PDA

View Full Version : Evil as a mirror of Good



hamishspence
2010-09-17, 04:45 AM
This is a line of speculation lead by Frank Trollman's "Good is not supposed to be simply Evil inverted" comment in the Tome of Fiends.

Suppose, to a great extent, it was- what sort of things might that imply?

Take 2nd ed's definition of CG as "selfish but good-hearted"- this might imply that LE is "unselfish but evil-hearted".

Or, try the archetype of the character who hurts others and causes them misery primarily because it's pleasurable for them to do so- For The Evulz, it's sometimes called.

The counterpart of this would be someone who helps others and causes them happiness primarily because it's pleasurable for them to do so- if it had a name, it might be "For the Goodz".

Evil acts would be "violating the rights of others" and "causing them misery" Good acts "upholding the rights of others" and "causing them happiness"

One type of Good (maybe LG?) would be "Makes personal sacrifices that help others"- it's Evil counterpart would be "Makes personal sacrifices that hurt others"

Thoughts?

n00b killa
2010-09-17, 11:31 AM
For The Evulz

Awesome.

On topic - yeah, it would create interesting but unrealistic characters.

Shenanigans
2010-09-17, 11:34 AM
I don't know that I hold with law simply being "unselfish" and chaos being "selfish." I think maybe referring to chaos as "self-centered" would be more precise, and referring to law as "systematic." For example, I had a 3.0 character who was lawful neutral, but didn't care for any society's laws...he had a personal code that he followed strictly.

Well, I'm using the same quotation for the second time in as many days:

"The worse the society, the more law there will be. In Hell, there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed."
- Grant Gilmore

I guess the way I look at LE is just that...using, maybe bending, a system of some type (due process of law) for undesirable purposes (in Hell's case, acquiring souls.) CE has the undesirable purposes, but prefers to be act on whim and passion more so than a system. LG and CG follow. The law/chaos axis is concerned with the methods, the good/evil axis is concerned with the goals.

Now I'm really not quoting this for religious reasons, but 2 Corinthians 3:6 states "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life." I think this explains CG pretty well; following the letter of the law strictly will lead to evil, but following the spirit of it (which maybe violates the law as written) will lead to good.

Just some thoughts.

hamishspence
2010-09-17, 11:41 AM
True- things don't have to mirror each other- it's a starting point for the thought experiment- to see what makes sense when mirrored, and what doesn't.

Chaos as self-centred does have a history to it.

Law as the reverse, is harder to define- maybe its a case of losing a sense of self completely?

Modrons, in this case, would have no self-identity- they are a collective- who have almost completely removed any sense of self- and rogue modrons are the exceptions, who have gained individuality.

The Axiomatic Creature template, has the effect that when you have a group of axiomatic creatures, they're a collective- you can't flank any one of them, unless you're flanking them all, and so on.

So creatures of "pure chaos" would be so self-absorbed, as to believe everything else in the universe is just their hallucination (maybe slaadi could be this) and those of "pure law" don't think of themselves as individuals at all.

More mirror properties for evil and good- spreading misery vs spreading happiness, spreading despair vs spreading hope.

Premier
2010-09-17, 11:53 AM
Take 2nd ed's definition of CG as "selfish but good-hearted"- this might imply that LE is "unselfish but evil-hearted".

2nd edition never said that, so I hope you didn't build your enitre theory on this single cornerstone.

hamishspence
2010-09-17, 11:58 AM
The 2nd ed PHB in its description of Chaotic Good alignment, said "selfish but good-hearted."

I've read the book before and that bit was very clear.

Thane of Fife
2010-09-17, 02:41 PM
The 2nd ed PHB in its description of Chaotic Good alignment, said "selfish but good-hearted."

I've read the book before and that bit was very clear.

I have it open right in front of me, and it does not say anything of the sort. It reads:


Chaotic Good: Chaotic Good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.

hamishspence
2010-09-17, 03:19 PM
Maybe I'm thinking of the section on Changing Alignment, in which LG changes alignment to CG by focusing on their own desires rather than the needs of others:


Changing Alignment

Alignment is a tool, not a straitjacket. It is possible for a player to change his character's alignment after the character is created, either by action or choice. However, changing alignment is not without its penalties.

Most often the character's alignment will change because his actions are more in line with a different alignment. This can happen if the player is not paying attention to the character and his actions. The character gradually assumes a different alignment. For example, a lawful good fighter ignores the village council's plea for help because he wants to go fight evil elsewhere. This action is much closer to chaotic good, since the character is placing his desire over the need of the community. The fighter would find himself beginning to drift toward chaotic good alignment.

but I definitely remember the words "selfish but basically good hearted" used to describe CG in the 2nd ed PHB somewhere.

Might have been the older version of 2nd ed? It was revised in 1995 and had a few formatting changes.

Easydamus uses the phrase "tend to be selfish and a bit greedy"

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

though that might be due to them treating the Selfish (Unprincipled) alignment from Palladium as approximately equivalent to CG.

TV Tropes also suggests they are roughly equivalent:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

•The standard Palladium system of most of its settings, such as Rifts, Palladium, Heroes Unlimited and Robotech has a different alignment system from Dungeons and Dragons. In this system, there are three different types of alignments, broken down into Good, Selfish, and Evil.

Palladium rulebooks state that there is no such thing as Neutral, and dismiss the term as misleading (though that doesn't stop them from including a "Taoist" alignment in the Ninjas and Superspies system). Good alignments include Principled, which is roughly equivalent to Lawful Good, and Scrupulous, which is roughly equivalent to Neutral Good. Selfish includes Unprincipled, which is often regarded as the Han Solo alignment, of the Han Shot First variety and is roughly equivalent to Chaotic Good; and Anarchist, which is roughly like Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral.

Evil has Miscreant, the selfish but not demonic; Aberrant, who is basically the Noble Demon as an alignment and is roughly equivalent to Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral (depending on the character's goals); and Diabolic, a "cruel, brutal killer who trusts no one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way.": i.e Chaotic evil. Palladium even includes a helpful list of behaviors associated with their alignments, which helps cut down on arguments on whether or not somebody is acting properly. Scrupulous folk never betray a friend. It says so right in the rule book.

DabblerWizard
2010-09-18, 06:00 PM
Speaking generally, classic fairy tales are often built around the OP's premise.

Good is always good, and nice, and never does anything bad, while evil is always evil, and always subversive and cruel in the end. Good always has justifiable reasons for what it does, and evil does not... etc.

Good and evil, as conceptualized, are very outlandish. Not only is neutrality difficult to understand in this case, but "good" and "evil" are restricted to very limiting behaviors. The perspective ends up missing out on all sorts of middle ground morality: "mostly evil, but possibly justifiable", "pretty much good but kind of selfish and inconsiderate", etc, to name a few.

I find "gray" morality much more interesting to think about than the extreme black-and-white morality that irreconcilable evil, and pure good seem to support.

Despite all of that, though, it is interesting to think about extreme good and evil. Absolutes and extremes are one way to formulate the boundaries of our moral beliefs. Part of the problem with understanding extreme morality, has to do with knowing how to frame such extremes.

If an "evil" creature commits an act that is even temporarily understood to be "good", can we really call them absolutely evil? Does an absolutely evil creature have to always act "evil", no matter what?

[Edit] Could an absolutely evil creature exist even in a fantasy world? Since they would readily back stab and hurt any other creature (good or evil), it seems as though they would never have allies, but perhaps lots of enemies. They could never effectively interact with other creatures, always ending up alone, or perishing.

Dust
2010-09-18, 06:35 PM
Under this proposed theory...

When a good character has that which is most important threatened to them, they will sacrifice themselves for the 'greater good.'
Conversely, a 'mirrored' evil character in these same circumstances would....
....never sacrifice themselves for the greater evil. (Lame. Some of the best bad guys die for their schemes.)
....sacrifice minions for the greater evil. (Pretty standard stuff, but not a true opposite.)

hamishspence
2010-09-19, 05:04 AM
Maybe a Lawful Evil character would sacrifice themselves for "the greater evil" but a CE character wouldn't?

"Pure good" and "pure evil" even in a D&D world don't make that much sense for beings- only as abstract forces- there's always room for, say, a celestial to Fall, or a fiend to Rise.

Good as "creation" and evil as "destruction" might possibly be a part of it- with some subversions- like creating beings solely as instruments of destruction, or destroying such beings in order to protect the rest of life from such destruction.

And if "respect for life" (including one's own) is signature for Good, "contempt for life" (including one's own) might be it's dark mirror.

Zen Master
2010-09-19, 06:36 AM
To me it's a question of tools.

A lawful good ruler might think 'I will build a society that is good for all.'

And a lawful evil ruler might think exactly the same, 'I will build a society that is good for all.'

The tools will differ. The good ruler will think that freedom is good for all, security is good for all, sufficient income for food and shelter is good for all.

The evil ruler will think that control is vital for all, that laws must be obeyed and trasgressions punished with intimidating force, that the poor owe allegiance to the rich who provide for them - and so on.

The evil ruler will not acknowledge that freedom is better than slavery - he will instead insist that slavery is a punishment that lets a criminal repair the damages his crime has done and so on.

If a good ruler decides to be forgiving of a thief who has stolen to feed his family, the evil ruler will laugh, and ask 'where is the justice in that? The merchant whose bread was stolen is still the poorer for the thiefs crimes - who protects the merchant? Is it not the obligation of society to reward the good and punish the bad?'

And so on ...

hamishspence
2010-09-19, 07:44 AM
Concern for others is a Good-ish trait- but it's not enough to lift someone out of Evil alignment.

It may, however, mean that the Evil villain who genuinely cares for the wellbeing of others, is "less evil" than the character who cares for little, and is actively out to destroy others.

So it may make the difference between an Evil Card-Carrying Villain, and an Evil Antivillain.

Concern for others, and concern for self- may be aspects of a deeper Good trait that underlies them both- concern for life.

Mirroring this- hatred of others, and hatred of self- maybe be reflections of the Evil trait- hatred of life.

Surrealistik
2010-09-19, 11:13 AM
I think Evil can pretty well be defined as the demonstration of selfish contempt. Or in otherwords, contempt for things predicated on non-altruistic self-interest, either on a conscious or subconscious level. That pretty much encompasses every evil act I can think of, while omitting every good one. Even when you bring in Machiaveillian, 'end justifies the means' instances, the evil elements done in the name of good are still evil (featuring selfish contempt); whether the sum outcome however is more good than evil or vice versa depends on the perceiver given we sadly have no objective metric or criterion for the measurement of evil and good.

Good is naturally definable as the opposite; the demonstration of altruistic respect, which can take the form of altruistic contempt (contempt for things that are evil, or contempt for contempt; not all contempt is necessarily evil).

It should be noted that all acts are on some level selfish, whether directly or indirectly, even ones that involve tremendous self-sacrifice. We act out of the perception, whether conscious or subconscious, and whether correct or incorrect, that a given course of action will in some way best contribute to our happiness (hence the 'selfish' element). Altruism is a counter-intuitive indirect form of selfishness that derives pleasure and happiness (or at the very least avoids misery) from the betterment of others.

DabblerWizard
2010-09-19, 12:34 PM
Surrealistik's Quote Spoilered


I think Evil can pretty well be defined as the demonstration of selfish contempt. Or in otherwords, contempt for things predicated on non-altruistic self-interest, either on a conscious or subconscious level. That pretty much encompasses every evil act I can think of, while omitting every good one. Even when you bring in Machiaveillian, 'end justifies the means' instances, the evil elements done in the name of good are still evil (featuring selfish contempt); whether the sum outcome however is more good than evil or vice versa depends on the perceiver given we sadly have no objective metric or criterion for the measurement of evil and good.

Good is naturally definable as the opposite; the demonstration of altruistic respect, which can take the form of altruistic contempt (contempt for things that are evil, or contempt for contempt; not all contempt is necessarily evil).

It should be noted that all acts are on some level selfish, whether directly or indirectly, even ones that involve tremendous self-sacrifice. We act out of the perception, whether conscious or subconscious, and whether correct or incorrect, that a given course of action will in some way best contribute to our happiness (hence the 'selfish' element). Altruism is a counter-intuitive indirect form of selfishness that derives pleasure and happiness (or at the very least avoids misery) from the betterment of others.

Surrealistik, your statement that all evil acts involve non-altruistic self interest, or selfishness, is an interesting one. I don't necessary agree, but the idea is unique, and worth considering.

I find it curious, and confusing, though, when you suggest that all acts are selfish. This suggests that all acts are evil, based on the syllogism below:

Acts that are selfish, are evil.
All acts are selfish.
Therefore, All acts are evil.

Am I reading your comments correctly?

MickJay
2010-09-19, 12:45 PM
To me it's a question of tools.

A lawful good ruler might think 'I will build a society that is good for all.'

And a lawful evil ruler might think exactly the same, 'I will build a society that is good for all.'

The tools will differ. The good ruler will think that freedom is good for all, security is good for all, sufficient income for food and shelter is good for all.

The evil ruler will think that control is vital for all, that laws must be obeyed and trasgressions punished with intimidating force, that the poor owe allegiance to the rich who provide for them - and so on.

The evil ruler will not acknowledge that freedom is better than slavery - he will instead insist that slavery is a punishment that lets a criminal repair the damages his crime has done and so on.

If a good ruler decides to be forgiving of a thief who has stolen to feed his family, the evil ruler will laugh, and ask 'where is the justice in that? The merchant whose bread was stolen is still the poorer for the thief's crimes - who protects the merchant? Is it not the obligation of society to reward the good and punish the bad?'

And so on ...

To me, it still seems to me like you're describing a generally LN leader. Laws that are harsh are not evil; a LG ruler might forgive the theft, but would still impose some form of penalty on the thief, perhaps in form of an unpleasant work (that would, at the same time, be sufficient for the man to feed his family). A Neutral leader would simply punish the man, just without the evil laughter (although he, too, could figure out a way of removing the cause that made the man commit the crime). An Evil ruler could condemn the man's family together with him, since they were the "reason" the crime was committed.

Forced labour to repay a debt or a crime is not necessarily evil, it is a form of paying back the society for the harm done, and it doesn't have to cause unnecessary suffering to the criminal, either.

As for poor owing some form of allegiance to the rich for feeding them - hey, that sounds like a social contract to me, it's been happening in history (e.g. client system in Rome) with significant benefits for both parties involved (and everyone was happy, too).

In the end, a wise ruler, regardless of whether he's good or evil, will pay attention to have all the elements present: food, shelter, security for the people, but also control and enforceable (and enforced) laws.

Copacetic
2010-09-19, 12:51 PM
An interesting thought, buy would merely lead to all evil characters becoming moustache twirling cat-stroking masterminds with a penchant for tying helpless blond maidens to railroad tracks while laughing madly. Making persoanl sacrifices to hurt others as a motivating force would lead to the extinction of such characters in a hurry.

Thajocoth
2010-09-19, 02:10 PM
One type of Good (maybe LG?) would be "Makes personal sacrifices that help others"- it's Evil counterpart would be "Makes personal sacrifices that hurt others"

I think the evil counterpart here would be "Makes public sacrifices that hurt others." Which is a pretty evil thing to do...

hamishspence
2010-09-19, 02:32 PM
An interesting thought, buy would merely lead to all evil characters becoming moustache twirling cat-stroking masterminds with a penchant for tying helpless blond maidens to railroad tracks while laughing madly. Making persoanl sacrifices to hurt others as a motivating force would lead to the extinction of such characters in a hurry.

It would be a rarity- more a kind of "nihilistic evil".

Hades- the most NE of the Lower Planes, might fit that.

"Evil in its purest form is self-destructive" can make a lot of sense- which may be why most Evil villains aren't "pure evil".


Altruism is a counter-intuitive indirect form of selfishness that derives pleasure and happiness (or at the very least avoids misery) from the betterment of others.

I could see CG altruists being much more about the personal pleasure and happiness to be gained from it, than LG ones- if CG tends to be somewhat more self-centred than LG.

An LG character might (if Lawful is about subsuming the self) actually seek to enjoy their own altruism as little as they possibly can.)



Good is naturally definable as the opposite; the demonstration of altruistic respect, which can take the form of altruistic contempt (contempt for things that are evil, or contempt for contempt; not all contempt is necessarily evil).

When a person gains "contempt for life" even if it's only "contempt for "Non-Innocent" life" they may be starting on a dangerous path.

A path that can end up the murder or torture of the "non-Innocent" or "the evil".

To respect all life, even if it might turn out necessary to kill some of it- may be more Good- It's possible that a strongly Good person will respect even the lives of their enemies- and only kill them when necessary, and mourn that it was necessary. BoED suggests that this is a part of being Exalted- exceptional respect for all life.

Surrealistik
2010-09-19, 04:16 PM
Surrealistik, your statement that all evil acts involve non-altruistic self interest, or selfishness, is an interesting one. I don't necessary agree, but the idea is unique, and worth considering.

I find it curious, and confusing, though, when you suggest that all acts are selfish. This suggests that all acts are evil, based on the syllogism below:

Acts that are selfish, are evil.
All acts are selfish.
Therefore, All acts are evil.

Am I reading your comments correctly?

No, all acts are indeed selfish is some form, and are necessarily motivated by self interest at their core. However, there is an important difference between altruistic selfishness (concerned with acquisition of pleasure/avoidance of pain through benefiting others) and classical, direct selfishness (concerned with acquisition of pleasure/avoidance of pain through benefiting oneself). Classically selfish acts are only truly evil if they also feature a component of contempt.



When a person gains "contempt for life" even if it's only "contempt for "Non-Innocent" life" they may be starting on a dangerous path.

A path that can end up the murder or torture of the "non-Innocent" or "the evil".

To respect all life, even if it might turn out necessary to kill some of it- may be more Good- It's possible that a strongly Good person will respect even the lives of their enemies- and only kill them when necessary, and mourn that it was necessary. BoED suggests that this is a part of being Exalted- exceptional respect for all life.

Yes, that's true; one can tread down dark paths if perspective is lost, and lines are crossed as a consequence. Furthermore, respect of life can certainly extend to an evil individual; unfortunately, contempt of evil may require that individual be dealt with, lest the good person exercise selfish contempt in the act of letting him live.



I could see CG altruists being much more about the personal pleasure and happiness to be gained from it, than LG ones- if CG tends to be somewhat more self-centred than LG.

An LG character might (if Lawful is about subsuming the self) actually seek to enjoy their own altruism as little as they possibly can.)


While that may be true of LG characters, even if it was, the core of their motivation is still fundamentally selfishness, as reveling in the good of their deeds would prove distasteful and unpleasant for them, thus they choose to avoid doing so for ultimately their own sake.

hamishspence
2010-09-20, 02:42 AM
Furthermore, respect of life can certainly extend to an evil individual; unfortunately, contempt of evil may require that individual be dealt with, lest the good person exercise selfish contempt in the act of letting him live.

I suppose allowing an unrepentant evildoer their life despite the fact that they keep escaping prison and harming others, and have shown themselves to be virtually irredeemable, might be characterized as contempt for life.

Really, the most fundamental trait of Good is "respect for life"- "altruism" and "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and maybe "concern for the rights of others" all follow from this.

Its mirror "contempt for life" can take many forms, and does not have to be "contempt for all life" or "contempt for innocent life" to qualify as evil- "contempt for non-innocent life" to the point of the person debasing, hurting, oppressing, destroying it, without sufficient justification, can qualify the doer for an evil alignment.

Even "contempt for the self" might possibly qualify.

Zen Master
2010-09-20, 03:58 AM
To me, it still seems to me like you're describing a generally LN leader. Laws that are harsh are not evil; a LG ruler might forgive the theft, but would still impose some form of penalty on the thief, perhaps in form of an unpleasant work (that would, at the same time, be sufficient for the man to feed his family). A Neutral leader would simply punish the man, just without the evil laughter (although he, too, could figure out a way of removing the cause that made the man commit the crime). An Evil ruler could condemn the man's family together with him, since they were the "reason" the crime was committed.

Forced labour to repay a debt or a crime is not necessarily evil, it is a form of paying back the society for the harm done, and it doesn't have to cause unnecessary suffering to the criminal, either.

As for poor owing some form of allegiance to the rich for feeding them - hey, that sounds like a social contract to me, it's been happening in history (e.g. client system in Rome) with significant benefits for both parties involved (and everyone was happy, too).

In the end, a wise ruler, regardless of whether he's good or evil, will pay attention to have all the elements present: food, shelter, security for the people, but also control and enforceable (and enforced) laws.

I feel you're insisting on a Stupid Evil alignment. Needless punishment which gives no benefit to anyone but is just cruel and unnecessary to be cruel and unnecessary isn't particularly evil - it's insane, and stupid.

Also, harsh laws are evil. China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany - all were evil nations, primarily because of the harsh and unjust laws they imposed on their own citizens. Other nations are stupid - the wanton slaughter of innocent citizens in Cambodia or Vietnam didn't serve any purpose what so ever, and was just destructive release of hatred.

Hm - and you're claiming bonded peasants were happy? I'd love to see a source for that. One that isn't written by one of the nobles to whom allegiance was owed.

hamishspence
2010-09-20, 04:50 AM
I feel you're insisting on a Stupid Evil alignment. Needless punishment which gives no benefit to anyone but is just cruel and unnecessary to be cruel and unnecessary isn't particularly evil - it's insane, and stupid.

When a person lets their own urge to destroy or hurt, override their own self-interest- or even give in to it when they consciously know they're acting against their own self-interest, isn't that a case of Evil being more important than Self?

They may not be conscious of it being Evil in the ascendant, but it may represent the stronger kind of evil.

That doesn't mean one has to have that trait to be evil- an extremely pragmatic villain with little or no sadistic or destructive tendencies can still be evil- but maybe they're less so.

MickJay
2010-09-20, 05:06 AM
I feel you're insisting on a Stupid Evil alignment. Needless punishment which gives no benefit to anyone but is just cruel and unnecessary to be cruel and unnecessary isn't particularly evil - it's insane, and stupid.

Also, harsh laws are evil. China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany - all were evil nations, primarily because of the harsh and unjust laws they imposed on their own citizens. Other nations are stupid - the wanton slaughter of innocent citizens in Cambodia or Vietnam didn't serve any purpose what so ever, and was just destructive release of hatred.

Hm - and you're claiming bonded peasants were happy? I'd love to see a source for that. One that isn't written by one of the nobles to whom allegiance was owed.

Considering how Evil is defined in D&D, it almost always ends up being stupid, since the "evil" means it uses are usually far less effective for reaching its goals than other methods available. More rational approach will net you what is essentially Neutral behaviour. Also, it could be argued that a "needless" punishment will still act as a deterrent for potential "criminals", and while the punished person may have been treated unjustly, the example will prevent someone else from, for example, stealing. Ultimately, however, any Evil will have a clear rationale behind its actions - it might seem stupid or insane (and if the author is particularly poor, it won't hold together), but there are very few "illogical" ways of being Lawful Evil.

Your second section is way too close to RL politics, so I won't address it fully, but again, harsh laws =/= evil laws. It's their intent and purpose that mostly (not entirely, mind you) matter, not harshness. Ethnic cleansing, as abhorrent as it is in the eyes of the modern democracies, is not "stupid" in the eyes of the people committing it, since they do see a clear purpose behind it. Also, I wouldn't call any nation "stupid" - there might be factions within particular nations that could, perhaps be called "stupid", but if they really were, would they ever gain sufficient power base to enact their policies?

I was not talking about bonded peasants, but of the client system in Rome (which was essentially owing an allegiance by the clients to their patron). It was a binding agreement, but one from which the client could withdraw.

Zen Master
2010-09-20, 05:18 AM
When a person lets their own urge to destroy or hurt, override their own self-interest- or even give in to it when they consciously know they're acting against their own self-interest, isn't that a case of Evil being more important than Self?

They may not be conscious of it being Evil in the ascendant, but it may represent the stronger kind of evil.

That doesn't mean one has to have that trait to be evil- an extremely pragmatic villain with little or no sadistic or destructive tendencies can still be evil- but maybe they're less so.

I'd still call that Stupid Evil. And I do not consider it anymore evil than the cold, methodical and calculated evil of say, Saddam Hussein or Stalin. That pragmatic and systematic machine that will grind down millions of your own citizens - I think that's as evil as mortal man can get.

Of course, that's opinion.

hamishspence
2010-09-20, 05:28 AM
If deeds matter more than intentions, then destroying millions of people out of pragmatism, can indeed be more evil than destroying thousands out of sadism.

The point being that one is a slightly more evil "starting point" even if the end point can actually be less evil committed.

Shenanigans
2010-09-20, 10:02 AM
Law as the reverse, is harder to define- maybe its a case of losing a sense of self completely?
I can buy that. Lawful creatures, whether good or evil, can lose themselves within the system. In some ways, might that not make it easier to be evil?

Think of the oft-mentioned Nazi Germany example. Was it easier for individual soldiers to commit certain atrocities because they were part of a system? The Milgram experiment is a great example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Duke of URL
2010-09-20, 10:04 AM
One type of Good (maybe LG?) would be "Makes personal sacrifices that help others"- it's Evil counterpart would be "Makes personal sacrifices that hurt others"

No, the evil counterpart would be "forces others to make personal sacrifices to help me".

hamishspence
2010-09-20, 10:09 AM
That's not really a counterpart though.

If "makes personal sacrifices" is neutral behaviour that can be Good or Evil depending on the context-

and the Good version is "to help others" then there must be an evil version that doesn't just pass the sacrifice on to others.

Duke of URL
2010-09-20, 10:20 AM
The good version is "help others", the evil version is "help myself". The good version is "I make personal sacrifices", the evil version is "I make other people pay the price". They seem like clear opposites to me, and actually work to the D&D-defined morality and ethics.

hamishspence
2010-09-20, 10:28 AM
The good version is "help others", the evil version is "help myself".

Even in D&D, this is something of an oversimplification.

"Help others to my own cost" vs "Hurt others to my own gain"- yes.

But you can also have:

"Help others to my own gain" vs "Hurt others to my own cost"

"to my own cost" in this case is "personal sacrifice".

The point to be made is "I make personal sacrifices" can't be judged as Good on its own, just as "I do things that benefit me" can't be judged as Evil on its own.

Indeed, there's yet another possible form of sacrifice not mentioned:
"I make personal sacrifices to my own gain"- when the person sacrifices a lot as part of a plan for future benefit- sacrificing time, personal pleasure, and so on.

Duke of URL
2010-09-20, 11:10 AM
Which simply illustrates why trying to define specific actions as "good" or "evil" doesn't always work very well. In each case, it comes down what the overriding goals are, and what the person involved would do if the situation were different.

What's more important: helping/harming people or personal cost? (Setting aside the fact that an intelligent person who has a primary goal of harming self is dealing with a mental defect.)

That is, if the goal is self-enrichment, then helping others is a valid means of reaching that goal, if it makes the most sense from a risk/reward perspective. But would the same person willing abuse those people if it made more practical sense from their self-enrichment? For an "evil" person, very likely. But a smart evil person works within acceptable risk.

On the other hand, maybe hurting people is a primary goal (say, for revenge, or simply because of sociopathy). In that case, an "evil" person may accept a larger risk/personal cost in order to inflict more pain and suffering.

Similarly, for the "good" motive of helping others, there is clearly nothing "wrong" with benefiting from such actions yourself (certain codes of conduct may require donating any such gains to a worthy cause, of course). Nonetheless, if the overriding motive is helping other people, then the "good" person would likely help those people even without the reward, or even still at personal risk/cost.

hamishspence
2010-09-20, 11:52 AM
Which simply illustrates why trying to define specific actions as "good" or "evil" doesn't always work very well. In each case, it comes down what the overriding goals are, and what the person involved would do if the situation were different.

True- but dissecting alignment can help clarify things.

If "evil people debase the innocent for fun and/or profit" as the PHB suggests- does that mean "Good people debase the guilty for fun and/or profit"?

Or is "debasing others" guilty or innocent, an evil act- and thus, the original PHB statement is not entirely accurate as written?



On the other hand, maybe hurting people is a primary goal (say, for revenge, or simply because of sociopathy). In that case, an "evil" person may accept a larger risk/personal cost in order to inflict more pain and suffering.

if the overriding motive is helping other people, then the "good" person would likely help those people even without the reward, or even still at personal risk/cost.

If the evil person's act is hurting others- there's usually a goal behind it- it's not just "for it's own sake". A sadistic villain might hurt others because it's pleasurable, not because it's profitable. They might even make large sacrifices (of money, or time, or some other resource) to hurt others.

A direct counterpart would be a good person who helps others because it's pleasurable- they are empathic and the sight of another person being very happy, makes them happy, and the sight of another person in pain, physical or emotional, hurts them. They might make large sacrifices, toward that goal of personal pleasure that is realized by helping others.

Surrealistik
2010-09-20, 05:40 PM
I suppose allowing an unrepentant evildoer their life despite the fact that they keep escaping prison and harming others, and have shown themselves to be virtually irredeemable, might be characterized as contempt for life.

Really, the most fundamental trait of Good is "respect for life"- "altruism" and "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and maybe "concern for the rights of others" all follow from this.

Its mirror "contempt for life" can take many forms, and does not have to be "contempt for all life" or "contempt for innocent life" to qualify as evil- "contempt for non-innocent life" to the point of the person debasing, hurting, oppressing, destroying it, without sufficient justification, can qualify the doer for an evil alignment.

Even "contempt for the self" might possibly qualify.

Again, altruistic respect is the core of good, and this can warrant, or even demand contempt of certain undesirable elements, in the event those elements of course satisfy rigorous criteria as you have stated.

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 03:27 AM
A person can hate evil deeds, and not hate the doers of evil- can have contempt for evil deeds, but not contempt for life (the lives of evildoers). It can be a difficult balance to strike.

Surrealistik
2010-09-21, 09:50 AM
Such as when they're fundamentally inseparable and uncontainable.

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 09:55 AM
Are they? One of the commoner exhortations to Good fighters in fantasy and sci-fi is to fight without hatred- for hatred of the enemy is corrupting.

Hence "hate the deed, not the doer".

Surrealistik
2010-09-21, 11:04 AM
Are they? One of the commoner exhortations to Good fighters in fantasy and sci-fi is to fight without hatred- for hatred of the enemy is corrupting.

Hence "hate the deed, not the doer".

Perhaps I should clarify; when you end an irredeemable life out of necessity to prevent a considerable future threat, that is altruistic respect for life through demonstrated contempt of a specific sub-type. The good hero might not like what he has to do, but to let such a threat live, to not demonstrate contempt for his foe's life by ending it, when the alternatives would entail or would likely entail more suffering is surely an evil, self-indulgent act.

Fouredged Sword
2010-09-21, 11:26 AM
but done without hate there is no contempt. The destruction of life out of necesity could be considered a N act. After all the base alignment is TN for animals, and animals kill to eat all the time. A good person realises the destruction of life is wrong and chooses to do so anyway as it is neccesary (makeing it nether respect or contempt) so the act is N.

Surrealistik
2010-09-21, 12:06 PM
Selfishness without true contempt, as in the case of an animal needing to eat, and killing to do so is certainly neutral. Selfishness that features contempt, but simultaneously demonstrates altruistic respect can be quite murky and subjective, ranging from evil to neutral to good in balance; again it is a matter of perception given we lack objective quantification, but evil elements remain evil, as do the good ones.

That said, contempt is distinct and separate from hate. The former does not require the latter, though it is often associated with it; essentially all hatred is contempt, but not all contempt is hatred. Contempt only requires you to view something with disdain and indifference at a minimum. When the good hero kills a villain, contempt is inherently demonstrated for that villain's life, as in order for an intelligent, self-aware individual to destroy something, he must hold it in contempt at some level.

Fouredged Sword
2010-09-21, 01:07 PM
In a world without outside considerations I would agree with you. I think that you can destroy something you care about if it means saveing something you care about more. Contempt suggest that the creature would be killed simply for being what it is. Killing a goblin for being a goblin is evil. Killing a goblin to save a villiage or avenge it's destruction may be good. One can respect your foes and even like them, but when it comes down to it, you like something else more (like your own life or the world). It's not a matter of dislike, but of gradients of value we abscribe to things and concepts.

I think the road to an evil alignment starts when you stop careing about the lifes you take (or the other damages that you create) to get what you really want. A good character will care about and respect others, an evil character will seek to cause the most harm and still be effective. Both set about thier goals, the alignment simply sets how they go about thier other drives

Surrealistik
2010-09-21, 01:43 PM
I have considered the idea that one can defend a destructive or harmful action as being done out of preference for mutually exclusive outcomes or things, but at its core, I find there is still contempt and indifference going on for the object of that destructive or harmful action at some level, much as the altruist is still at his core selfish who helps himself by helping others. Even if the good hero is troubled by the act of taking the villain's life, even if he respects that life, ultimately contempt is demonstrated in his termination of it.

To think of it in another way, consider an individual who may respect/care for innocent life, but respects/cares for himself and his personal ambitions more, and given the choice to destroy that life to achieve his own ends, he does so. Is that not evil? Is not contempt demonstrated on some level?

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 02:14 PM
To think of it in another way, consider an individual who may respect/care for innocent life, but respects/cares for himself and his personal ambitions more, and given the choice to destroy that life to achieve his own ends, he does so. Is that not evil? Is not contempt demonstrated on some level?

One perspective might be, that the person has a secret, subconscious hatred of life- that they aren't even aware of- and this is the root of this contempt.

Fouredged Sword
2010-09-22, 06:00 AM
I think this road leads to a world where almost all acts are evil due to the inability to do anything without harming something somewhere. Dnd alignment needs to be able to hold the concept of a valiant knight. Good does not mean nice. Paladins can kill, and can pull divine might to do so better (refrence to smiteing).

Even your argument holds that the killer must at least hold at least an indifrence. That strikes me as a middle ground and thus not evil or good. I could see killing as always being not good, but it would play merry chaos to the DnD setting.

hamishspence
2010-09-22, 06:58 AM
Might depend on how you weight things.

Killing an innocent person- Evil if done for profit or pleasure- potentially not evil if done for other reasons (maybe as a byproduct of saving other innocent people?)
Killing a not-innocent person- context sensitive, Evil if done without good reasons.

As to non-lethal forms of harm- that's when it becomes greyer. Does imprisoning someone suspected of a crime count as harming them? What if they're the breadwinner of a family- does the harm that the family experiences while the breadwinner's in jail, count as "harming the innocent"? And so on.

Surrealistik
2010-09-22, 09:16 AM
I think this road leads to a world where almost all acts are evil due to the inability to do anything without harming something somewhere. Dnd alignment needs to be able to hold the concept of a valiant knight. Good does not mean nice. Paladins can kill, and can pull divine might to do so better (refrence to smiteing).

Even your argument holds that the killer must at least hold at least an indifrence. That strikes me as a middle ground and thus not evil or good. I could see killing as always being not good, but it would play merry chaos to the DnD setting.

Why would the murderer indifferent to the lives of his victims be neutral?

But that said, it is as hamish says, a matter of weights and justifications. Recall that contempt alone is not bad; contempt that is classically selfish is. An act of murder that is necessary to uphold the common and greater good is not an evil act, but a good one, while shying from such necessary action is self-indulgent, contemptuous and evil.

hamishspence
2010-09-22, 09:28 AM
An act of murder that is necessary to uphold the common and greater good is not an evil act, but a good one, while shying from such necessary action is self-indulgent, contemptuous and evil.

This is the tricky bit. If you go by BoVD "murder is one of the worst acts a person can commit" but "the heroes who sneak into the green dragon's lair and slay it are not murderers"

FC2 also rates Murder as one of the most Corrupt of Corrupt acts (with Cold Blooded Murder, and Murder for Pleasure, as being slightly worse).

So a distinction may have to be made.

Antivillains who believe their acts of mass murder are for "the common and greater good" like Ozymandias from Watchmen- are pretty common in fiction- but that doesn't mean their murders are "not evil acts".

Surrealistik
2010-09-22, 10:09 AM
Determining necessity is and will always be the tricky bit since we lack the ability to perfectly recognize it.

As for acts that are simultaneously evil and good, or evil acts that have good outcomes and are done in the name of good, it's up to our flawed and non-objective ethical calculus to decide what is the net good or evil of those acts.

hamishspence
2010-09-22, 11:59 AM
Unless you're going with BoED's "Whether or not good ends justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil"

FC2 has a list of Corrupt acts, which may help to define "evil means"- and the PHB mentions Rebuking Undead as "an evil act".

Using evil means once in a while doesn't necessarily make for an evil alignment- going by Heroes of Horror. But Champions of Ruin does state "The repeated, deliberate use of many of these is the mark of an evil character" and lists the acts from BoVD.

So- it would tend to be a case of "act was evil", "ends were good"- character doesn't commit that kind of act much- alignment is still nonevil.