say both could qualify.

He's yelling for help, which puts him at some level of risk, and is probably the most effective thing he can do to help. Good != stupid. The guy knows if he gets in a physical altercation, he is likely to not help, but to just become a victim himself.

He qualifies as Good in my book.



The Good/Evil Axis, for example, considers the following:

Any other factors must be tied to the listed traits evaluated when determining Alignment. Being blue-eyed, rude, carefree or sarcastic have no intrinsic bearing whatsoever on a creature's Alignment; what makes them happy has relevance only insomuch as it touches their attitudes towards the lives of Innocents - are they to be preserved, destroyed, or left alone?

While I generally agree with this, I tend to take the viewpoint that acts are not, in themselves, what determine alignment. That leads too much to a "credit card" of Good/Evil system... "Well, I killed a nun today, so I need to help three old ladies across the street and give money to 10 orphans to make up for it." Acts are a reflection of alignment, not the determinant.

Frosty
2010-09-15, 01:45 PM
Depends on why he thinks it's immoral. If it's because he believes that giving too much to others creates dependence, and prevents them from learning self-sufficiency, even though he wants to, you could make the argument that he is self-sacrificing. He is sacrificing his comfort and desire to help people in order to do what he thinks will benefit them more in the long run - a kind of tough love stance.
Do you believe Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) an her philosophy of Objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)) are Good?

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 01:51 PM
Do you believe Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) an her philosophy of Objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)) are Good?

I am neither promoting nor defending that point. Merely stating that if his rationale for not giving to others was because he believed that it was the best way to help them, then it may count as being Good.

Whether he's right is an entirely separate question, likely to lead to a flame war, and not really relevant to this conversation. :smallbiggrin:

Frosty
2010-09-15, 01:56 PM
I am neither promoting nor defending that point. Merely stating that if his rationale for not giving to others was because he believed that it was the best way to help them, then it may count as being Good.

Whether he's right is an entirely separate question, likely to lead to a flame war, and not really relevant to this conversation. :smallbiggrin:
I was under the impression that intent doesn't matter all that much in DnD since alignment is objective? I mean, you've got Evil happening whenever you summon up skeletons even if just to save orphans from a burning building. You've got Jozan turning ever closer to Evil whenever he casts Symbol of Pain as a magical trap to protect the innocents under his care.

It mattered not their desires. There are actual good and evil energies in the DnD-verse that define good and evil.

This is all stupid of course, but RAW.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 02:49 PM
I am neither promoting nor defending that point. Merely stating that if his rationale for not giving to others was because he believed that it was the best way to help them, then it may count as being Good.

Actually I'm talking about the opposite- a person who always gives to others- time, effort, risk- but because they find pleasure in it, and believe that the pleasure is worth what they're spending on it.



While I generally agree with this, I tend to take the viewpoint that acts are not, in themselves, what determine alignment. That leads too much to a "credit card" of Good/Evil system... "Well, I killed a nun today, so I need to help three old ladies across the street and give money to 10 orphans to make up for it." Acts are a reflection of alignment, not the determinant.

True up to a point- but acts might override an existing personality trait to determine the final point.

For example "will not harm the innocent" may not be enough to make for a nonevil alignment, if the character also has the trait "will torture the not-innocent for revenge, emotional satisfaction, pleasure, etc".

Conversely "will not make sacrifices to help the innocent" may not be enough to make for a nonevil alignment, if the person spends most of their time helping and protecting the innocent- because they believe the gain in personal happiness, outweighs the risk. They may be selfish, but in the cause of the self, they do a great deal of good.

Person 1 "The Hedonist" will give to others- but primarily because he takes pleasure in it.

Person 2 "The Self-sacrificing" is not really physically self-sacrificing- they're not someone who will ever put themselves at physical risk "to help the innocent". But they make sacrifices of their time, money, and physical labour, instead. If asked "Would you sacrifice your life to help a stranger" the person would have to say no if they were being honest- but they can and do sacrifice almost anything short of that.

kyoryu
2010-09-15, 02:52 PM
I was under the impression that intent doesn't matter all that much in DnD since alignment is objective? I mean, you've got Evil happening whenever you summon up skeletons even if just to save orphans from a burning building. You've got Jozan turning ever closer to Evil whenever he casts Symbol of Pain as a magical trap to protect the innocents under his care.

It mattered not their desires. There are actual good and evil energies in the DnD-verse that define good and evil.

This is all stupid of course, but RAW.

For things dealing with negative energy, sure. There's a lot of areas in the system that don't deal with negative energy. And for these things that aren't "magically inherently" evil, intent can matter quite a bit.

Here's a scenario: There's a guy with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. There's a starving orphan. The guy knows the orphan will eat the sandwich.

If the guy gives the orphan the sandwich, is that a Good, Neutral, or Evil act?
If he withholds the sandwich, is it Good, Neutral, or Evil?

Now, let's say that the kid is allergic to peanuts, although the guy with the sandwich doesn't know this. Is it Good, Neutral, or Evil for him to give the sandwich? What about not giving it?

What if the kid is allergic to peanuts, and the guy is aware of this? How does that change things?

What if the guy believes the kid is allergic to peanuts, but he isn't? How does this change things?

In all of these scenarios, the act is the same. The intent and effect of the act shift, however.

Personally, I'd argue that the alignment of these acts would be:
Normal situation: Give is Good, withhold is Neutral
Kid is allergic: Give is still Good, withhold is still Neutral
Kid is allergic, guy knows: Give is Evil, withhold is Neutral, possibly Good if the kid is really begging for it
Kid is not allergic, guy believes he is: Give is Evil, withhold is Neutral or possibly Neutral



True up to a point- but acts might override an existing personality trait to determine the final point.

For example "will not harm the innocent" may not be enough to make for a nonevil alignment, if the character also has the trait "will torture the not-innocent for revenge, emotional satisfaction, pleasure, etc".


Right. My argument is that "Evil people perform Evil acts," not that "performing Evil acts means you're Evil." A person who thought that they could rescue a dozen puppies to "shift their balance" is probably Evil to the core. The specific type of evil acts is less relevant, to me. The primary factor is "willing to harm others for his own benefit," outside of self-defense.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 02:59 PM
For things dealing with negative energy, sure. There's a lot of areas in the system that don't deal with negative energy. And for these things that aren't "magically inherently" evil, intent can matter quite a bit.

And (if you go by Heroes of Horror) characters like the Dread Necromancer who commit "magically inherently evil acts" can maintain a Neutral alignment if they're generally good in other ways.

Some evil acts (the most minor ones) don't guarantee an evil alignment.


My argument is that "Evil people perform Evil acts," not that "performing Evil acts means you're Evil." A person who thought that they could rescue a dozen puppies to "shift their balance" is probably Evil to the core. The specific type of evil acts is less relevant, to me. The primary factor is "willing to harm others for his own benefit," outside of self-defense.

I go so far as to say "Will (and do) severely violate the rights of others for profit or pleasure" is so powerful an Evil trait, that it can override the nonevil trait "Will not harm the innocent"- for an antihero who sees themselves as dedicated to protecting the innocent by Paying Evil Unto Evil.

But not everyone agrees.

Crasical
2010-09-15, 03:00 PM
It mattered not their desires. There are actual good and evil energies in the DnD-verse that define good and evil.

Rules-as-written don't cover the whole moral spectrum. This is why these debates come up, because the rules don't cover everything (And because they're usually fascinating to discuss.)

Simple example: A warrior grows to adulthood and finds that he finds very little truly satisfying. He apprentices to a mage, and finds that wielding arcane energy is unsatisfying. He abandons his mentor and becomes a cloistered cleric, meditating on the divine. He finds asceticism unfulfilling. In frustration and rage, he enlists with an adventuring party and during one of their battles, kills a goblin with his dagger. That night, he is wracked with guilt at having killed a sentient being, and most of all, the fact that he deeply enjoyed it.

So, we have a character who enjoys and wants to perform evil acts (hurting and killing others), but is conflicted by knowing that such acts are morally wrong (he has concern for the dignity of sentient beings).

RAW, his moral conflict amounts to a hill of beans. Sometimes he will do good in an effort to avoid guilt, sometimes he will indulge himself and perform evil acts, roughly averaging out to neutral.

If we start considering other things, the intent which he performs his actions, for example, he starts to look more evil-aligned. This is why debates like this occur, as people start to look at extenuating circumstances and disagree on what they mean.

For example, I bet someone could construct an interpretation that the conflicted caster is good-aligned, based on the act that his natural tendency toward evil makes every good act an exercise in self-denial and sacrifice.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 03:05 PM
Maybe redeemed demons gravitate to Good quickly because of this? Once someone's convinced the demon to start doing good and not do evil, their every act of protecting the innocent, and making sacrifices to help others, is "extra-good" because it's so against their nature, that it's actually emotionally painful to do it?


Right. My argument is that "Evil people perform Evil acts," not that "performing Evil acts means you're Evil."

The 3.5 splatbook Champions of Ruin phrased it as "While Neutral and even Good people may be driven to them from time to time, the repeated, deliberate use of many of these acts is the mark of an evil character."

Erts
2010-09-15, 03:22 PM
Player: "I want to play an Evil character who is not willing to debase or destroy the innocent"
DM: "OK- but they'll have to be a seriously enthusiastic Evildoer in other ways"

Player: "I want to play a Neutral character who does not lack the commitment to help strangers"
DM: "OK- but they'll need at least a minor Evil trait to go with it"


Umm, this is not necessarily true. Example A: A character who enacts personal revenge on people who were directly responsible (and knew the consequences for their actions) for the loss of his arm, and sub-sequentially, his job which he dedicated his life to. He kills them in horrible ways. Were the people innocent? No, not technically. Is he evil to do this? Yes.

Example B: A completely Lawful Neutral law-enforcer, that is, someone who will punish those who hurt the innocent, but will also punish people who break the law severely, even if it was justifiable. For instance, enormous tax evasion. No, they won't take pleasure in taking their stuff to pay for taxes, but he won't hate it either.

hamishspence
2010-09-15, 04:47 PM
Umm, this is not necessarily true. Example A: A character who enacts personal revenge on people who were directly responsible (and knew the consequences for their actions) for the loss of his arm, and sub-sequentially, his job which he dedicated his life to. He kills them in horrible ways. Were the people innocent? No, not technically. Is he evil to do this? Yes.

That's what I meant by "seriously enthusiastic Evildoer" anyway- the only people they've done evil to are the "Not Innocent" but their evil acts may be enough for the DM to say "Your alignment is now Evil".



Example B: A completely Lawful Neutral law-enforcer, that is, someone who will punish those who hurt the innocent, but will also punish people who break the law severely, even if it was justifiable. For instance, enormous tax evasion. No, they won't take pleasure in taking their stuff to pay for taxes, but he won't hate it either.

For the "Neutral character with a minor evil trait to balance their Good one" I was thinking of Neutral characters who would "protect the innocent" as part of their standard routine- lifeguards, firefighters- and so on- can they be Neutral, or do they all have to be Good. I'd say it is possible for them to be Neutral despite the fact that normally "Neutral people lack the commitment to help strangers".

On the issue of a Good character who "never protects the innocent, but makes personal sacrifices to help others" it may depend on whether "protects the innocent" has to mean "personally protects the innocent" or not.

If a person hires others to protect the innocent on his behalf- but is not a brave person and would hardly ever stand between an innocent and a threat, is "hiring others to protect the innocent" enough for the statement "This character protects innocent life" to be fully true?

A person who hires others to murder, might be morally a murderer- but does the same principle apply to a person who hires others to protect the innocent?

Or does this only qualify as "making sacrifices (of money) to help others"?

Cubey
2010-09-15, 05:02 PM
So.....if I help an old man unload heavy bags of flour from his cart or open doors for strangers, I'm good aligned?

If you do it on a semi-regular basis rather than once a year, and if you do not perform any evil or extraordinarily selfish deeds to "balance it out"?

Yes. You are Good aligned. Good is not a nigh-unattainable ideal you cannot reach unless you're a saint or a battling crusader of justice. A decent and kind person who tries to be helpful to others rather than acting in ill intentions is Good.

hamishspence
2010-09-16, 02:42 AM
If you do it on a semi-regular basis rather than once a year, and if you do not perform any evil or extraordinarily selfish deeds to "balance it out"?

Yes. You are Good aligned. Good is not a nigh-unattainable ideal you cannot reach unless you're a saint or a battling crusader of justice. A decent and kind person who tries to be helpful to others rather than acting in ill intentions is Good.

Agreed. While the PHB says "A neutral person might sacrifice themselves for a relative or homeland, they would not do it for someone not related to them" I don't think this is a Necessary condition for Neutral alignment, nor is it a condition that excludes the possibility of a Good alignment.

A good person can "make sacrifices to help others" without being "willing to sacrifice themselves"

Conversely, a person who "protects the innocent" and believes it to be a trade for the happiness gained by it, and not a sacrifice- doesn't have to be deluded. Maybe "Protects the Innocent" can be enough to make for a good alignment on its own, in the absence of evil behaviour.

So, "Protects The Innocent" and "Makes sacrifices to help others" might be necessary for a good alignment- but the Good person might not have to have both- they might be able to be Good despite only having one.

MarkusWolfe
2010-09-16, 06:58 AM
If you do it on a semi-regular basis rather than once a year, and if you do not perform any evil or extraordinarily selfish deeds to "balance it out"?

Yes. You are Good aligned. Good is not a nigh-unattainable ideal you cannot reach unless you're a saint or a battling crusader of justice. A decent and kind person who tries to be helpful to others rather than acting in ill intentions is Good.

Well, I don't see old guys unloading heavy bags of flour very often, but I concede to the point.