PDA

View Full Version : Alignment and Apathy



TechnOkami
2010-11-28, 01:41 AM
What alignment would best fit someone with an apathetic view, about pretty much everything?

DMfromTheAbyss
2010-11-28, 01:46 AM
Neutral?

Though any Alignment could theoretically be pretty apathetic, being really uncaring could eventually drag you down into Neutral Evil, following the whole "Sloth" idea of sin.

Though I've seen all manner of characters that I would define as lazy of every alignment:smallbiggrin:

Project_Mayhem
2010-11-28, 11:37 AM
Well, 4th ed. has unaligned, which would fit. Otherwise going with true netral

Khatoblepas
2010-11-28, 11:44 AM
What alignment would best fit someone with an apathetic view, about pretty much everything?

Is this "I'm not really bothered, but I'll do the minimum I possibly can to save someone else if they're really in danger. Someone else can do it. It'll work out in the end. I don't want to hurt anyone, but they really should take better care to not get into danger."?
That's True Neutral.

or

"I wouldn't even care to pull a lever to stop the death machine from killing all the innocent orphans. No sir, too much effort for me. Even if I was right in front of it. Not even if it was a button. If I have to lift one finger to save someone's life, that's too much of a bother."
That's Neutral Evil.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 12:17 PM
Is this "I'm not really bothered, but I'll do the minimum I possibly can to save someone else if they're really in danger. Someone else can do it. It'll work out in the end. I don't want to hurt anyone, but they really should take better care to not get into danger."?
That's True Neutral.

or

"I wouldn't even care to pull a lever to stop the death machine from killing all the innocent orphans. No sir, too much effort for me. Even if I was right in front of it. Not even if it was a button. If I have to lift one finger to save someone's life, that's too much of a bother."
That's Neutral Evil.

I dont think its about 'effort' and laziness. but apathy.
the death of those orphans does not matter. on a cosmic scale, they are nothing, in an infinite universe, with infiniate paralel realities no choice bears any meaning at all, because somewhere a different you have made every choice possible.
nothing matters.
true neutral

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-28, 12:50 PM
In my opinion, a completely apathetic character is one completely defined by his actions. So what does he do and what has he done? If he's just trudged through life without doing anything of note, he's true neutral. If he's gone against the law and committed murder and theft left and right, he's Chaotic Evil. If he's spend his whole life doing charity work in service of Church of Goody-two Shoeness (TM), he's Lawful Good.

Khatoblepas
2010-11-28, 12:55 PM
I dont think its about 'effort' and laziness. but apathy.
the death of those orphans does not matter. on a cosmic scale, they are nothing, in an infinite universe, with infiniate paralel realities no choice bears any meaning at all, because somewhere a different you have made every choice possible.
nothing matters.
true neutral

But that is only one part of it. It is your actions that determine your alignment. Letting those orphans die when you could have done at least something to save them that didn't hinder you in the slightest, and your reason is "I just don't care" - is evil.

The Grey Wastes is the embodiment of apathy, and it's a Neutral Evil plane. Being apathetic and nonproactive towards any goal (to the point where you hurt others with your inaction) is pretty darn selfish, and possibly evil.

Apathy is neutral, yes, but it's what you do with this "knowledge" that nothing matters, really. What with the existance of deities, afterlife planes you can visit before you die, and objective good and evil, it's pretty hard to not care about all of it. What if this was the plane you were meant to do something on? This isn't Call of Cthulhu. This is D&D. Being an apathetic, fatalistic person who doesn't care about anyone is Evil. Caring about other people's wellbeing is Good. (Law and Chaos doesn't come into this, as that's more about how you do things, rather than what you think).

You could be apathetic, and say "Nothing matters, I'll destroy everything because nothing matters." - Omnicidal Maniacs believe this.
"Nothing matters, so let's get on with making something matter" - Someone who believes the universe is ultimately meaningless, but will strive to make their own meanings. More a hero.
"Nothing matters. Leave me alone to my solitude." - the lonely wizard in the tower. The Lich of a million years. The immortal who was granted eternal life but no way of dealing with it.

Apathy is more than just, well, apathy. It's what you do with it.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 01:45 PM
doing nothing is not evil!
evil destroys or debase innoccent life.
NOT stopping it is neutral.

also:selfish is not evil. not unless you go all the way and refuse to share your cure for a disease or something. otherwise, evil tends to be selfish yes, and selfishness can lead to evil, but theyre not the same.
the plane is evil because it forces apathy upon people, not because everyone in it dont care

mucat
2010-11-28, 02:33 PM
I dont think its about 'effort' and laziness. but apathy.
the death of those orphans does not matter. on a cosmic scale, they are nothing, in an infinite universe, with infiniate paralel realities no choice bears any meaning at all, because somewhere a different you have made every choice possible.
nothing matters.
true neutral
That attitude isn't true neutral...nor is it any other alignment. Attitudes and alignments are completely different things; it's like asking "What alignment is a chirpy, energetic person?"

If the "does not matter" monologue is something you said to yourself while you watched the orphanage burn and didn't lift a finger, then you're evil.

If you called the fire department, helped treat the injuries of those who escaped, and maybe made a try to rescue someone yourself but had to retreat because it was too dangerous -- the whole time thinking it didn't really mater -- then you're neutral.

And if you were glumly telling yourself nothing matters, while charging repeatedly through the flames carrying the orphans to safety despite seared lungs and third-degree burns, then you are good. (And also should cheer up a little; if nothing ultimately matters, then there's no reason not to enjoy your time and be good company for the others you meet on your shared journey to oblivion...)

EDIT: I'm deliberately oversimplifying, of course; it takes more than one situation to determine someone's alignment. The heroic rescuer could turn out to be a thoroughly evil person (enraged by the orphanage fire, he leaps to the conclusion that a gnome was responsible, and leads his peoply on a bloody war of extermination...) But the rescue itself was a good act.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 02:36 PM
That attitude isn't true neutral...nor is it any other alignment. Attitudes and alignments are completely different things; it's like asking "What alignment is a chirpy, energetic person?"

If the "does not matter" monologue is something you said to yourself while you watched the orphanage burn and didn't lift a finger, then you're evil.

If you called the fire department, helped treat the injuries of those who escaped, and maybe made a try to rescue someone yourself but had to retreat because it was too dangerous -- the whole time thinking it didn't really mater -- then you're neutral.

And if you were glumly telling yourself nothing matters, while charging repeatedly through the flames carrying the orphans to safety despite seared lungs and third-degree burns, then you are good. (And also should cheer up a little; if nothing ultimately matters, then there's no reason not to enjoy your time and be good company for the others you meet on your shared journey to oblivion...)

no, you're not! it's despicable, yes, but by RAW it is not evil! If you set fire to place then said it it would be

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 02:55 PM
no, you're not! it's despicable, yes, but by RAW it is not evil! If you set fire to place then said it it would be

There's a RAW example in BoVD where "doing nothing" is considered "far more evil" than doing something would be.

Which was- stopping, if necessary by lethal force, a person who has been deceived into thinking a whole town is demons, from poisoning the water supply.

Khatoblepas
2010-11-28, 03:02 PM
no, you're not! it's despicable, yes, but by RAW it is not evil! If you set fire to place then said it it would be

Let's take this one step further. A villain rounds up a lot of innocent people (with Detect Good), and lines them up in front of you. He tells you, "If you tell me to stop, I will. No matter how quietly you say it, your objection will be duly noted and I will cease immediately."

He then proceeds to torture and kill each of these Good creatures in horrific ways that causes a lot of pain, so long as you stay silent. He allows you to listen to the pained pleas of each creature before he begins. The villain is another innocent who has been Mindraped into being this villain persona, and as soon as you object, he will be Mindraped back to his original persona.

Do you:
1) Say nothing and brood on how meaningless everything is.
or
2) Object.

What alignment does staying silent make you? Remember, you're making an active choice either way.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 03:06 PM
Let's take this one step further. A villain rounds up a lot of innocent people (with Detect Good), and lines them up in front of you. He tells you, "If you tell me to stop, I will. No matter how quietly you say it, your objection will be duly noted and I will cease immediately."

He then proceeds to torture and kill each of these Good creatures in horrific ways that causes a lot of pain, so long as you stay silent. He allows you to listen to the pained pleas of each creature before he begins. The villain is another innocent who has been Mindraped into being this villain persona, and as soon as you object, he will be Mindraped back to his original persona.

Do you:
1) Say nothing and brood on how meaningless everything is.
or
2) Object.

What alignment does staying silent make you? Remember, you're making an active choice either way.

you're not the one doing the killing, so it is not your fault.
the villain can tell you that he will stop if you tell him to... but he's still killing them! it is HIS doing

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 03:09 PM
"Good implies respect for life"

But is an act (or "moment of inaction") that shows extreme disrespect for life, Neutral behaviour, or Evil behaviour?

Shademan
2010-11-28, 03:17 PM
you can dissrespect life as long as you dont hurt or debase it

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 03:20 PM
In Champions of Ruin, one of the Evil archetypes, is of someone who is sociopathic- neither Evil nor Good deeds move them in any way- they are willing to commit either- and see no contradiction.

However it's harder to define willingly choosing not to act, when action is very easy, as "an evil act"- except for that BoVD example.

Is "refusing to help people when doing so will cost you little or nothing" equivalent to "debasing them"? Not sure.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 03:24 PM
In Champions of Ruin, one of the Evil archetypes, is of someone who is sociopathic- neither Evil nor Good deeds move them in any way- they are willing to commit either- and see no contradiction.

However it's harder to define willingly choosing not to act, when action is very easy, as "an evil act"- except for that BoVD example.

Is "refusing to help people when doing so will cost you little or nothing" equivalent to "debasing them"? Not sure.

then his alignment merely depends on wether that person does more evil acts than good acts. if he does equal of both...he's neutral.

I would say no. if they require help, they are allready debased (prolly by an evil dude).

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 03:28 PM
then his alignment merely depends on wether that person does more evil acts than good acts. if he does equal of both...he's neutral.


CoR also emphasises that repeatedly doing Evil acts leads to an evil alignment regardless of Good intentions.

Though, given what Heroes of Horror says about Evil deeds plus Good intentions possibly leading to a Neutral alignment, it may be only "seriously evil deeds" that CoR is referring to.

But without Good intentions, it might be that the person who thinks 50% evil deeds + 50% Good deeds = Neutral alignment, is actually Evil without realizing it.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 03:31 PM
CoR also emphasises that repeatedly doing Evil acts leads to an evil alignment regardless of Good intentions.

Though, given what Heroes of Horror says about Evil deeds plus Good intentions possibly leading to a Neutral alignment, it may be only "seriously evil deeds" that CoR is referring to.

But without Good intentions, it might be that the person who thinks 50% evil deeds + 50% Good deeds = Neutral alignment, is actually Evil without realizing it.

but your INTENSION does not count. it is WHAT you DO that counts.
so you can THINK you are evil or good but if you do both in equal measure it matters not. youre still neutral


Dont remember where I read it, but I seem to remember some book saying that certain druids would be dedicated to BALANCE, and plays on both teams.
They help the humans trough a drought, but when the humans become too many and expand to far into the woods he joins the gnolls and pushes them back.
True neutral.

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 03:36 PM
Druids (and Mordenkainen) being extra-dedicated to Balance, was more a 2nd ed than 3rd ed thing.

I'm still not sure where you're getting "if you do both in equal measure, you're Neutral" from- CoR denies it.

And Heroes of Horror, seems to require strongly Good intentions and Good acts, to balance out the minor Evil acts committed by the "flexible Neutral" characters.

A Dread Necromancer, who spends his life helping others- but in the process, rebukes undead, creates undead, and eventually turns themselves into an undead, can be Neutral.

But a person whose Evil acts are much more serious than "rebuking undead" and "casting [Evil] spells" might be evil even if, arguably, their Good acts are of equal magnitude.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-28, 03:36 PM
For the record, intention doesn't matter because there is none. This leaves only actions to judge a person by.

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 03:40 PM
In which case, is "saving a person's life" morally as big a Good act, as murdering them is an Evil act?

Would a person who has zero qualms about either murdering someone, or saving their lives, and has murdered 100 people and saved 1000 in their career, be Evil, Neutral, or Good?

I'd say, that, as per FC2, "the good men do in life is outweighed by the taint of sin" and the willingness to repeatedly commit murder, and the fact that he has repeatedly commited murder, might make him Evil rather than Neutral- even if he has saved many lives.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-28, 03:46 PM
In my opinion, such character might ping under Detect Good, yet still be headed for metaphysical punishment (such as Hell) for his evil deeds. Afterall, I don't consider alignment a zero-sum game because of outside forces involved; an evil person might not deserve death because they can be redeemed, and a good person might be in for execution for past crimes committed.

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 03:50 PM
In DMG, it suggests that, without any actions of Goodness, an Evil character can "repent of their evil actions" and become Neutral or even Good.

And FC2 does suggest that a character can, despite a high corruption, if they die genuinely repentant, become a Hellbred.

So it might work like this.

Unrepentant Evildoer (regardless of how much Good they've done)- Evil.
Repentant Evildoer (regardless of how much Evil they've done)- Neutral.
Repentant Evildoer who has wholly embraced the Good ethos- Good.

There's also Unrepentant Evildoers who have only done little evil acts- "School Bully" or "Tavern Bully" type- which might not deserve death at all- whether or not they can be redeemed.

Frozen_Feet
2010-11-28, 04:02 PM
You can think of completely apathetic persons as one of the worst kind of villains, really. Completely inscrutable, well-mannered beings, that will commit unspeakable acts at the drop of a hat when their disregard for everything finally comes to clash with morality. Ultimate traitors, perhaps?

hamishspence
2010-11-28, 04:16 PM
You can think of completely apathetic persons as one of the worst kind of villains, really. Completely inscrutable, well-mannered beings, that will commit unspeakable acts at the drop of a hat when their disregard for everything finally comes to clash with morality. Ultimate traitors, perhaps?

Does go quite well with CoR's "sociopath" variant.

However "psychopath" in BoVD is (rather inaccurately) described as someone who gets extreme pleasure in inflicting either death or suffering.

If it's just Death, they might be a bit more like Dexter.

If it's Suffering, they might be even nastier than that.

An interesting type of Evil-aligned antihero, might be a character who is an extreme psychopath- but only toward villains. Toward anyone who "hasn't proven themselves deserving of such treatment" they might be surprisingly compassionate or altruistic.

Khatoblepas
2010-11-28, 04:41 PM
You can think of completely apathetic persons as one of the worst kind of villains, really. Completely inscrutable, well-mannered beings, that will commit unspeakable acts at the drop of a hat when their disregard for everything finally comes to clash with morality. Ultimate traitors, perhaps?

My name is Patrick Bateman. I am twenty-six years old. I live in the American Garden Buildings on West Eighty-First Street, on the eleventh floor. Tom Cruise lives in the penthouse.

I believe in taking care of myself, in a balanced diet, in a rigorous exercise routine. In the morning, if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an ice pack while doing my stomach crunches. I can do a thousand now.

After I remove the icepack, I use a deep pore-cleanser lotion. In the shower, I use a water-activated gel cleanser, then a honey-almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb mint facial masque which I leave on for ten minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine.

I always use an after-shave lotion with little or no alcohol because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm, followed by a final moisturizing "protective" lotion...

There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping you and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there.

Pure, unadulterated evil. Someone who believes they are nothing, that they are void and soulless, that there is nothing underneath their skin.

So that their acts can be seen as completely non-evil.

Callista
2010-11-28, 05:33 PM
Your alignment's decided mostly by the decisions you make. People without strong emotions tend toward neutral; but you can take actions that reflect your alignment even if you don't feel strong emotions about them.

Here's why I think alignment and emotions aren't particularly related. As I probably have mentioned before, I have autism, which among other things creates non-verbal communication issues. You know how you smile when you see someone else smiling, most of the time? I don't do that; I don't mirror people. That doesn't stop me from caring about other people; in fact, I care deeply. Instead of mirroring the emotions of a person in pain, I look at the situation, I analyze it in order to understand that this person is in pain; and because I do not like it when people are hurt, I want it to stop. This is compassion without instinctive empathy. (With autism, the issue isn't that you don't care what the other person's feeling; it's that you don't know what they're feeling because you don't copy it the second you see them. Once you know, you care as much as anyone does.)

Caring about other people can be entirely cerebral or it can be mostly a matter of gut feeling, but whichever your emotional style is, the point is that at some point you decided to do things which either helped or hurt others; and it's the decision that makes your alignment, not the feeling behind it. People who don't copy others' emotions can be just as compassionate as people who feel almost nothing but the emotions of those around them.

If you want to talk about apathy, then, talk about people who have decided to remain uninvolved, rather than people who simply don't involve their feelings. Or else draw a distinction between two types of apathy--the dispassionate, cerebral sort that takes action without much feeling, and the sort of true apathy where the goal is not to involve oneself at all.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 06:14 PM
why does apathic and empty inside have to be evil?
I might never do a good act in my life but if i never do evil either what does that make me?

Callista
2010-11-28, 06:29 PM
I might never do a good act in my life but if i never do evil either what does that make me? A child too young to understand either.

Everyone does good or evil. Look at the definitions again; they allow for minor good and evil acts. You simply can't go through life without facing a decision that allows you to either help someone or not, hurt someone or not.

Fiery Diamond
2010-11-28, 06:56 PM
@Shademan: You. Are. Wrong. Discounting the lives as others as "unimportant" and "meaningless," leading you to not take action to help others when it is in no way even an inconvenience to you (the "say stop and I won't kill them" example where you don't say stop), is IDENTICAL to treating the lives of others as "worthless." Treating someone as worthless = debasing life. Ergo, evil.

Again: You are wrong, and the fact that think that it is neutral is disturbing to me. I sincerely hope that you don't agree with that "neutral" (but really evil) line of thinking, and that you're merely mis-assigning its alignment. Otherwise, if you do agree with that line of thinking, then...well...simple deduction. So I hope you don't. Because that would be depressing to me.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 07:04 PM
@Shademan: You. Are. Wrong. Discounting the lives as others as "unimportant" and "meaningless," leading you to not take action to help others when it is in no way even an inconvenience to you (the "say stop and I won't kill them" example where you don't say stop), is IDENTICAL to treating the lives of others as "worthless." Treating someone as worthless = debasing life. Ergo, evil.

Again: You are wrong, and the fact that think that it is neutral is disturbing to me. I sincerely hope that you don't agree with that "neutral" (but really evil) line of thinking, and that you're merely mis-assigning its alignment. Otherwise, if you do agree with that line of thinking, then...well...simple deduction. So I hope you don't. Because that would be depressing to me.

note that i am talking about rules in D&D not real life morality.

In D&D ACTION dictates alignment. choosing to do NOTHING carries NO good or evil "energy".
you can despise your fellow man if you want to... as long as you do not DO anything against them it is not evil. You can enjoy watching them burn as long as you had nothing to do with the flames being set.
if you treat someone as worthless you are affecting their life. lets say I think elves are worthless, so i kick them in the nuts whenever I see them. that is evil.
lets say I think elves are worthless so I'm not going to go get help from the neighbouring city when orcs attack. that is neutral. the orcs however is evil (granted that their attack is unprovoked)

Fiery Diamond
2010-11-28, 07:52 PM
note that i am talking about rules in D&D not real life morality.

In D&D ACTION dictates alignment. choosing to do NOTHING carries NO good or evil "energy".
you can despise your fellow man if you want to... as long as you do not DO anything against them it is not evil. You can enjoy watching them burn as long as you had nothing to do with the flames being set.
if you treat someone as worthless you are affecting their life. lets say I think elves are worthless, so i kick them in the nuts whenever I see them. that is evil.
lets say I think elves are worthless so I'm not going to go get help from the neighbouring city when orcs attack. that is neutral. the orcs however is evil (granted that their attack is unprovoked)

Actually, D&D RAW is very fuzzy on the interaction between motivation and action in determining alignment. A large number of players (myself included) feel that action and motivation are both important in determining alignment (see the Trolley Paladin Problem thread). From this perspective, what you think -which influences what your motives are- is very important to alignment.

And even if that WEREN'T the case, this statement:

choosing to do NOTHING carries NO good or evil "energy".
is false. Even if action alone dictates alignment, as you say, rather than action and motivation, as I and many others say, that quoted statement is untrue.

Choosing to do nothing...is a choice. There is no such thing as true passivity when it comes to situations in which you can act. "Choosing to be passive" is an active choice. The only way to be truly passive is if you are completely unaware that there is a choice to be made. And choosing to do nothing in a situation where doing nothing will cause harm, suffering, and/or death to innocents when it would cost you nothing to do something that would prevent that is an act of evil.

Khatoblepas
2010-11-28, 08:29 PM
In D&D ACTION dictates alignment. choosing to do NOTHING carries NO good or evil "energy".




In D&D ACTION dictates alignment. choosing to do NOTHING




choosing to do NOTHING




choosing

Oh look, a verb. That's an action. You just committed an evil act by letting needless blood be spilled just so you can brood on your own worthless existance. You have a soul, it's quantifiable. Your every action carries weight for your soul.

The only way that the "Say stop and they live" scenario can play out with the participant being neutral and not objecting is if they were mindless or of animal intelligence. An animated skeleton being in your place? Their inaction would be neutral, since you didn't give them a command. If it interprets "Object and they live" as a command, it is still a neutral action for them. Once you have Int 3, you are totally in control of your actions. If you couldn't speak the language, you're still instinctively going to reach out to stop the villain using the knife.

You can't sidestep basic human dignity unless you aren't human. Are you an animated skeleton? Are you a dog? Or are you just plain evil?

Starbuck_II
2010-11-28, 08:32 PM
I disagree. Not choosing an action isn't evil, but is never good.

Now, thinking their lives are meaningless isn't respect lives meaning you aren't good.

Nothing says he would have to be evil, but neutral leaning evil seems likely.

Callista
2010-11-28, 09:11 PM
I disagree. Not choosing an action isn't evil, but is never good.There's a difference between not choosing, and choosing not to act.

"Not choosing" is something that happens when you are trapped in indecision long enough for things to happen without your say-so; or you are still trying to figure out what the choices are; or you don't understand enough to make a decision one way or the other.

"Choosing not to act" is an active choice that can be evil or good, and is judged by the same standards as choosing to act in some way.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 09:19 PM
"Choosing not to act" is an active choice that can be evil or good, and is judged by the same standards as choosing to act in some way.

IRL maybe. but in terms of D&D your inactiveness does/should not affect your alignment.

imagine this scenario: we have :smallannoyed: who is the mightiest warrior and general these lands have ever seen.
:smallfurious: is a evil tyrant who loves looting and slaughter
:smallcool: is a benevolent and kind man who wants to save mankind.
A civil war breaks out and they all meet on a mountaintop.
:smallfurious: "join me and we will cut our way trough these lands! Any opposition will be crushed beneath our ambigiously homosexual boots, we will loot everything and rule as the betters we are!"
:smallcool: "no! Join me and we will destroy this evildoer and his armies. all evil shall be defeated and we will create a land of freedom and joy where everyone will be merry and gay(in ye olden sense)."

Then :smallannoyed: says: eeeh...how about...no."
Then he turns around and leaves.
whatever happen next is not his fault. he never planned for this or made it happen.

Callista
2010-11-28, 09:36 PM
IRL maybe. but in terms of D&D your inactiveness does/should not affect your alignmentWhere's the rule that says that? "Choosing not to act" is a choice; and choices can be good or evil. It's not in game or out of game; it's just logic.

An example of an evil act that comes from inaction:

You're walking along the marketplace. Some terminally forgetful mother has let her toddler wander into the middle of the dusty road, where he's happily throwing dirt into the air, laughing, and making lots of work for whoever does his family's laundry. You hear the gallop of horses' hooves in the distance; apparently some silly young noblemen have decided it would be a great idea to race at breakneck speed down the middle of the crowded marketplace and watch the peasants scatter like so many chickens. They're headed straight for the child, but thankfully you have plenty of time to grab the toddler by the back of his dirty little shirt and drag him out of the road in time to give his idiotic mother a serious talking-to about leaving her child alone like that. However, instead of whisking the child out of the way, you decide to step out of the path of the horses and watch as they trample the child to death.

This choice not to act cannot be called anything but evil. It is morally equivalent to grabbing the child from the side of the road and putting him into the path of the horses yourself. The only difference between them is how easy it is to get out of being punished.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 09:41 PM
Where's the rule that says that? "Choosing not to act" is a choice; and choices can be good or evil. It's not in game or out of game; it's just logic.

An example of an evil act that comes from inaction:

You're walking along the marketplace. Some terminally forgetful mother has let her toddler wander into the middle of the dusty road, where he's happily throwing dirt into the air, laughing, and making lots of work for whoever does his family's laundry. You hear the gallop of horses' hooves in the distance; apparently some silly young noblemen have decided it would be a great idea to race at breakneck speed down the middle of the crowded marketplace and watch the peasants scatter like so many chickens. They're headed straight for the child, but thankfully you have plenty of time to grab the toddler by the back of his dirty little shirt and drag him out of the road in time to give his idiotic mother a serious talking-to about leaving her child alone like that. However, instead of whisking the child out of the way, you decide to step out of the path of the horses and watch as they trample the child to death.

This choice not to act cannot be called anything but evil. It is morally equivalent to grabbing the child from the side of the road and putting him into the path of the horses yourself. The only difference between them is how easy it is to get out of being punished.

it is evil from our viewpoint, yet the cosmos does not quite care. YOU did not kill the child. the horse and its rider did. it is HIS evil not yours.

Callista
2010-11-28, 09:45 PM
It's the horseman's evil AND yours. He's at fault for being reckless with others' lives; you're at fault for not saving someone's life when you didn't even have to take any risks to do it.

Doing evil by inaction is not a cosmic loophole.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 09:47 PM
"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.

evil actively DO evil ACTIONS.
Neutral does not make sacrefice to help others. often.

Callista
2010-11-28, 09:51 PM
I'm not arguing that evil people do evil things. I am arguing that choosing not to act is, itself, an action, the morality of which can be judged like any other action.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 09:52 PM
I'm not arguing that evil people do evil things. I am arguing that choosing not to act is, itself, an action, the morality of which can be judged like any other action.

its not an action. its an abstract choice you do in your brain.
what does your HAND do? THATS what matters.
if it slaps, evil
if it strokes, good
if it does nothing, neutral

RebelRogue
2010-11-28, 09:56 PM
Good and Evil isn't about the cosmos! They're very much defined relative to human beings and through what 'normal', modern people believe these terms to mean. Yes, that's a vague definition, but that's more or less how Gygax intended it, I'm pretty sure (being a Christian if I'm not mistaken).

This also means, that you cannot always use strictly logical arguments in alignment debates and expect sound results, simply because human morality doesn't adhere to strict rules like that. A lot of alignment debates is grounded in people constructing deliberately ridiculous scenarios and/or pushing strict logic where it cannot apply. Seriously, if you think 90 out of 100 'normal' people would consider a given act evil, it surely is!

Shademan
2010-11-28, 09:59 PM
Good and Evil isn't about the cosmos! They're very much defined relative to human beings and through what 'normal', modern people believe these terms to mean. Yes, that's a vague definition, but that's more or less how Gygax intended it, I'm pretty sure (being a Christian if I'm not mistaken).

This also means, that you cannot always use strictly logical arguments in alignment debates and expect sound results, simply because human morality doesn't adhere to strict rules like that. A lot of alignment debates is grounded in people constructing deliberately ridiculous scenarios and/or pushing strict logic where it cannot apply. Seriously, if you think 90 out of 100 'normal' people would consider a given act evil, it surely is!

but D&D cosmos DO work like that. why else would casting certain spells be evil?

Acanous
2010-11-28, 10:02 PM
Well, after reviewing the thread, I believe your answer lies within the "True neutral to neutral evil" spectrum.
If you're creating a class or race to reprisent apathy, I believe the restrictions "Must be Neutral and nongood" would apply.

RebelRogue
2010-11-28, 10:02 PM
but D&D cosmos DO work like that. why else would casting certain spells be evil?
Yes, but the D&D cosmos is composed of forces that care quite a lot about humanity (and sapient races in general). There's Good and Evil forces there, but let's face it, their moralities are still dictated by real life human standards, since the game is made by human beings.

Callista
2010-11-28, 10:04 PM
Okay, so how about a Good-aligned example of inaction as a choice?

You're one of a couple of dozen slaves owned by a harsh master; you're getting on in years and you know that with this harsh life you might as well be ninety instead of fifty years old. The other day, a fellow slave was caught stealing grain from the storehouse and locked up, with plans to make an example of him. Hearing some noises, you poke your head out the door of your rough hut to see a few of the younger men sneaking past with the thief, obviously intent on making a run for it and saving the man's life. You hear them mention a location--their intended hideout after they escape. You watch them climb the fence, unhindered by any guards; then you quietly return to your hut and try to get some sleep.

Next morning you and the other remaining slaves are, by turns, being threatened with gruesome consequences and bribed with wildly extravagant rewards for any information about the escapees. It's not going to be very healthy for you if you don't tell; those footprints are going right by your hut and it's pretty obvious you must've heard something. It would be really easy to tell what you know, and you'd be favored for it. No one would even have to know; you could do it secretly, if you liked, and maybe you might manage to live to see ninety, with the better conditions being a favored slave would let you have. It would, in fact, be a real windfall for you. But, instead of taking the opportunity, you choose not to act, and that next winter, you die of malnutrition, exposure, and harsh treatment. The escaped slaves are not found.

If that's not Good, then what is?

Shademan
2010-11-28, 10:07 PM
Okay, so how about a Good-aligned example of inaction as a choice?

You're one of a couple of dozen slaves owned by a harsh master; you're getting on in years and you know that with this harsh life you might as well be ninety instead of fifty years old. The other day, a fellow slave was caught stealing grain from the storehouse and locked up, with plans to make an example of him. Hearing some noises, you poke your head out the door of your rough hut to see a few of the younger men sneaking past with the thief, obviously intent on making a run for it and saving the man's life. You hear them mention a location--their intended hideout after they escape. You watch them climb the fence, unhindered by any guards, then quietly return to your hut and try to get some sleep.

Next morning you and the other remaining slaves are, by turns, being threatened with gruesome consequences and bribed with wildly extravagant rewards for any information about the escapees. It's not going to be very healthy for you if you don't tell; those footprints are going right by your hut and it's pretty obvious you must've heard something. It would be really easy to tell what you know, and you'd be favored for it. No one would even have to know; you could do it secretly, if you liked, and maybe you might manage to live to see ninety, with the better conditions being a favored slave would let you have. It would, in fact, be a real windfall for you. But, instead of taking the opportunity, you choose not to act, and that next winter, you die of malnutrition, exposure, and harsh treatment. The escaped slaves are not found.

If that's not Good, then what is?

from our REAL LIFE worldview it is good, yes!
the cosmos in D&D views this as neutral.
see it doesn matter wether you didnt rat em out because of the kindness of your heart, to spite your master or because...nihilism. doesnt matter. the only thing that matters is what you physically did. you did nothing. neutral

RebelRogue
2010-11-28, 10:11 PM
Why do you keep on insisting real world, common perceptions of good/evil are majorly different from the D&D dittos? :smallconfused:

Shademan
2010-11-28, 10:12 PM
Why do you keep on insisting real world, common perceptions of good/evil are majorly different from the D&D dittos? :smallconfused:

because it matters!
D&D adhere to different LAWS than our universe! it changes EVERYTHING!

RebelRogue
2010-11-28, 10:24 PM
because it matters!
D&D adhere to different LAWS than our universe! it changes EVERYTHING!
But those laws (or rather principles, since Law itself is only one of these) are but embodiments of specific human-centric ideas. A cosmic entity, like a god, in the D&D universe would have similar ideas of what is good and evil as most real-life people. Why should that change?

Callista
2010-11-28, 10:26 PM
Yeah, until you show me where in the core rulebooks it says that D&D morality specifically excludes inaction as a moral choice, you're not going to be convincing me.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 10:28 PM
because in D&D good and evil EXISTS.
in our universe it does not.
its an abstract CONCEPT that we make in our brain.
In D&D these things actually exist, and it takes the shape of planes and gods and such.
Think about, you can cast spells that are evil.
the very existence of these unliving, nonsentient spells are evil. no matter why or at what you cast them at.
That means that the cosmos CARES in one way or another.

Shademan
2010-11-28, 10:30 PM
Yeah, until you show me where in the core rulebooks it says that D&D morality specifically excludes inaction as a moral choice, you're not going to be convincing me.

I just did.
SRD: 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.

You dont commit to helping anyone, thats neutral
You dont destroy or debase life, thats neutral

Fiery Diamond
2010-11-28, 11:34 PM
because in D&D good and evil EXISTS.
in our universe it does not.
its an abstract CONCEPT that we make in our brain.

Okay, STOP. This is where you need to step back, take a deep breath, and not say things that will provoke the ire of others. Arguing about "real life morality" is a bad idea, as morality is quite often tied to religious beliefs. You don't go around telling people that their worldview is wrong, even if you think it is -- and saying that good and evil are just made-up concepts is doing that. You need to calm down.


Back on the main subject: you seem to be under the impression that in D&D, Good and Evil are clearly and unambiguously defined terms. Let me correct you on that: in the D&Dverse, Good and Evil are objective things. But what exactly are they? Well, the passages you keep quoting give a general idea.

But apparently you think that how an action is defined, or how "debase" is meant, or what "respect" implies, and many other things are perfectly clear and unambiguous, and that they mean exactly whatever you feel like they mean. However, they mean what the person playing the game thinks they mean, as Good and Evil (D&D) are supposed to represent good and evil (what people in real life think is good or evil). They aren't supposed to be completely unrelated. The books are just trying to make it a little easier to adjudicate if there's a dispute or misunderstanding and give a general framework in their description of the terms, not trying to redefine them as separate from what "real life" good and evil are.

And it turns out that most people on this thread are in agreement with me, which means that you are the one most likely to be incorrect, seeing as you have nothing whatsoever to base your arguments on: I use the exact same writing in the books, I just use common sense in addition to it. So: what's in the books + common sense = what we're saying. What's in the books + your personal opinion which no one else here agrees with or thinks makes any sense = what you're saying.

Callista
2010-11-29, 12:12 AM
Yeah... I'm not arguing about what good and evil mean. I'm just saying that inaction can be good or evil because it is one choice by which you might show respect for life, oppress others, kill innocents, or make a sacrifice to help someone else. Just like zero is a number, inaction, as far as moral judgments are concerned, is a kind of action.

What might be confusing you is the difference between a situation like refusing to help a child when it costs you nothing (the evil act I detailed, above) and a situation where your inaction is simply a failure to do some evil thing--say, there are no horses, the child is perfectly safe; the neutral choice is to remain inactive rather than strangle the child where he sits (leaving aside how nonsensical that would be, even for an evil character; what would he gain from it?). Inaction can be neutral. But it can also be good or evil, depending on the situation.

Fiery Diamond
2010-11-29, 12:35 AM
Yeah... I'm not arguing about what good and evil mean. I'm just saying that inaction can be good or evil because it is one choice by which you might show respect for life, oppress others, kill innocents, or make a sacrifice to help someone else. Just like zero is a number, inaction, as far as moral judgments are concerned, is a kind of action.

What might be confusing you is the difference between a situation like refusing to help a child when it costs you nothing (the evil act I detailed, above) and a situation where your inaction is simply a failure to do some evil thing--say, there are no horses, the child is perfectly safe; the neutral choice is to remain inactive rather than strangle the child where he sits (leaving aside how nonsensical that would be, even for an evil character; what would he gain from it?). Inaction can be neutral. But it can also be good or evil, depending on the situation.

I completely agree with this. Shademan seems to be arguing two things, primarily: 1) Choosing to do nothing isn't an action, therefore it cannot be good or evil and 2) Good and Evil are game terms that have no relationship to whatever we think of as good and evil - and that an action is required for Good and Evil to be present and relevant. I think the disagreement between what we're saying and what he's saying is that we don't think those two things are true - we just weren't aware that he thought #2 until he explicitly stated it just a little bit ago, so we were only arguing against #1.

See, we think that choosing to do nothing, by virtue of being a choice, is therefore an "action" so far as "actions" are relevant to Good and Evil. Therefore, choosing to do nothing can be Good, Neutral, or Evil, depending on the situation. He seems to think this is not the case for reasons I can't figure out, but apparently have something to do with how he thinks Good and Evil are not the same thing as good and evil.

RebelRogue
2010-11-29, 05:08 AM
because in D&D good and evil EXISTS.
in our universe it does not.
its an abstract CONCEPT that we make in our brain.
In D&D these things actually exist, and it takes the shape of planes and gods and such.
Please read what I wrote: Yes, good and evil may not exist in the real world other than human-made concepts, but since D&D is made by human beings, the D&D concepts of Good and Evil are closely related to those real-world-perhaps-only-in-our-heads-notions! Arguing that something is technically not evil because of a strict interpretation of one specific line about what good is, is pretty similar to drowning people to heal them!


I just did.
SRD: 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.
Sacrifice! Preventing something with no risk to yourself is not sacrifice.


Okay, STOP. This is where you need to step back, take a deep breath, and not say things that will provoke the ire of others. Arguing about "real life morality" is a bad idea, as morality is quite often tied to religious beliefs. You don't go around telling people that their worldview is wrong, even if you think it is -- and saying that good and evil are just made-up concepts is doing that. You need to calm down.
As an agnostic, I'd like to say, that I despise the notion, that morality is inherently tied to religion! But there's no real need to go down that road in the discussion so far: real human beings have some concepts of good and evil! The origin of these is not important.

Hironomus
2010-11-29, 05:39 AM
I read the examples and I must say they aren't very consistent. Some of those scenarios resulted in a good act, some in an evil act and some in a neutral act.
Basically when it comes down to it inherently aligned deeds are down to the precise and exact situation and a whole bunch of factors come into it.
that said apathy strikes me as reeking of neutrality. i.e. I don't care one way or the other = I am not good OR evil.
However present an apathetic character with an outlandish enough situation and of course they can still be challenged by it. in the same way that a perpetual loner CAN make friends, or a Lawful person CAN be convinced to betray their paradigms, certain situations will arrise that challenge even the most nihilistic characters morals. thats part of the fun of D&D I think.

FelixG
2010-11-29, 05:52 AM
Okay, so how about a Good-aligned example of inaction as a choice?

You're one of a couple of dozen slaves owned by a harsh master; you're getting on in years and you know that with this harsh life you might as well be ninety instead of fifty years old. The other day, a fellow slave was caught stealing grain from the storehouse and locked up, with plans to make an example of him. Hearing some noises, you poke your head out the door of your rough hut to see a few of the younger men sneaking past with the thief, obviously intent on making a run for it and saving the man's life. You hear them mention a location--their intended hideout after they escape. You watch them climb the fence, unhindered by any guards; then you quietly return to your hut and try to get some sleep.

Next morning you and the other remaining slaves are, by turns, being threatened with gruesome consequences and bribed with wildly extravagant rewards for any information about the escapees. It's not going to be very healthy for you if you don't tell; those footprints are going right by your hut and it's pretty obvious you must've heard something. It would be really easy to tell what you know, and you'd be favored for it. No one would even have to know; you could do it secretly, if you liked, and maybe you might manage to live to see ninety, with the better conditions being a favored slave would let you have. It would, in fact, be a real windfall for you. But, instead of taking the opportunity, you choose not to act, and that next winter, you die of malnutrition, exposure, and harsh treatment. The escaped slaves are not found.

If that's not Good, then what is?

This example is fundamentally flawed.

What is the point? They obviously see the foot prints leading past your hut and over the fence, they already know that the slave escaped, they know the person was assisted, and by going past your hut they are going to the fence. Staying silent is stupid not good. You say "yep they came this way" but it doesn't make it evil, you are just telling everything they already know

Now if you wanted something Evil they would run and raise the alarm about the escaping slaves

the good option would be to go with them to help them survive and make sure that accused slave gets to freedom!

If an orphanage is on fire you could have a few choices

A) Dive into the flames and save those snot nosed brats!- Good
B) Shrug and do nothing and go about your business, after all an orphanage is on fire, someone else will report it- Neutral AND apathetic
C) Actively hinder the saving of the children or throw some accelerent on there to really make sure those kids get it. -Evil

Shademan
2010-11-29, 06:59 AM
And it turns out that most people on this thread are in agreement with me, which means that you are the one most likely to be incorrect, seeing as you have nothing whatsoever to base your arguments on: I use the exact same writing in the books, I just use common sense in addition to it. So: what's in the books + common sense = what we're saying. What's in the books + your personal opinion which no one else here agrees with or thinks makes any sense = what you're saying.

WHAT!?
NO! even if all of mankind says that that one thing is right it can still be wrong. Do you know how many scientific theroies that were ridiculed by almost ALL of the scientific world only to be proven correct years later?


So do I.

Ormur
2010-11-29, 07:30 AM
But if evil and good are tangible things in D&D why does the distinction between a mental choice and and a physical action matter? If those omniscient forces can ascribe an alignment to an action, like saving a child from being trampled, why can't they ascribe an alignment to inaction, like not doing something so easy.

Saying not saving someone isn't an action is also pretty arbitrary to me. When you see something happening that you can easily prevent you make a choice of either doing something about it or doing something else, both are actions. If the universal forces can distinguish between you cutting the head of someone in self-defence and you cutting the head of someone for the joy of watching innocent blood spurt out of the stump, why can't they distinguish between saving someone and consciously deciding not to save someone.

I'm not actually saying that inaction is always evil or good but most choices have some moral characteristic to them and the universe is obviously capable of recognising them in D&D.

hamishspence
2010-11-29, 07:32 AM
Yup- and BoVD does give an example where inaction is "far more evil" than action.

TricksyAndFalse
2010-11-29, 07:57 AM
What alignment would best fit someone with an apathetic view, about pretty much everything?

I have not read all the responses, so maybe this has already been askied, but if a character is apathetic about everything, why are they adventuring?

Bobbis
2010-11-29, 08:09 AM
Inaction is a choice. It will have outcomes.

You are at a castle gate. A werewolf is chasing a group of people fleeing to the safety of the gate. You can close the gate, and save the people, or do nothing, and they die.

Hey, guess what, you just chose to do nothing and a group of people died. After all, you don't want to side with the people against the werewolf either, right? You just want to remain neutral in all this.

Choosing not to act is just as much a moral decision as choosing to act.

hamishspence
2010-11-29, 08:50 AM
I have not read all the responses, so maybe this has already been askied, but if a character is apathetic about everything, why are they adventuring?

They may be apathetic about everything but their own survival and success- they have no interest in helping or hurting anyone- unless there's a clear benefit (or danger, which can be avoided/mitigated, by acting) involved.

Callista
2010-11-29, 09:41 AM
This example is fundamentally flawed.

What is the point? They obviously see the foot prints leading past your hut and over the fence, they already know that the slave escaped, they know the person was assisted, and by going past your hut they are going to the fence. Staying silent is stupid not good. You say "yep they came this way" but it doesn't make it evil, you are just telling everything they already knowThat's why I mentioned that you heard them talking about where they were going.