PDA

View Full Version : So, evil characters...



Pages : [1] 2

Silus
2011-02-04, 04:48 PM
Now, it might just be from my personal experience, but almost every time I try to play an evil character, I get turned down, with the people citing that they don't want team killing, rampant murder, theft, arson, ect. ect. ect..

So I ask you Playgrounders, why do the evil alignments get such...um...hostility? I dunno. Why do people seem to expect the worst when the concept of an evil character comes up?

Z3ro
2011-02-04, 04:50 PM
Experience? In most people's experience, evil charecters turn into those same theiving, murdering arsonists.

Most roleplaying concepts involving grey morality don't need to be evil to be explored, and many players don't want the black morality explored at all, hence, no evil.

WarKitty
2011-02-04, 04:51 PM
Guilt by association. A lot of players use evil characters as an excuse to generally go around killing other PC's, burning down the tavern, and generally being psychopaths in the name of roleplaying. It becomes easier to say "no evil characters" than to spell out exactly what is and is not acceptable and possibly deal with the complaints when someone plays a psychopath madman anyway.

Silus
2011-02-04, 04:58 PM
What I don't quite get is that in my experience, the people that say no to evil characters will allow people to play Chaotic Neutral characters, which are often times WORSE than evil characters.

"HERP DERP I'M GONNA STEAL FROM EVERYONE IT'S OK THOUGH I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL"

Eldan
2011-02-04, 05:01 PM
I think many roleplayers have, once in their career met the "evil guy". The evil guy who, if you tell him you don't want evil characters, will play chaotic neutral.

He will, perhaps, start off mostly reasonable, if perhaps a little more greedy and brutal than most characters.

Then, someone insults him. Perhaps an authority figure. AT which point he'll go on a rampage, stab the king right in front of his guards.

He will use torture, burn down buildings for no good reason, insult anyone he meets and so on.

And the rest of his group will make the association "evil=total dickwad".

Comet
2011-02-04, 05:07 PM
For some players, the evil alignments mean specifically that you're allowed to do stuff that isn't acceptable in everyday society.

It's right there in the word. Evil is evil, go nuts and eat some squirrels.

I don't agree with this point of view, but I can't honestly say that there isn't a certain weird sort of logic behind it.

Z3ro
2011-02-04, 05:10 PM
What I don't quite get is that in my experience, the people that say no to evil characters will allow people to play Chaotic Neutral characters, which are often times WORSE than evil characters.

"HERP DERP I'M GONNA STEAL FROM EVERYONE IT'S OK THOUGH I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL"

I remember the first character I ever made myself, back when I started RPing, was exactly that character. The CN rogue who would steal from everybody. I quickly learned that "neutral" was not the same as "breaks a bunch of laws" the hard way, and my characters after that were much better (though some of my best characters have been evil, just not stupid evil; hooray for learning!).

Aemoh87
2011-02-04, 05:11 PM
I love playing evil, it gives you a chance to scheme. And as long as there are people in the world who will try to stop you it isn't all that different from being good.

It's even better being the evil person in a party full of good. It compounds itself hundreds of times over if you have a DM who will work with you so the characters never find out (even out of game) that your evil, unless you blow your cover!

Silus
2011-02-04, 05:13 PM
I remember the first character I ever made myself, back when I started RPing, was exactly that character. The CN rogue who would steal from everybody. I quickly learned that "neutral" was not the same as "breaks a bunch of laws" the hard way, and my characters after that were much better (though some of my best characters have been evil, just not stupid evil; hooray for learning!).

See, what I don't get is the DMs I've had will let someone play the Herp Derp CN klepto, but won't let me play the LE blackmailing extortionist mafia type.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-04, 05:16 PM
See, what I don't get is the DMs I've had will let someone play the Herp Derp CN klepto, but won't let me play the LE blackmailing extortionist mafia type.

Maybe the DM just needs to be taught a lesson.

Z3ro
2011-02-04, 05:17 PM
See, what I don't get is the DMs I've had will let someone play the Herp Derp CN klepto, but won't let me play the LE blackmailing extortionist mafia type.

In my case, it was simply "no evil", not "no stupid" and my stupid was punished accordingly. YMMV.

Silus
2011-02-04, 05:20 PM
Maybe the DM just needs to be taught a lesson.

What I find amusing is that I usually try to play that way while Neutral. Figure it would be more "honest" to play it straight LE.

Toliudar
2011-02-04, 05:20 PM
A lot depends on the campaign. A campaign designed with exalted characters in mind, with cut and dried black/white decisions, or with a heavy reliance on PC's desire to "do the right thing" in a situation - any of these become a lot more difficult, and potentially less fun, when one or more evil characters are included.

Loki Eremes
2011-02-04, 05:30 PM
Most of the problem with evil characters is that DMs think that they are going to do things that will in a certain degree, ruin plots of the campaing (kill an NPC, influence the party, etc)

This when there are evil characters with good characters in the same party.
They are generally doomed to destroy each other.

There are ways to overcome that, like making events that will progresivelly change their alignments to fit the party (evil to neutral or good; good to neutral or evil) so they can coexist somehow.

Fhaolan
2011-02-04, 05:30 PM
I get the occasional player say they want to run an Evil character.

I get almost nobody wanting to build a Good character, or a Neutral character.

Yet, most of the PCs in my games are Good? Why is that? Because nearly all of the time Good or Neutral characters' distinguishing characteristic is *not* their alignment. "I want to play a desert Nomad type who trains exotic animals." "I want to play a mysterious urban rogue." "I want to play a conjuror."

Whenever a player says they want to play someone 'Evil', they invariably mean that they want to play a disruptive, psychopathic, team killing, murdering, arsonist, etc. and want to have the 'But I'm just playing my character!' excuse.

Addendum:

And if they come back with a CN herp/derp type after being told no, they get disinvited to the table.

It's not being Evil that is the problem. I've got players playing evil characters right now. Those characters are not defined by their alignment. They are evil. Undisputably. But they aren't using 'But I'm just playing my alignment' excuse.

Dienekes
2011-02-04, 05:44 PM
I get the occasional player say they want to run an Evil character.

I get almost nobody wanting to build a Good character, or a Neutral character.

Yet, most of the PCs in my games are Good? Why is that? Because nearly all of the time Good or Neutral characters' distinguishing characteristic is *not* their alignment. "I want to play a desert Nomad type who trains exotic animals." "I want to play a mysterious urban rogue." "I want to play a conjuror."

Whenever a player says they want to play someone 'Evil', they invariably mean that they want to play a disruptive, psychopathic, team killing, murdering, arsonist, etc. and want to have the 'But I'm just playing my character!' excuse.

Addendum:

And if they come back with a CN herp/derp type after being told no, they get disinvited to the table.

It's not being Evil that is the problem. I've got players playing evil characters right now. Those characters are not defined by their alignment. They are evil. Undisputably. But they aren't using 'But I'm just playing my alignment' excuse.

More on this, "just playing my alignment" is one of the most annoying statements a player can make. Part of why I tell my players to come up with a character and then I mentally list off what their alignments are after I get a feel for them.

Notably, when I was a PC I often went for the neutral/evil alignment. I just wouldn't tell that to my GM or fellow players until far after the characters were established, if they were against to it. A few times I even got the GM to lift the no-evil ban so long as I didn't act like a lunatic, which I never did.

Severus
2011-02-04, 05:56 PM
I think most of us have gone through the phase, or seen other go through the phase of anti-social, burn the world down while laughing evil.

I'm sure it seemed marginally cool at the time, but now it just feels completely lame. Changing the alignment to CN was the next step along the path, and most of us left that behind too.

Like the poster above said, there's a big difference between a character who happens to be evil and an "evil" character. If evil is the first thing that you want to say to the GM about the character, then it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the GM thinks, "oh great, a game wrecker".

I have played some great evil characters, rich and detailed and perhaps twisted. But since my early teen years, none of them wanted to burn the world down or murder people in authority who told them no.

NekoJoker
2011-02-04, 05:59 PM
As a DM; I personally don't like to allow EVIL characters in any sort of campaign, this is because I like the Idea that D&D is about playing heroes of the land going against evil in all it's forms.

I can allowgrey morallity, but no outright evil in the campaign.

Specially when as a matter of fact, people normally assossiate the idea that Evil=Butthole, and playing with a Butthole-type character may not be too entertaining for the players or the DM.

Anybody has a different opinion, but unless your DM actually WANTS to have an Evil party or an Evil Campaign, it is not very advisable

Triskavanski
2011-02-04, 06:06 PM
I tend to always play more evil characters, though the best is playing true neutral from a power gaming perspective.


But my evil is never "DERP I STAB YOU CAUS I EVIAL! LOLOLOLO!" like many people think it should be.

My CE character for example actually volunteers at a local soup kitchen. An act of good.. but he serves whatever the party kills, which could be an act of evil. Not that he would know better though, he ate part of it himself.

Oddly, My evil characters tend to find that the so-called good characters are much more evil than them. Like our CG bard who basically went out and found a young boy who stole from her, captured him, dragged him to the thieves guild and basically sold him into the guild.

archon_huskie
2011-02-04, 06:11 PM
I oput this in my game ads

"All alignments are open. However, please keep in mind that your characters are heroes. They can be LE, NE, or CE, but they are still the heroes of the story. Hopefully it goes without saying that Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Good, and Stupid Evil are banned."

I have a LE character. He was willing to pay an assassin to kill the thiefs guildmaster. But because he was lawful, he called off the hit when he learned that the guildmaster had an infant daughter. Instead he lent the party's rogue a few magic items who was then able to successfully challenge the guildmaster for leadership of the guild.

PersonMan
2011-02-04, 06:15 PM
But because he was lawful, he called off the hit when he learned that the guildmaster had an infant daughter.

Er...What? Unless his code is "don't assassinate parents", I'm not seeing how this is more lawful than getting the person dueled to death(it was to death, or am I misinterpreting what you said?).

Gensh
2011-02-04, 06:19 PM
Oddly, My evil characters tend to find that the so-called good characters are much more evil than them. Like our CG bard who basically went out and found a young boy who stole from her, captured him, dragged him to the thieves guild and basically sold him into the guild.

This. Honestly, I've never played with a Chaotic anything that shouldn't have been CE, whereas the other LE in my current party by all rights should be NG. Go figure. I find myself playing Evil more frequently than anything else because that allows me to pursue what I believe to be the correct means of solving the situation without being constrained by "you can't do that; you're good/neutral." If Villain McPuppykicker is holding a small child hostage in the midst of priceless artifacts, but the fate of the world is at stake, I'm going to throw whatever sort of horrible flaming death his way and not look back, regardless of collateral damage, just because I as a person can't fathom doing otherwise in that situation and don't want to metagame "there has to be another way."

archon_huskie
2011-02-04, 06:19 PM
Er...What? Unless his code is "don't assassinate parents", I'm not seeing how this is more lawful than getting the person dueled to death(it was to death, or am I misinterpreting what you said?).

I never said duel to the death. I said challenge for leadership. Reasonable assumption, but thieves really don't want to kill off their most skilled members.

Lawful - he has an honor code. Think of Dinobot from Beast Wars or Hector Barbosa from Pirates. That's Lawful Evil.

Silus
2011-02-04, 06:24 PM
This. Honestly, I've never played with a Chaotic anything that shouldn't have been CE, whereas the other LE in my current party by all rights should be NG. Go figure. I find myself playing Evil more frequently than anything else because that allows me to pursue what I believe to be the correct means of solving the situation without being constrained by "you can't do that; you're good/neutral." If Villain McPuppykicker is holding a small child hostage in the midst of priceless artifacts, but the fate of the world is at stake, I'm going to throw whatever sort of horrible flaming death his way and not look back, regardless of collateral damage, just because I as a person can't fathom doing otherwise in that situation and don't want to metagame "there has to be another way."

Holy sh*t, this.

prufock
2011-02-04, 06:27 PM
My favourite type of evil character to play is the not-evil evil. He's evil, but gets along great with everyone. He is cooperative, trustworthy (at least by all appearances), helpful, heroic, and usually kind. His lack of appearing "evil" stems from his lack of ego. He just doesn't really care about power, or money, or any of that usual hogwash. He tends to follow most of the Nine Satanic Statements, avoids the Nine Satanic Sins, and abides by the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. This makes him oddly likable.

Now, as to whether that's evil, we can argue about absolute vs. relative morality, but in D&D, devotion, supplication, and worship to an evil god is evil.

PersonMan
2011-02-04, 06:27 PM
I never said duel to the death. I said challenge for leadership. Reasonable assumption, but thieves really don't want to kill off their most skilled members.

Lawful - he has an honor code. Think of Dinobot from Beast Wars or Hector Barbosa from Pirates. That's Lawful Evil.

Alright. Without more than "because he's lawful" to go off of, it sounded odd.

I see. I don't know the first, and I'd peg the second as NE("They're more like...guidelines.").

Drakonzeta
2011-02-04, 06:29 PM
Thankfully, I'm pretty exempt from this. Unfortunately, that's because there's only one person in my group. Who is the paladin type. The person who says he is Chaotic Good while being Lawful Good "ALL EVIL MUST BE SMOTE AND CLEAVED". Personally, I would allow an evil character. I'd just make sure they got punished if they got out of line.

Greenish
2011-02-04, 06:31 PM
I get the occasional player say they want to run an Evil character.

I get almost nobody wanting to build a Good character, or a Neutral character.Well, in my experience, the DMs rarely have problem with someone wanting to be Good or Neutral, so it's not something you have to check with your DM beforehands.

I have a LE character. He was willing to pay an assassin to kill the thiefs guildmaster. But because he was lawful, he called off the hit when he learned that the guildmaster had an infant daughter.How is that Lawful? It sounds more like Good.

Earthwalker
2011-02-04, 06:33 PM
Apart from some of the reason listed one reason I have problems with challenging evil characters. It might just have been the people I have played with but for most Evil means doesn't care about anything but themselves always.

This just leaves me with no plot hooks or anything to build with.

PersonMan
2011-02-04, 06:35 PM
How is that Lawful? It sounds more like Good.

I asked the same thing. The character has a code that says "no assassinating parents", basically. An honor thing, I think.

Triskavanski
2011-02-04, 06:40 PM
This. Honestly, I've never played with a Chaotic anything that shouldn't have been CE, whereas the other LE in my current party by all rights should be NG. Go figure. I find myself playing Evil more frequently than anything else because that allows me to pursue what I believe to be the correct means of solving the situation without being constrained by "you can't do that; you're good/neutral." If Villain McPuppykicker is holding a small child hostage in the midst of priceless artifacts, but the fate of the world is at stake, I'm going to throw whatever sort of horrible flaming death his way and not look back, regardless of collateral damage, just because I as a person can't fathom doing otherwise in that situation and don't want to metagame "there has to be another way."

Yep, I'm the same way. a subplot in our game right now that I've been slowly introducing is that my evil family of necromancers are hunting other necromancers because they are more evil.

My necromancers seek to cure death, not create undeath. So if they kill a few people to stop some other necromancers or McPuppykicker... "Well, we'll just sew them back up and preform some necrosurgery on them until they are alive again."

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-04, 06:40 PM
Most characters I play are Chaotic Good... the kind of butt-kicking, get-things-done heroes who worry less about consequences and more about vanquishing Evil in all its forms.

Example: Evil priest guy comes out of the walled city when my Cleric/Ranger is nearby. I know he's evil (Detect Evil), so I fire arrows. Party Monk is horrified ("You shot that man in cold blood!"), City Guards are outraged ("Murder!" they shout), Party Sorcerer is indifferent at best ("Good shot, right in the spleen."). I ride away knowing that Evil has been Vanquished while the GM sputters and grumbles about the storyline being "ruined" because I killed "the key NPC".

Chaotic Good also means never having to take prisoners. :smallbiggrin:

When I do play an "Evil" character, I'm almost always Lawful Evil.

Methodical, resourceful, patient and usually devoted to one Goal.

Like my Grey Elf Necromancer. Since Elves don't have "Souls" (why they don't sleep, why they're immune to Ghouls and a few other things), she was dispassionately researching Death in all its forms. She did not "worship" anyone, or even see Gods and the like as terribly important to her research. She "adventured" to study how other creatures died, what happened after their deaths, how long various creatures could withstand being tortured to death, etc.

Eventually, the other players got so creeped out by my character (in spite of playing "evil" characters of their own) that they asked me to stop. :xykon:

Ravens_cry
2011-02-04, 06:44 PM
That sounds more Lawful Stupid. You don't seem to care care about situation or circumstances or even the possibility of destroying Evil by leading the person to the side of Good, you just think "This is Evil, it must be destroyed."

Burner28
2011-02-04, 06:46 PM
Chaotic Good also means never having to take prisoners. :smallbiggrin:

Sure it doesn't:smallamused::smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

archon_huskie
2011-02-04, 06:46 PM
How is that Lawful? It sounds more like Good.

people often confuse Lawful and Good. Lawful is orderly and logical. It was his code that overruled his evil act, not a desire to be merciful to an infant.


I see. I don't know the first, and I'd peg the second as NE("They're more like...guidelines."). NE is best represented by Lord Becket - the man is pure greed willing use the law as it suits him, but to go against the law when it does not. "Nothing personal. It is just good business."
LG - Gov. Swan
NG - Will Turner
CG - Elizabeth Swan
LN - Comradore Norrington
TN - Captain of the Flying Dutchman (Provided the Capt does his job properly, he's a force of Nature. When he doesn't he gets twisted. That's why it is Capt not Davy Jones.)
CN - Capt. Jack Sparrow
LE - Capt. Hector Barbosa (Most of the Pirate Court expecially Capt. Tegue)
NE - Lord Beckett
CE - Calypso

Samurai Jill
2011-02-04, 06:47 PM
Whenever a player says they want to play someone 'Evil', they invariably mean that they want to play a disruptive, psychopathic, team killing, murdering, arsonist, etc. and want to have the 'But I'm just playing my character!' excuse.
I don't see what the inherent difficulty is here. If the player's character is really being such a pain in the ass (in both IC and OOC terms,) then it's perfectly 'in-character' for the other PCs to gang up and send the offender to sleep with the fishes. This is what you technically call a self-correcting feedback cycle.

Silus
2011-02-04, 06:47 PM
Most characters I play are Chaotic Good... the kind of butt-kicking, get-things-done heroes who worry less about consequences and more about vanquishing Evil in all its forms.

Example: Evil priest guy comes out of the walled city when my Cleric/Ranger is nearby. I know he's evil (Detect Evil), so I fire arrows. Party Monk is horrified ("You shot that man in cold blood!"), City Guards are outraged ("Murder!" they shout), Party Sorcerer is indifferent at best ("Good shot, right in the spleen."). I ride away knowing that Evil has been Vanquished while the GM sputters and grumbles about the storyline being "ruined" because I killed "the key NPC".

Chaotic Good also means never having to take prisoners. :smallbiggrin:


At least with the previous campaign I was in (Pirates), I leaned more towards Neutral with LE tendencies. Always trying to find a way to turn a profit and keep those pesky morals out of it. Like, we had to attack and wipe out a raiding village, and I was trying to figure out how we could take prisoners to sell to the slave markets. Not a good thing to do, but 1) we would have made quite a bit more gold, and 2) they were goblin raiders.

Also, no women, no children, unless "dealing" with them expedites the party's plans.

archon_huskie
2011-02-04, 06:49 PM
Apart from some of the reason listed one reason I have problems with challenging evil characters. It might just have been the people I have played with but for most Evil means doesn't care about anything but themselves always.

This just leaves me with no plot hooks or anything to build with.

What motivates them. Pride? power? wealth? Revenge? all things someone who cares about themselves.

Burner28
2011-02-04, 06:49 PM
people often confuse Lawful and Good. Lawful is orderly and logical. It was his code that overruled his evil act, not a desire to be merciful to an infant.

NE is best represented by Lord Becket - the man is pure greed willing use the law as it suits him, but to go against the law when it does not. "Nothing personal. It is just good business."
LG - Gov. Swan
NG - Will Turner
CG - Elizabeth Swan
LN - Comradore Norrington
TN - Captain of the Flying Dutchman (Provided the Capt does his job properly, he's a force of Nature. When he doesn't he gets twisted. That's why it is Capt not Davy Jones.)
CN - Capt. Jack Sparrow
LE - Capt. Hector Barbosa (Most of the Pirate Court expecially Capt. Tegue)
NE - Lord Beckett
CE - Calypso

Though they probably aren't canonical alignments given within the work, but fanonical, no?:smallamused:

PersonMan
2011-02-04, 06:49 PM
NE is best represented by Lord Becket - the man is pure greed willing use the law as it suits him, but to go against the law when it does not. "Nothing personal. It is just good business."

Isn't that basically what Barbarosa does, too?

It's been a long time since I've seen the movies, anyways.

Z3ro
2011-02-04, 06:51 PM
Isn't that basically what Barbarosa does, too?

It's been a long time since I've seen the movies, anyways.

I see him more as LE; "We agreed to let you go, it was you who failed to specify where or when".

Samurai Jill
2011-02-04, 06:54 PM
people often confuse Lawful and Good. Lawful is orderly and logical. It was his code that overruled his evil act, not a desire to be merciful to an infant...
Oh, sweet Gods. Here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#To_Triumph_Over_Evil). And here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#Law_and_Chaos:_Your_Rules_or_M ine.3F).

Greenish
2011-02-04, 06:54 PM
Example: Evil priest guy comes out of the walled city when my Cleric/Ranger is nearby. I know he's evil (Detect Evil), so I fire arrows. Party Monk is horrified ("You shot that man in cold blood!"), City Guards are outraged ("Murder!" they shout), Party Sorcerer is indifferent at best ("Good shot, right in the spleen."). I ride away knowing that Evil has been VanquishedThat sounds more like Evil "Well-meaning Extremist". Just because someone bleeps on evildar is no reason to kill them where they stand, at least for any Good character.

people often confuse Lawful and Good. Lawful is orderly and logical. It was his code that overruled his evil act, not a desire to be merciful to an infant.If his Code if Good, I don't see how he's Evil. I also fail to see how that was either orderly or logical.

Grollub
2011-02-04, 06:57 PM
I think the main problem stems from that most people who play "evil" characters use it as an excuse to be disruptive ( kill indiscrimiately, backstab party members, etc ).

It's actually quite stupid to assume that ALL evil creatures ( PC's or NPC's ) would just live in total anarchy killing each other/etc. Just because someone/thing is evil doesn't mean its an anti-social psychopath. The best evil types get along and co-operate for a "greater good" doing things together they can't do singly.

Loki Eremes
2011-02-04, 07:00 PM
I tend to always play more evil characters, though the best is playing true neutral from a power gaming perspective.


But my evil is never "DERP I STAB YOU CAUS I EVIAL! LOLOLOLO!" like many people think it should be.

My CE character for example actually volunteers at a local soup kitchen. An act of good.. but he serves whatever the party kills, which could be an act of evil. Not that he would know better though, he ate part of it himself.

Oddly, My evil characters tend to find that the so-called good characters are much more evil than them. Like our CG bard who basically went out and found a young boy who stole from her, captured him, dragged him to the thieves guild and basically sold him into the guild.


Double "W00t?"

1. cooking dead things isnt too much of an evil act, its nasty yeah, but ill say its much more NE than CE.

2. HE SOLD THE BOY TO A THIEVES GUILD????? sry my friend, but that warrants an alignment change to evil.
A CG character would let the kid go away with a warning or take its stuff back warning the kid again, for example.
BUT SELLING A BOY???? really....what the....


"im playing my alignment! :)"
"yup, a brand new NE character! :3"

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-04, 07:00 PM
That sounds more Lawful Stupid. You don't seem to care care about situation or circumstances or even the possibility of destroying Evil by leading the person to the side of Good, you just think "This is Evil, it must be destroyed."

Nope. A Lawful person would not attack an Evil person "just because they were Evil"... especially right outside a town. If they do, they're not being "Lawful" and should be dealt with accordingly.

A Chaotic Good person (especially a nature-type like I was playing) sees Evil as a Blight. When a plant has blighted leaves, you do not try to heal the blight by being nice to it... you heal the plant by removing the blight.

Lawful people (Good, Neutral or Evil) are most likely to try to work with someone, get them to see your point of view, or even trick them into "doing the right (read: lawful) thing".

Chaotic people live for the moment, seldom plan and often can't be bothered with working within the law. While a Chaotic person doesn't plan for the future, they also rarely want to have to worry that some thing left unattended will be a problem later. The "fix it now" mentality that often leads the Chaotic person to killing enemies rather than trying to convert them.


That sounds more like Evil "Well-meaning Extremist". Just because someone bleeps on evildar is no reason to kill them where they stand, at least for any Good character.

See above. Note that the character is more Chaotic than Good... but still certainly Good.

Samurai Jill
2011-02-04, 07:01 PM
t's actually quite stupid to assume that ALL evil creatures ( PC's or NPC's ) would just live in total anarchy killing each other/etc. Just because someone/thing is evil doesn't mean its an anti-social psychopath. The best evil types get along and co-operate for a "greater good" doing things together they can't do singly.
The basic problem is that this rapidly becomes nigh-indistinguishable from the default behaviour of good and neutral characters toward other good and neutral characters. The thing about gratuitously and indescriminately sadistic evil is that it a barbaric but more importantly incompetent force.

Pisha
2011-02-04, 07:05 PM
I'll admit, I'm one of those GM's who's told players "no evil characters." Part of it is that I'm relatively new to running games, and I'm only prepared to deal with so much craziness from my players. Part is that deep down, I do fear that someone wanting to play evil is just jonesing for an excuse to pillage, rape and burn. Part of it is because evil characters have different motivations, usually, than good characters, and if I'm sending my players on a quest to go rescue kidnapped children, I want to know they're all going to WANT to rescue kidnapped children!

That being said though, it's also because I, personally, don't like... well... evil. Not in a crazy religious/moral sense, necessarily, but the mindset of "I'm going to do what benefits me, and I really don't care who gets hurt in the process" is just distasteful to me. I don't particularly want it in my games. I get that some people (who are delightful people in real life!) have a lot of fun playing characters like that, exploring that dark amorality, and that's cool. I'm glad they have fun with it. But I don't, so when I'm running a game, I don't want evil characters in it. (I also don't want to run a Star Wars game. Just personal preference on what I enjoy and what I don't.)

That being said, if someone came to me with a really good concept for an evil character and sat down with me to explain how it wouldn't be disruptive, etc., etc., I might consider it, depending on the player. But they'd have to make a REALLY compelling argument.

Greenish
2011-02-04, 07:06 PM
Nope. A Lawful person would not attack an Evil person "just because they were Evil"... especially right outside a town. If they do, they're not being "Lawful" and should be dealt with accordingly.What you describe is not Lawful, it's Good.


A Chaotic Good person (especially a nature-type like I was playing) sees Evil as a Blight. When a plant has blighted leaves, you do not try to heal the blight by being nice to it... you heal the plant by removing the blight.Killing innocent people at random is Evil.

Lawful people (Good, Neutral or Evil) are most likely to try to work with someone, get them to see your point of view, or even trick them into "doing the right (read: lawful) thing".

The "fix it now" mentality that often leads the Chaotic person to killing enemies rather than trying to convert them.What, no, that's stupid.

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-04, 07:07 PM
The basic problem is that this rapidly becomes nigh-indistinguishable from the default behaviour of good and neutral characters toward other good and neutral characters. The thing about gratuitously and indescriminately sadistic evil is that it a barbaric but more importantly incompetent force.

That's Chaotic Evil.

Lawful Evil is the "Evil Empire". The nigh-irresistable force that wishes to control everything.

Doctor Doom is Lawful Evil. Loki is Chaotic Evil.

Samurai Jill
2011-02-04, 07:16 PM
That's Chaotic Evil.

Lawful Evil is the "Evil Empire". The nigh-irresistable force that wishes to control everything.

Doctor Doom is Lawful Evil. Loki is Chaotic Evil.
Loki is 'chaotic' in the same sense that the Joker is 'chaotic', despite the fact he makes elaborate plans, makes efficient use of underlings, and technically keeps his word. (Sure, he'll change his mind and seize fresh opportunities in response to changing circumstances, but that doesn't make you chaotic, that makes you sane.)

Law and Chaos do not have any meaningful, testable definition under standard D&D rules. But if you arrange things so that 'Evil' characters cooperate meaningfully toward large-scale goals, look out for friends and family, and have some rough operating honour code or system of laws and customs that let them coexist, what you are describing is nigh-indistinguishable from a good or neutral society. The alignment labels become largely meaningless. (Particularly if you allow good characters to break the laws of other nations, 'rough up' suspects or inflict collateral damage for the sake of larger goals.)

Pisha
2011-02-04, 07:23 PM
I don't see what the inherent difficulty is here. If the player's character is really being such a pain in the ass (in both IC and OOC terms,) then it's perfectly 'in-character' for the other PCs to gang up and send the offender to sleep with the fishes. This is what you technically call a self-correcting feedback cycle.

Yeah, but depending on the group that can cause out of character hurt feelings and resentment. I mean, if that's the kind of game your players want and everyone's on board for it, great, but I've grown gunshy of ooc drama.

Amnestic
2011-02-04, 07:23 PM
Part of it is because evil characters have different motivations, usually, than good characters, and if I'm sending my players on a quest to go rescue kidnapped children, I want to know they're all going to WANT to rescue kidnapped children!

This in itself shouldn't be necessary I think. A party can work towards the same goal while having completely different motivations. A Good character wants to defeat the BBEG because...well, he's Good with a capital G, while an evil character wants to defeat him because he's got a bunch of magic items which the evil character would prefer to be adorning his person instead.

Adventuring parties can work towards different things while working together to the same goal. That difference is part of what makes it fun, for me at least, but to each their own of course.


Killing innocent people at random is Evil.

Are they innocent if they detect as Evil? What constitutes "Evil"? The performance of actions, or merely the willingness to do so? A Black Dragon Wyrmling detects as Evil, is sapient to an extent, but has likely not done anything explicitly evil so far during their short life. Are they innocent? Should they be left alive long enough to commit evil acts or should they be cut down while there's still time?

Human children up to a certain age don't have a developed moral compass - its just part of their progression as a human being - and are thus more than willing to commit evil acts simply because they're not developed yet. Are they innocent?

Ravens_cry
2011-02-04, 07:28 PM
Nope. A Lawful person would not attack an Evil person "just because they were Evil"... especially right outside a town. If they do, they're not being "Lawful" and should be dealt with accordingly.

A Chaotic Good person (especially a nature-type like I was playing) sees Evil as a Blight. When a plant has blighted leaves, you do not try to heal the blight by being nice to it... you heal the plant by removing the blight.

Lawful people (Good, Neutral or Evil) are most likely to try to work with someone, get them to see your point of view, or even trick them into "doing the right (read: lawful) thing".

Chaotic people live for the moment, seldom plan and often can't be bothered with working within the law. While a Chaotic person doesn't plan for the future, they also rarely want to have to worry that some thing left unattended will be a problem later. The "fix it now" mentality that often leads the Chaotic person to killing enemies rather than trying to convert them.



See above. Note that the character is more Chaotic than Good... but still certainly Good.
No.
No. No NO!
NOOOOOOOO!!!!
Lawful isn't about living in accordance to the law of the land. A paladin will oppose slavery even if it is legal in a certain nation. What your doing is the equivalent of 'smite first, ask questions later never' the epitome of Lawful Stupid. The character doesn't seem to care if the person had extenuating circumstances, or that removing them would have such a destabilizing influence that it would be a greater evil to remove them from the picture. They have a code: destroy evil where it may be found by destroying the person ,and they follow it to the letter, regardless of what effect it might have. Lawful. Stupid.

Greenish
2011-02-04, 07:30 PM
Are they innocent if they detect as Evil?You can't know that, which is why you can't kill them on sight. Maybe they're petty, mean and spiteful, but that doesn't warrant capital punishment.

No one who is prepared to kill another sapient being with no provocation and no knowledge of their deeds is Good.

A Black Dragon Wyrmling detects as Evil, is sapient to an extent, but has likely not done anything explicitly evil so far during their short life. Are they innocent? Should they be left alive long enough to commit evil acts or should they be cut down while there's still time?Yes, if they haven't done anything they're by definition innocent, and yes, they shouldn't be killed because they might do something evil some point at the future.

Human children up to a certain age don't have a developed moral compass - its just part of their progression as a human being - and are thus more than willing to commit evil acts simply because they're not developed yet. Are they innocent?To do something Evil, you have to have the capacity for moral decisions. If you lack that, you're innocent.

Amnestic
2011-02-04, 07:34 PM
Yes, if they haven't done anything they're by definition innocent, and yes, they shouldn't be killed because they might do something evil some point at the future.

So you'd drop a Paladin to ex- status for killing Black Dragon Wyrmlings?

I'm not challenging you, I'm just curious.

Samurai Jill
2011-02-04, 07:34 PM
Yeah, but depending on the group that can cause out of character hurt feelings and resentment. I mean, if that's the kind of game your players want and everyone's on board for it, great, but I've grown gunshy of ooc drama.
In this situation, I'd say there are already hurt feelings and resentment precisely because of the evil-character-player's behaviour. So, I mean, just explain the situation. If this person insists that staying 'in-character' is a legitimate excuse for being an ass, then explain that their team-mates will likewise have every excuse to return the favour. In fact, they'd be obliged to in order to stay in-character. If they insist on doing whatever they want, then insist on them paying the consequences.

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-04, 07:36 PM
No.
No. No NO!
NOOOOOOOO!!!!
Lawful isn't about living in accordance to the law of the land. A paladin will oppose slavery even if it is legal in a certain nation. What your doing is the equivalent of 'smite first, ask questions later never' the epitome of Lawful Stupid.

I disagree.

A Paladin would, indeed, oppose slavery... but he should do so within the structure of society by trying to make it illegal.

He might even follow Slavers out into the Wilderness and free the Slaves... but within Civilization, he would (at best) buy the slaves and set them free. He might see Slavery as a Moral Outrage, but The Law is still The Law.

A Chaotic Good person would examine the situation from a "Good vs. Evil" viewpoint. "Are the Slavers Evil?" Probably, but maybe not. Owning Slaves is not inherently Evil... but capturing Good people and forcing them to be Slaves is Evil. However, if a country declares that Goblin Raiders who are captured inside their territory are to be made Slaves... the Chaotic Good person doesn't care, and probably even thinks it's a good way to keep the Evil Goblins in check.

Greenish
2011-02-04, 07:41 PM
So you'd drop a Paladin to ex- status for killing Black Dragon Wyrmlings?Yes, if he does it without provocation.

Though I mostly play Eberron, where race isn't tied to alignment.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-04, 07:42 PM
I don't see this argument going anywhere pleasant, The Cat Goddess. Suffice to say I disagree with you and I withdraw forthwith before I say something I regret. This (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment) is a fascinating article about alignment though.

LansXero
2011-02-04, 07:43 PM
So you'd drop a Paladin to ex- status for killing Black Dragon Wyrmlings?

If he did it on impulse, remorselessly, and only because 'they are teh evulz', then yeah, Id do it. If they do it as a kind of 'for the greater good' thing while aware that its a wrong thing that prevents wrong-er things, probably not. But it´ll slide them down a bit.

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-04, 07:46 PM
What you describe is not Lawful, it's Good.
Killing innocent people at random is Evil.
What, no, that's stupid.

1) Just because something is "Good", does not mean it's "Lawful". Tyranny is Lawful, but it's certianly not Good.

2) Evil is not innocent. Innocent is defined in the AD&D system as Neutral. Animals, insects, babies... anything that cannot judge right from wrong (i.e. "innocent") is Neutral.

3) Why is it "stupid" to be pro-active? The Movie Hero who kills the villian "because no court can try me, no jail can hold me" is Chaotic Good. If you see the Evil Cleric who is Evil because he worships an Evil God... then he's Evil.


No.
No. No NO!
NOOOOOOOO!!!!
Lawful isn't about living in accordance to the law of the land. A paladin will oppose slavery even if it is legal in a certain nation. What your doing is the equivalent of 'smite first, ask questions later never' the epitome of Lawful Stupid.

I disagree. Lawful means follow the Law to the best of your ability. Try to change the Law if you think it is Wrong, but do not break the Law just because you think it is Wrong (after all, you might be the one who is wrong).

A Paladin would, indeed, oppose slavery... but he should do so within the structure of society by trying to make it illegal.

He might even follow Slavers out into the Wilderness and free the Slaves... but within Civilization, he would (at best) buy the slaves and set them free. He might see Slavery as a Moral Outrage, but The Law is still The Law.

A Chaotic Good person would examine the situation from a "Good vs. Evil" viewpoint. "Are the Slavers Evil?" Probably, but maybe not. Owning Slaves is not inherently Evil... but capturing Good people and forcing them to be Slaves is Evil. However, if a country declares that Goblin Raiders who are captured inside their territory are to be made Slaves... the Chaotic Good person doesn't care, and probably even thinks it's a good way to keep the Evil Goblins in check.


You can't know that, which is why you can't kill them on sight. Maybe they're petty, mean and spiteful, but that doesn't warrant capital punishment.

No one who is prepared to kill another sapient being with no provocation and no knowledge of their deeds is Good.

Well, in my Example I specifically identified an Evil Cleric. A Cleric has an "Aura" of their alignment.

You don't get an "Aura of Evil" without having done something Evil.


Yes, if they haven't done anything they're by definition innocent, and yes, they shouldn't be killed because they might do something evil some point at the future.

Black Dragon Wyrmlings are the Descendents of Tiamat. As a Paladin of Bahamut, not slaying them would cause me to Fall from Grace.

Also, Wyrmlings are already hatched... and, by the way Dragons in AD&D are defined, they are already intelligent, self-aware and have their alignment. Unlike Humans (for example) Dragons are ruled by their base alignment. According to the Draconomicon, even if raised by Good people, a Chromatic Dragon will still have Evil Impluses and tendencies. While a Lawful person might say "they haven't done any Evil yet" (barring specific exceptions, like a Paladin of Bahamut), a Chaotic person would say "so we kill them now and prevent them from doing any future Evil".

Now Black Dragon Eggs, on the other hand, can be kept.

They make good Omlets. :smallbiggrin:

Gensh
2011-02-04, 07:53 PM
You don't get an "Aura of Evil" without having done something Evil.

The problem here is what exactly Evil actions are in D&D, as defined by the rules. For example, rebuking undead are always Evil, regardless of circumstances, for no reason whatsoever. Remember, of course, that clerics of the LN Wee Jas can only rebuke undead, and (though I might be mistaken) they could potentially even be LG. On the other hand, you could be a Good cleric and just cast Deathwatch a lot of times as a result of working in a hospital. You know what, maybe you cast Mindrape a lot of times in order to cure mental trauma and so forth - still evil. This is why I play a lot of stealthy characters, regardless of class - you can hide in the rafters and see who people are when no one's watching and shank them if they're as bad as the Detect says they are.

Greenish
2011-02-04, 07:55 PM
Well, in my Example I specifically identified an Evil Cleric. A Cleric has an "Aura" of their alignment.Yes, but even that doesn't mean they have done anything to warrant being killed. Freedom of Religion, right? (Besides, their alignment might've been Good… in Eberron!)

Black Dragon Wyrmlings are the Descendents of Tiamat. As a Paladin of Bahamut, not slaying them would cause me to Fall from Grace.Yeah, it's a real pain for paladins when their alignment requirements and what their deity expects from them don't match up.

Also, Wyrmlings are already hatched... and, by the way Dragons in AD&D are defined, they are already intelligent, self-aware and have their alignment.You were the one to claim they were only "sapient to an extent". Regardless, possible future crimes are not something to be punished.

a Chaotic person would say "so we kill them now and prevent them from doing any future Evil".A chaotic, sure. Good, no.


But I must agree with Ravens_cry. This depate isn't going anywhere (it's an alignment debate, after all :smalltongue:), so I'll just say that I disagree with your views and wouldn't want to meet people you consider "CG".

dsmiles
2011-02-04, 08:03 PM
Man, this thread makes me love my group even more.

archon_huskie
2011-02-04, 08:15 PM
If his Code if Good, I don't see how he's Evil. I also fail to see how that was either orderly or logical.

His code is honor and he choses honor because he is lawful. Lawful=/=Good.
He called if off because of lawful reasons, not because assassination is wrong.


Stop and think about this: is calling off an assassination a good act?
No because he was okay with assassinating him in the first place.

Greenish
2011-02-04, 08:19 PM
His code is honor and he choses honor because he is lawful.Honour might prevent one from using assassin in the first place, but there's nothing unhonourable about killing a person who happens to have children.

LansXero
2011-02-04, 08:23 PM
Honour might prevent one from using assassin in the first place, but there's nothing unhonourable about killing a person who happens to have children.

Furthermore, nothing to stop him from resuming the assasination as soon as the condition is no longer met (said children grows / dies)

Czin
2011-02-04, 08:32 PM
This. Honestly, I've never played with a Chaotic anything that shouldn't have been CE, whereas the other LE in my current party by all rights should be NG. Go figure. I find myself playing Evil more frequently than anything else because that allows me to pursue what I believe to be the correct means of solving the situation without being constrained by "you can't do that; you're good/neutral." If Villain McPuppykicker is holding a small child hostage in the midst of priceless artifacts, but the fate of the world is at stake, I'm going to throw whatever sort of horrible flaming death his way and not look back, regardless of collateral damage, just because I as a person can't fathom doing otherwise in that situation and don't want to metagame "there has to be another way."

And besides, in a world where bringing someone from the dead isn't that difficult, you could just bring the child back any way. I did exactly that in a situation similar to what you described way back in like 2006 when I wasn't even in the Royal Hand of DMs at my table.

Amnestic
2011-02-04, 09:31 PM
You were the one to claim they were only "sapient to an extent".

That was me actually, not The Cat Goddess, and I used that phrase because it's not clear at what point Dragons develop their moral processors - Wyrmlings are sapient, but beyond that it seems to be pretty ambiguous. For some odd reason, WotC didn't make a full psychological break down of a dragon's development as they progress through age categories.

Baffling, I know, but there it is.


Yes, if he does it without provocation.

Define "provocation". Example: Wyrmlings who attack a Paladin who tries to slay their decidedly Evil-with-a-capital-E mother - simply because she's their mother, and that's what children are want to do.

Paladin status is an ooze's bum to work out to begin with though. I'm mostly just curious as to how other people would rule given such a situation.

Darklady2831
2011-02-04, 09:36 PM
In the Draconomicon it states that a Wyrmling Dragon is sentient from the last quarter of it's incubation period within the egg.

Greenish
2011-02-04, 09:39 PM
That was me actually, not The Cat GoddessRight-o, my bad.

Define "provocation".The wyrmling attacks, or does something evil.

Example: Wyrmlings who attack a Paladin who tries to slay their decidedly Evil-with-a-capital-E mother - simply because she's their mother, and that's what children are wont to do.Tricky, but I'd say that the circumstances are dire enough to warrant the use of force. Subduing the wyrmling would be ideal, but if that's not on the table, the use of lethal force can be defended. It's not a Good act by any stretch, but it's not Evil either.

zorba1994
2011-02-04, 09:45 PM
The way I see it is quite similar to the "Night Watch" series of books:

Good = others first ("I will cross the street to help the homeless man")
Neutral = ambivalent, will do things if it doesn't inconvenience them too much ("mm, the hobo is right there and he looks like he REALLY needs some money, have a penny" or "well, it looks like I can get 5% off of this thing if I say I broke it, eh, what the hell.")
Evil = Me first ("Hey hobo, want to buy a bridge?")


Basically, good people will always help others, evil people will just go for whatever benefits them in the given situation (slaughtering the innocent is generally not going to help you ever, but if that is the case, they will not flinch from it). Neutral people just aren't highly inclined either way and will be swayed one way or the other if it doesn't inconvenience them (or others) too much.

I tell my players this up front and actively encourage them to be an evil character if they want to. I'd rather have a NE character that PLAYS like a NE than a CN "stab-everyone!" player that wanted to be evil.

Gnorman
2011-02-05, 12:26 AM
True, true, there are all sorts of philosophical and moral nuance here...

But let's get down to brass tacks. I play evil (and almost exclusively evil) characters because they're just more fun. Like mentioned above, they're not constrained by petty moralities simply to please society or the gods or what have you. They get the job done with a minimum of fuss, while perhaps profiting immensely along the way. Granted, I play Lawful Evil, so the whole backstabbing party-killing idiot thing really grates on me.

But let's be honest here: if you took a genuine psychological evaluation of every person on earth according to D&D standards, I'm willing to bet that 90% of them would come up as Lawful or Neutral Evil. We're all pretty selfish - it's hard-coded into our DNA.

To go with the hobo analogy above (for no other reason than I like it): A good person will give a hobo a coin, almost regardless of the circumstances (it's helping!). A neutral person will pause to consider whether or not they can spare the coin, or whether or not the homeless person truly deserves it, or they might just go according to their whims at the moment. An evil person isn't going to give a coin to a homeless person, because hey, they didn't earn it, and charity's for chumps.

In my experience, you don't exactly see the homeless brimming over with change.

Amnestic
2011-02-05, 12:35 AM
We're all pretty selfish - it's hard-coded into our DNA.

Reciprocal altruism - it's what makes societies go round. We're coded to help others too. You're being extremely cynical (and unrealistic to boot) if you only focus on the selfishness aspects.

Gnorman
2011-02-05, 12:49 AM
Reciprocal altruism - it's what makes societies go round. We're coded to help others too. You're being extremely cynical (and unrealistic to boot) if you only focus on the selfishness aspects.

While there is an aspect of truth to this, don't think for a second that if someone can take advantage of the system without being found out that they won't. Deep down in the reptilian and lower aspects of our brain we are hard-wired to hoard every edge we can.

Evil's just more honest.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-05, 01:20 AM
While there is an aspect of truth to this, don't think for a second that if someone can take advantage of the system without being found out that they won't. Deep down in the reptilian and lower aspects of our brain we are hard-wired to hoard every edge we can.

Evil's just more honest.
Yes, that is always Evils excuse, it is more honest, more in touch with our instincts, more natural.
Some people do try and take advantage of this system, we call them 'fair weather friends.' But others, most in fact, don't. Sure, we all want to survive. But Homo sapiens sapiens is a social species. We need to have some form of contact with others. Been a bastard to everyone is a great way to be booted from the table, and for all our pretensions, we want to be with other people. So the best way to 'game' the system is not being a giant ass hat, but by actually been a decent person. Sure, it may not always be reciprocated, but when can you be certain of anything? The future is always at least a little unknown. People will have more sympathy for someone who is nice who chance has dumped in the cacky then a raging <expletive redacted/>,which can help you get back on your feet and have another go at it.

LansXero
2011-02-05, 01:44 AM
While there is an aspect of truth to this, don't think for a second that if someone can take advantage of the system without being found out that they won't. Deep down in the reptilian and lower aspects of our brain we are hard-wired to hoard every edge we can.

Evil's just more honest.

Wrong, otherwise society wouldve ceased to function. Civilization works because of a social contract to respect the system, which most people do even though they could get away with a lot of stuff unpunished (because no governement currently has eyes everywhere). Even more, at the times where they are selfish, they often try to get gain for others (parents for their kids, couples for each other, etc) and not only themselves. Even if they do not conform to the letter of the law, they will still hold unwritten standards inside their own sub-culture and community.

People are a lot more complex than just 'lulz we is teh sellfish'.

Fhaolan
2011-02-05, 02:08 AM
Providing you're actually playing a character who happens to be Evil, that's all fine. It's when the alignment drives the character, rather than actual motivations that becomes a problem. I've had players say to me 'Oh, wait, I'm not being Chaotic enough, I need to do something random.' and 'I'm sorry, this character is Lawful. Is there anything nearby for me to sort alphabetically?'

Because of the people I work with, and some of the clubs I'm a member of, I come in contact with a *lot* of people who are not exactly emotionally stable or mature. Many of these people are interested in fantasy or sci-fi games and ask about joining the games I run. In my experience, if a player describes their character in terms of alignment first, that's a red flag for someone who might not be mature or stable enough to not take the game personally and freak out at some point (which has happened often enough to be a distinct pattern). Or they have confused the alignments with various types of mental psychosis. I've got to deal with these people enough already, and I don't want to spend recreational time with them.

I don't mind playing games where the characters are villains, or happen to be evil. But as a rule, I don't want to play with people who describe their characters by their alignment first, as if that is the entirety of their character.

Gnorman
2011-02-05, 05:22 AM
Wrong, otherwise society wouldve ceased to function. Civilization works because of a social contract to respect the system, which most people do even though they could get away with a lot of stuff unpunished (because no governement currently has eyes everywhere). Even more, at the times where they are selfish, they often try to get gain for others (parents for their kids, couples for each other, etc) and not only themselves. Even if they do not conform to the letter of the law, they will still hold unwritten standards inside their own sub-culture and community.

People are a lot more complex than just 'lulz we is teh sellfish'.

You can easily subvert the system without causing it to collapse. I'm not talking about people who overtly buck the stated order of things, but those who might raid the collective larder when no one is looking, or have a mistress because they can surreptitiously support two families. Or, hell, the guy who tells the hobo to get a job. This is a common occurence - the key is not to be labeled as "teh sellfish," but to get away with it while still seeming like they are upholding the tenets of "polite" society. Plenty of people do so - in fact, modern capitalism is practically based upon it. People who pretend to be forthright and moral more often than not have an ulterior motive (gaining something for your offspring or your mate is still genetically selfish), which is why I believe capital "E" Evil to be more honest. Rational self-interest is the name of the game, and we're all players (whether we admit it or not).

I despise Ayn Rand, but she's not entirely wrong (despite the false dichotomy that follows):


Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."

Gan The Grey
2011-02-05, 05:32 AM
I apologize, good sir, but I tend to disagree. IMHO, should it work as you say it does, society wouldve ceased to function. Civilization works because of a social contract to respect the system, which most people do even though they could get away with a lot of stuff unpunished (because no governement currently has eyes everywhere). Even more, at the times where they are selfish, they often try to get gain for others (parents for their kids, couples for each other, etc) and not only themselves. Even if they do not conform to the letter of the law, they will still hold unwritten standards inside their own sub-culture and community.

People are a lot more complex than just 'lulz we is teh sellfish'.

Fixed that for you! :smallwink:

Sorry, I just have a problem with people saying 'wrong' in a debate. Seems like we could be so much nicer to each other!

Otherwise, good points.

Oh, and as for the Ayn Rand quote? She thinks too much. Some things have simple reasons that need not be analyzed so deeply, IMHO.

Gnorman
2011-02-05, 05:33 AM
Fixed that for you! :smallwink:

Sorry, I just have a problem with people saying 'wrong' in a debate. Seems like we could be so much nicer to each other!

Otherwise, good points.

If you're not calling someone wrong, it's not a debate. It's a conversation.

Gan The Grey
2011-02-05, 05:36 AM
If you're not calling someone wrong, it's not a debate. It's a conversation.

I believe that you can disagree with someone without being rude.

See?

Amnestic
2011-02-05, 05:38 AM
I believe that you can disagree with someone without being rude.

See?

If you disagree with someone, you think they're wrong. Adding a bunch of superfluous words doesn't really change that. Telling someone you think they're wrong isn't really rude. Terse, perhaps, but not rude.

Gnorman
2011-02-05, 05:38 AM
I believe that you can disagree with someone without being rude.

See?

You've the right of it, agreed; I just don't think that saying someone is wrong is rude. It's direct.

Gan The Grey
2011-02-05, 05:47 AM
If you disagree with someone, you think they're wrong. Adding a bunch of superfluous words doesn't really change that. Telling someone you think they're wrong isn't really rude. Terse, perhaps, but not rude.

We all know that something can be said many different ways. Something can be said politely or impolitely. Besides, none of us is so smart that it is impossible for us to be wrong about something, so it might do us well to practice a little humility.

Now, before this turns into arguing for the sake of arguing, I will let you get back to your discussion. Pretend I was never here. :smallbiggrin:

LansXero
2011-02-05, 06:27 AM
You can easily subvert the system without causing it to collapse. I'm not talking about people who overtly buck the stated order of things, but those who might raid the collective larder when no one is looking, or have a mistress because they can surreptitiously support two families. Or, hell, the guy who tells the hobo to get a job. This is a common occurence

However, you said it was ingrained into 'human nature', down into the genetic making of people. Sorry for being so dismissive last time, but if that were the case it wouldnt be frequent, it would be ubiquitous. The truth is there exist people who not only live by the social standard, but feel no impulse to go outside it. If everyone was taking advantage of everyone else, at the same time, even if it was little things, they would colapse. Not everyone cheats, even if most people do, and because of those that dont marriage can mantain a semblance of legitimacy, otherwise it would be a pointless exercise in futility. And since some people arent naturally or socially inclined to being selfish even when given the oportunity and relieved of the fear of repercusions, then it must not be 'hard coded in our DNA'.

Thats not to mention the several tribal and community based societies from places like South America and even modern-day natives, where the concept of self is so diluted into the group that they may as well be kobolds. Their existence would indicate there is no genetic imperative there towards selfishness either.

faceroll
2011-02-05, 08:46 AM
What I don't quite get is that in my experience, the people that say no to evil characters will allow people to play Chaotic Neutral characters, which are often times WORSE than evil characters.

"HERP DERP I'M GONNA STEAL FROM EVERYONE IT'S OK THOUGH I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL"

I think theft is chaotic behavior and not evil. Property rights seem to belong much more firmly in Law than in Good. You can use property rights for good or evil, but that doesn't make the rights in and of themselves evil.

But then I'm a dork.

Burner28
2011-02-05, 09:03 AM
I think theft is chaotic behavior and not evil. Property rights seem to belong much more firmly in Law than in Good. You can use property rights for good or evil, but that doesn't make the rights in and of themselves evil.

But then I'm a dork.

I kinda doubt the whole point of the quote was not to demonstrate how Characters declared chaotic Neutral can be more annoying than Evil aligned characters. It is at best pretty annoying to have your own property stolen which could dieven disrupt the fun you have regardless of how people see thievery in terms of alignment.




However, if a country declares that Goblin Raiders who are captured inside their territory are to be made Slaves... the Chaotic Good person doesn't care, and probably even thinks it's a good way to keep the Evil Goblins in check.



Wait a minute,why wouldn't a creature that is Chaotic and Good oppose slavery. I am pretty sure slavery goes against everything a Chaotic Good person is supposed to stand for. It would make sense for someone with a Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil alignment to not care if complete strangers have their freedom taken away through no fault of said character, but for a Good aligned character, much less a Chaotic Good character? Really? Are you sure that the attitude that reflects what Chaotic Good alignment is is really "They are goblins, therefore they deserve to be slaves" rather than "Nobody deserves to be turned into a slave. That is just undignifying and completely disrespectful to life"?

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 09:08 AM
I think theft is chaotic behavior and not evil. Property rights seem to belong much more firmly in Law than in Good. You can use property rights for good or evil, but that doesn't make the rights in and of themselves evil.

But then I'm a dork.

Ehh, I've always sort of disagreed with the the DnD placement of theft on the chaos axis. But like most things it depends on the circumstances.

That person you're stealing from worked to get that item, taking it is actively hurting them, economically if not physically (and possibly physically depending on what is stolen). I generally place mindless theft as chaotic evil. Now stealing the essentials to survive that's chaotic neutral, to feed yourself you got to do what you got to do. Stealing the evil artifact to save the world, chaotic good. But simple theft, no, to me it's evil, not baby burning evil, but definitely evil.

But then, I've always been told I'm on the Lawful axis so I'm probably biased.

Burner28
2011-02-05, 09:27 AM
Ehh, I've always sort of disagreed with the the DnD placement of theft on the chaos axis. But like most things it depends on the circumstances.

That person you're stealing from worked to get that item, taking it is actively hurting them, economically if not physically (and possibly physically depending on what is stolen). I generally place mindless theft as chaotic evil. Now stealing the essentials to survive that's chaotic neutral, to feed yourself you got to do what you got to do. Stealing the evil artifact to save the world, chaotic good. But simple theft, no, to me it's evil, not baby burning evil, but definitely evil.

But then, I've always been told I'm on the Lawful axis so I'm probably biased.
I am pretty sure that you are not the only one who believes regular theft is Evil.

archon_huskie
2011-02-05, 09:31 AM
And if you are stealing something that was stolen?

What if you are stealing something the legal owner did not have a right to?
Like "stealing" slaves?

I'd put these as chaotic acts and leave it off of the good evil axis.

It comes down to why someone does it.

Can you be Evil and commit a good act, that also happens to be a lawful act, for lawful reasons. In that case are you just commiting a lawful act and the good is not a factor?

Burner28
2011-02-05, 09:38 AM
And if you are stealing something that was stolen?

What if you are stealing something the legal owner did not have a right to?
Like "stealing" slaves?

I'd put these as chaotic acts and leave it off of the good evil axis.


You know, people use the term theft to refer to unjustly taking what doesn't belongs to you rather than in terms of its legal definition. Besides why would freeing a slave be considered theft?

faceroll
2011-02-05, 09:40 AM
You know, people use the term theft to refer to unjustly taking what doesn't belongs to you rather than in terms of its legal definition. Besides why would freeing a slave be considered theft?

A slave is property.

faceroll
2011-02-05, 09:44 AM
You know, people use the term theft to refer to unjustly taking what doesn't belongs to you rather than in terms of its legal definition. Besides why would freeing a slave be considered theft?

A slave is property.


Ehh, I've always sort of disagreed with the the DnD placement of theft on the chaos axis. But like most things it depends on the circumstances.

That person you're stealing from worked to get that item, taking it is actively hurting them, economically if not physically (and possibly physically depending on what is stolen). I generally place mindless theft as chaotic evil. Now stealing the essentials to survive that's chaotic neutral, to feed yourself you got to do what you got to do. Stealing the evil artifact to save the world, chaotic good. But simple theft, no, to me it's evil, not baby burning evil, but definitely evil.

But then, I've always been told I'm on the Lawful axis so I'm probably biased.

Stealing is only as evil as much as it hurts the other person. Hurting is the evil part. Taking things is chaotic, innately. Context moves it around the good-evil axis.


I kinda doubt the whole point of the quote was to demonstrate how Characters declared chaotic Neutral can be more annoying than Evil aligned characters. It is at best pretty annoying to have your own property stolen which could dieven disrupt the fubn you have regardless of how people see thievery in terms of alignment

I totally agree with you, but I find the argument to interesting to pass up. :smallredface:

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 10:35 AM
And if you are stealing something that was stolen?

Are you recovering said item for the proper owner or are you just taking it and rationalizing that it was taken anyway?


What if you are stealing something the legal owner did not have a right to?
Like "stealing" slaves?

Debt slave, sold into slavery, or enforced slavery? Varies from chaotic neutral to good, for me.


Can you be Evil and commit a good act, that also happens to be a lawful act, for lawful reasons. In that case are you just commiting a lawful act and the good is not a factor?

Of course. An evil character can still be a doting, loving father who looks after his children. I'd consider that to be a good act. Doesn't change that the guys day job is to assassinate political rivals.


Stealing is only as evil as much as it hurts the other person. Hurting is the evil part. Taking things is chaotic, innately. Context moves it around the good-evil axis.

My question is what method do we consider hurting? If you take 5 bucks from a poor man or a rich man they both worked for that 5 bucks. You are hurting both, the poor guy is hurt worse mind you but both are hurt. Just because a guy is wealth does not give moral license to rob them blind. And in my opinion any moral system that says so is ridiculous and self destructive.

WarKitty
2011-02-05, 10:39 AM
Are you recovering said item for the proper owner or are you just taking it and rationalizing that it was taken anyway?



Debt slave, sold into slavery, or enforced slavery? Varies from chaotic neutral to good, for me.



Of course. An evil character can still be a doting, loving father who looks after his children. I'd consider that to be a good act. Doesn't change that the guys day job is to assassinate political rivals.

Who's the "proper owner"? If you legally own the item, but you got it by exploiting someone else, are you really the proper owner? What if you didn't intentionally hurt someone else, but the item and your possession of it is still a product of oppression?

"Ownership" is by no means a universally agreed upon concept. If you're a noble whose entire property system is dependent on the exploitation of peasant labor, I might not consider that you really "own" anything that you have.

Burner28
2011-02-05, 10:41 AM
Who's the "proper owner"? If you legally own the item, but you got it by exploiting someone else, are you really the proper owner?



Not really. That would be something that could reflect Lawful Evil, legally taking something that you didn't earn


"Ownership" is by no means a universally agreed upon concept. If you're a noble whose entire property system is dependent on the exploitation of peasant labor, I might not consider that you really "own" anything that you have.

Again, most likely something that reflects Lawful Evil, using a system to exploit the poor

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 10:45 AM
Who's the "proper owner"? If you legally own the item, but you got it by exploiting someone else, are you really the proper owner?

It depends on the situation most likely, I'd hardly call Robin Hood a villain even if the taxes were legal so long as they found their way back to the hands of the peasantry. However seeing that the taxes are unjust and then taking the money is no better than the original unjust taxes, it is simply changing hands. In short, I give points for effort if not 100% efficiency.


What if you didn't intentionally hurt someone else, but the item and your possession of it is still a product of oppression?

So vague a question as to be pointless. Examples are needed, how badly oppressed? Was it unintentional, but you put effort into not harming others or was it unintentional and you didn't think about the consequences?

faceroll
2011-02-05, 10:49 AM
My question is what method do we consider hurting? If you take 5 bucks from a poor man or a rich man they both worked for that 5 bucks. You are hurting both, the poor guy is hurt worse mind you but both are hurt. Just because a guy is wealth does not give moral license to rob them blind. And in my opinion any moral system that says so is ridiculous and self destructive.

Yeah, but to rob the rich guy a little bit isn't that evil (it's hardly evil at all, if you do some math), and if you rob the rich guy to help the poor guy, maybe that's chaotic good? I'm just trying to frame it in D&D terms, not political terms that I happen to agree with.

This discussion titillates me.

Burner28
2011-02-05, 10:55 AM
Yeah, but to rob the rich guy a little bit isn't that evil (it's hardly evil at all, if you do some math), and if you rob the rich guy to help the poor guy, maybe that's chaotic good? I'm just trying to frame it in D&D terms, not political terms that I happen to agree with.

This discussion titillates me.

Meh, I suppose the logic behind that is that the rich guy is only going to be mildy annoyed that you stole five bucks he didn't actually need.

Also I am pretty sure robbery, as opposed to simple stealing, is theft done with threat of violence.

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 10:58 AM
Yeah, but to rob the rich guy a little bit isn't that evil (it's hardly evil at all, if you do some math), and if you rob the rich guy to help the poor guy, maybe that's chaotic good? I'm just trying to frame it in D&D terms, not political terms that I happen to agree with.

We kind of have a difference of opinion here. I see it as: You stole $5 that's evil [unless necessity forces the option]. Then add the addendum: From a poor guy, that's even worse.

Hardly evil is simply a concept that I disagree with. If you know you shouldn't do something, don't do it. Rationalizing it away as "hardly evil at all" is kind of a sickening concept to me.

It also leads into, if you're helping the poor guy, how? Is the $5 so they can survive? If yes, well that's good. Is it so they can get that new tv? No, still bad. The man does not need the tv, so they should not have stolen for it. These are a bit hyperbolic of examples but I think they get the point across without needing to list every single possibility. In the end, judgment must be made.


This discussion titillates me.

This discussion excites you pleasurably in a tactile manner? That's uhh, taking it a bit further than I wanted to know.

WarKitty
2011-02-05, 11:02 AM
So vague a question as to be pointless. Examples are needed, how badly oppressed? Was it unintentional, but you put effort into not harming others or was it unintentional and you didn't think about the consequences?

Rather I'd say there are so many possible nuances that attempting to categorize theft as "good" or "evil" is pointless.

faceroll
2011-02-05, 11:04 AM
We kind of have a difference of opinion here. I see it as: You stole $5 that's evil [unless necessity forces the option]. Then add the addendum: From a poor guy, that's even worse.

Hardly evil is simply a concept that I disagree with. If you know you shouldn't do something, don't do it. Rationalizing it away as "hardly evil at all" is kind of a sickening concept to me.

It also leads into, if you're helping the poor guy, how? Is the $5 so they can survive? If yes, well that's good. Is it so they can get that new tv? No, still bad. The man does not need the tv, so they should not have stolen for it. These are a bit hyperbolic of examples but I think they get the point across without needing to list every single possibility. In the end, judgment must be made.

Gosh this is so juicy and I like it a lot.

I think D&D morality is point based, there isn't a black and white like you imply. I don't mean to denigrate your argument by saying it's simplistic, I'm actually sympathetic to your argument, but in D&D I think the rules are different than IRL. Haha, that sounds kind of retarded, like "no Blackleaf no!" retarded, but I hope you understand what I mean. I mean D&D is ultimately utilitarian like that guy who came up with utility theory. Stuart & Mills. Personally, I really, really disagree, but going by the rules in the PHB, I think that's the best model for D&D morality, and also suits the D&D world best.



This discussion excites you pleasurably in a tactile manner? That's uhh, taking it a bit further than I wanted to know.

I feel it in my loins.

[edit]
I also don't want to sound like a RAWtard and all high and mighty on my Phantom Steed, but the practical implications of D&D rules interest me far more than they should.


Rather I'd say there are so many possible nuances that attempting to categorize theft as "good" or "evil" is pointless.

Yeah, that's how I feel. Theft is certainly chaotic, but trying to stick it as always one or the other on the other side makes me feel certain that theft is chaotic. That'd be redundant if it wasn't actually a formal argument in disguise.

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 11:16 AM
Rather I'd say there are so many possible nuances that attempting to categorize theft as "good" or "evil" is pointless.

Yet I'd disagree. Theft (for me and my worldview) is chaotic evil in it's most basic state, however nuances of the situation can alter this. Ultimately effort and motivation does in fact have a say in my view of alignment with most actions.


Gosh this is so juicy and I like it a lot.

I think D&D morality is point based, there isn't a black and white like you imply. I don't mean to denigrate your argument by saying it's simplistic, I'm actually sympathetic to your argument, but in D&D I think the rules are different than IRL. Haha, that sounds kind of retarded, like "no Blackleaf no!" retarded, but I hope you understand what I mean. I mean D&D is ultimately utilitarian like that guy who came up with utility theory. Stuart & Mills. Personally, I really, really disagree, but going by the rules in the PHB, I think that's the best model for D&D morality, and also suits the D&D world best.

[edit]
I also don't want to sound like a RAWtard and all high and mighty on my Phantom Steed, but the practical implications of D&D rules interest me far more than they should.

Unfortunately, here is where my argument will go to pots. I haven't read the RAW on morality since I first got player's handbook. So if D&D does subscribe to a utilitarian theory I can do nothing but sit and disagree and play my games the way I think. Amusingly with this method, I have yet to actually have an alignment debate at my game table.

Triskavanski
2011-02-05, 11:37 AM
Basically you are saying though that all rogues are CE because they steal.

And this bird is CE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VILrWeO5QYs

Paseo H
2011-02-05, 11:46 AM
Basically, it seems that people associate evil with Stupid Evil.

Here's six examples of different flavors of Chaotic Evil, to show how different people within an evil alignment can be. They may or may not be suited for a party but it wouldn't take much work to figure out how to be a 'high functioning' psychopath like Belkar was before he got arrested.

1. A bloodthirsty, fight happy blind swordswoman who, while loving to kill and torture for the fun of it, even to the point where her other neutral evil team mates are scared to death of her, can behave if she loves/respects someone in her presence. Sort of like Belkar with boobs, actually.

2. A conniving, easily bored android who sees life as nothing but a game and will manipulate anyone and anything for his enjoyment. Sees organic lifeforms the way we humans view dogs. This could work in a party situation if the person just happens to be favoring the party's side against all others.

3. Horrifyingly cruel, borderline Complete Monster who first crossed the moral event horizon by inflicting a exceedingly terrifying act of disproportionate punishment/retribution upon a bad person, and has been going strong ever since. If she is angry at someone, she will almost surely make sure to humiliate them in some way before they die. For instance, by telling the person to 'start begging,' only to say after their doing so that "I said to beg, I did not say that I would spare you for doing so." This one probably wouldn't work unless it's a darker campaign and you can convince her to focus more on bad guys thus making her a heroic sociopath, I just list this as an example.

4. An anarchist who believes he is a Robin Hood type defender of the people (Chaotic Good), who went down the slippery slope after masterminding a terrorist attack of taking out a corrupt corporate executive in his apartment building...with a high explosive missile that would surely take other innocents along with the guilty one. He reasons that the corporations will fight dirty regardless of what the anarchists do, so he will not let himself be restrained from victory by sparing the innocent. He is a "whiny evil but for a good cause" type guy, so he might fit in under most normal circumstances that don't deal with his issue of choice.

5. Another anarchist who is a dedicated agent of chaos, might be polite but is very quick to anger if you question her cause, and is given to staging 'false flag' type operations (like disguising herself as a city guard and then brutally beating an arrestee, even if they're innocent or an ally, just to make the city guard look like monsters). Might work if you need someone good at infiltrating and causing trouble from the inside.

6. A military academy cadet whose empathic weapon causes alignment feedback, increasing her normally manageable nihilist/fatalist tendencies to the point of making her a borderline sociopath who lives for the moment and nothing else, and views other living beings as being of no more consequence than an insect, with all that follows from such a belief. However, she can be saved and turn back to a far more amiable and caring Neutral Good.

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 11:56 AM
Basically you are saying though that all rogues are CE because they steal.

And this bird is CE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VILrWeO5QYs

Ridiculous, animals have no alignment (that was hilarious though). And I'm saying that a rogue who steals (barring extraneous circumstances where it is necessary) is performing a chaotic evil action. Whether they are chaotic evil or not depends on other actions and personality traits as well.

Amnestic
2011-02-05, 12:49 PM
Ridiculous, animals have no alignment (that was hilarious though). And I'm saying that a rogue who steals (barring extraneous circumstances where it is necessary) is performing a chaotic evil action. Whether they are chaotic evil or not depends on other actions and personality traits as well.

Robin Hood.

And no, I wouldn't call that an "extraneous circumstance". It's just the most famous example of Chaotic Good theft.

Triskavanski
2011-02-05, 12:51 PM
With that outlook.. Truthfully then the moment your trepid team of adventures happen upon a tomb and take that nice +2 sword.. they are CE. Its called grave robbing, and its stealing.

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 12:59 PM
Robin Hood.

And no, I wouldn't call that an "extraneous circumstance". It's just the most famous example of Chaotic Good theft.

Dealt with up thread. It is an extraneous circumstance, he is not just stealing, he is stealing to redistribute back to society, against unfair (and possibly unlawful depending on the version) taxation, which is a rather huge extraneous circumstance. If he was keeping or profit from what he stole, as most thieves do then it would not be chaotic good theft. And would go back to "I can take what I want from them because they're bad people." Which falls back into the childhood but true concept two wrongs don't make a right. Same as saying you can't go around murdering people because the register as evil under detect alignment, I'm saying them being evil does not give any individual the right to take from them or disregard their rights.


With that outlook.. Truthfully then the moment your trepid team of adventures happen upon a tomb and take that nice +2 sword.. they are CE. Its called grave robbing, and its stealing.

While I would regard graverobbing as CE and rarely have I actually had an adventurer go graverobbing (I tend to play more political games), you completely failed to notice me last post. Performing a CE action and being CE are two different things. Of course they are tied together but speeding a bit (breaking the traffic laws) doesn't automatically drop you down to the chaotic axis.

Triskavanski
2011-02-05, 01:04 PM
So basically what you are saying is if a party is just wandering around and they run into a bugbear camp, if they attack first (the party) they are preforming evil?

Edit:

So killing someone is an act of evil, but if I just do it once, then I'm not evil?

Speeding a little bit, sure it doesn't put you right into C, but it does hurt your ability to stay within the law. And if you were speeding a little and as a result ran over someone, is this not still within the same realm of just speeding a little, for that is after all the act that was preformed that lead to the events.

archon_huskie
2011-02-05, 01:09 PM
That's one of the more common arguments against the alignment system.

Myself, I try to differentiate between EVIL and evil. EVIL being supernatural things such as undead, demons, devils. and evil being the politician diverts public funds into his pockets to pay for his alcohol addiction.

This way playing evil characters is not confused with playing EVIL characters.

Burner28
2011-02-05, 01:21 PM
So basically what you are saying is if a party is just wandering around and they run into a bugbear camp, if they attack first (the party) they are preforming evil?


Yes why not?

Dienekes
2011-02-05, 01:24 PM
So basically what you are saying is if a party is just wandering around and they run into a bugbear camp, if they attack first (the party) they are preforming evil?

Yes, they are acting as executioner while invading someone else's territory, one that has done them no harm. Now, once the bugbears start saying "You're in my land I will eat you." By all means defend yourself, but personally I wouldn't want a bunch of goblins busting into my house and then killing me and my family because I happen to be human.


So killing someone is an act of evil, but if I just do it once, then I'm not evil?

Murder is an act of evil, there is a difference. And you're twisting my argument, when I've already said that some actions are in fact more evil than others. In general one action probably won't change your alignment, in general. Petty murder on a whim might, in fact it probably will.


Speeding a little bit, sure it doesn't put you right into C, but it does hurt your ability to stay within the law. And if you were speeding a little and as a result ran over someone, is this not still within the same realm of just speeding a little, for that is after all the act that was preformed that lead to the events.

What is being punished, that you were speeding a little or that you ran over someone? An accident is an accident, sure you will have to pay for it (I'm lawful you pay for your actions). People are not infallible, and that should be taken into account.

For example, a complete model citizen, does his taxes on time, always abides by the rules, never cheats, never steals all that jazz. Let's say one day he is rushed, his mind is elsewhere, and he's late for an important meeting, he may speed a little and because of that the accident happens. He should undoubtedly be punished for his crime, if you don't enforce the rules to all then you're giving license for others to do the same. But I don't see a moment of human error erasing a lifetime of commitment unless it is something very big and purposeful. While it is unfortunate that someone died and they should feel remorse for their actions, the person would still be lawful in my eyes.

Though it's possible that the speeding is the last point for them to switch from neutral to chaotic. I can see that as well. Like most things, circumstance is important.

Volthawk
2011-02-05, 01:30 PM
So basically what you are saying is if a party is just wandering around and they run into a bugbear camp, if they attack first (the party) they are preforming evil?

Circumstances please. Is the party killing the bugbears because they've been attacking local villagers, or are they doing it because they're bugbears? You can't really make wide statements with this kind of thing, since the circumstances make all the difference.

Skeletor
2011-02-05, 01:37 PM
Sigh, back to addressing the original question and avoiding the alignment arguing.


So I ask you Playgrounders, why do the evil alignments get such...um...hostility?

I think it often comes from players more focused on playing their alignment instead of their characters. Characters are complex and won't simply do something because their alignment says so. Most my evil characters are evil but won't eat a baby simply because it's an evil deed. Many of my characters are power hungry, and tend to use evil means to amass power only where it's easier and more efficient than something else.

Black Mail is a very common method my characters employ, theft as well. That said he knows it's easier to amass power in a stable party, if he's in a group. So he doesn't steal or black mail with in the group. In the end he gets more power/loot if he ensures his allies are capable and willing to help him in a dungeon instead of screwing them behind their back and making sure they resent him.

Most my characters are soo good and upright on the outside that I've had people argue that I wasn't 'playing my alignment' that is quite stupid. You don't play your alignment you play your character.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-05, 01:39 PM
So basically what you are saying is if a party is just wandering around and they run into a bugbear camp, if they attack first (the party) they are preforming evil?

Unless they have reason, and it better be a good one, to believe the bugbears present a threat to something they sworn to protect, then yes. And even if it is a threat, other, more peaceful options should be sought first.
Yes, I know been Mr. and Mrs. Ethnic McLenseing is a stereotypical adventurer role. It still skeeves me the <expletive redacted/> out.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-05, 01:48 PM
With that outlook.. Truthfully then the moment your trepid team of adventures happen upon a tomb and take that nice +2 sword.. they are CE. Its called grave robbing, and its stealing.

Yeah, Stealing/graverobbing isn't evil.
It is frowned upon but not aligned.

The Peon
2011-02-05, 02:17 PM
1) Lets face that this is all a mater of opinon and point of view. Robin Hood is good to the poor because he is giving them money... but he is evil to the rich because he is stealing. And he might be good even when stealing from the rich because they got the money unjustly. But if the rich man made his money from following the laws and still being a generally good person Robin Hood is both good and evil.

2) If the lawful good Palidan thinks he is doing the right thing he is going to do it. Even if you tell that is wrong and that he will lose his Palidanhood can't stop unless he metagames. And if you take his Palidanhood away and the character still belives that his morals are right he will fight on as a fighter and do what he thinks is the right thing.

3)If the DM doesn't let you play evil because he thinks you will be stupid than he should be smart enough that he won't let you play the same character but CN instead.

4)The book is guidelines and what matters is what the DM and characters agree on.

5)There will always be someone everyone else thinks is retarded.

If the group is like ours where its is made of all alignments at the DMs discretion than there will be apposing sides. We had a Paly of Tyr that thought what he was doing was right and killed all evil characters who would not repent truly which meant he killed a lot of people. Nobody liked what he was doing not even our good cleric. At one point our NG warforged ranger necromancer and our good elven cleric had a face off in the middle of a dungeun on whether or not to kill the evil sorceress. Both were well played characters that were doing what they belived and the face off became a small battle between 4 of the 12 of us over the bitch's fate. This did not include the 3 of us that got dragged down the brisk(30MPH Bull$#!^) river or the 4 that were trying to distract the Paly.

Orbin Dules
2011-02-05, 02:30 PM
Basically you are saying though that all rogues are CE because they steal.

Just because the rogue is a spiritual successor to the thief class, and that sleight of hand is a class skill for them, does not mean all rogues are thieves. I have played several rogues who were LG and never stole a single thing from anyone.

On topic, my group plays with an alignment system that's slightly different from vanilla 3.X alignments. The group I'm currently with has no good and evil, just law and chaos. Someone either follows the rules, or is a free spirit. The man who gives the beggar a coin is a nice person. The man who stabs the beggar and burns the city down is a horrible person. People judge other people by their actions, not by what some 1st level spell claims they are.

Shademan
2011-02-05, 02:57 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/judgerdead/speech.jpg

think this needs to be in this thread

randomhero00
2011-02-05, 03:54 PM
One of my DMs (who was pretty decent I have to admit) over my time playing DnD cited, "Its just not heroic fantasy if you're playing evil." Which IMO is the most reasonable response. Personally I like exploring evil, and the fun plot twists it can have, but its not for everyone's vision of the game. Especially when the game is built on heroic fantasy.

edit: whats the from Shademan? The only problem I see with it is that he wouldn't regret the death of his pack. That's more of a chaotic neutral vibe.

Waker
2011-02-05, 04:02 PM
One of my DMs (who was pretty decent I have to admit) over my time playing DnD cited, "Its just not heroic fantasy if you're playing evil." Which IMO is the most reasonable response. Personally I like exploring evil, and the fun plot twists it can have, but its not for everyone's vision of the game. Especially when the game is built on heroic fantasy.
I can agree with this to a degree, but a villain can be a protagonist (villainous hero sounds oxymoronic). One of my favorite examples would be Achmed from the Rhapsody series. He's a former assassin turned ruler who has no qualms killing, torturing or if the situation calls for it, cannibalism. Though he's capable of horrible things, he is a loyal friend .

randomhero00
2011-02-05, 04:16 PM
I can agree with this to a degree, but a villain can be a protagonist (villainous hero sounds oxymoronic). One of my favorite examples would be Achmed from the Rhapsody series. He's a former assassin turned ruler who has no qualms killing, torturing or if the situation calls for it, cannibalism. Though he's capable of horrible things, he is a loyal friend .

Oh, of course villains can be. He just meant, if the party is evil then their goals change and its really not heroic fantasy anymore (the more evil you add to a party).

Shademan
2011-02-05, 04:20 PM
One of my DMs (who was pretty decent I have to admit) over my time playing DnD cited, "Its just not heroic fantasy if you're playing evil." Which IMO is the most reasonable response. Personally I like exploring evil, and the fun plot twists it can have, but its not for everyone's vision of the game. Especially when the game is built on heroic fantasy.

edit: whats the from Shademan? The only problem I see with it is that he wouldn't regret the death of his pack. That's more of a chaotic neutral vibe.

if I remember correctly its from the 3rd party book "evil" for D&D 3.5(ish)

soir8
2011-02-05, 09:13 PM
I like playing evil characters, just because it lets me approach a situation from a different viewpoint than your average adventurer. An evil wizard is plotting to take over the world? He already has all but one of the artifacts he needs to complete his plan? Bet if I get him that artifact he'll be grateful. Of course, as I am usually in the (a)moral minority, I let the other players decide the party's course of action but will often play devil's advocate, or volunteer for the more unpleasant tasks the party may find necessary.

I've found the best way to play a lone evil character is to do so in such a way that it doesn't get in the way of the rest of the party. Unfortunately, this can require some compromise on the part of the DM; in order to keep up the evil flavour, the easiest thing to do is abuse NPCs, especially the less important ones, and if the DM doesn't want to let you get away with this (even when your characters actions are clearly evil, but not outright illegal - such as intimidating a shopkeeper, or demanding payment for a helpful deed), then things become difficult.

The campaign I'm currently playing in started off badly for me. The game began with the player characters meeting when a wagon caravan they're traveling with is attacked on the road; the characters repelled the attackers, and were expected to then work together to find the bandits' camp and destroy them.

The trouble started when the other characters returned the money the bandits had been snatching from the other travelers. My character was not only chaotic evil, but a paladin of slaughter, and so such charity was pretty much an impossibility to me. So I compromised; I returned the money, but demanded a pony in exchange. And that was when the DM decided to start being awkward.

The man claimed he had no pony to spare; My PoS said nonsense, he's part of a caravan, he could provide me with a pony. And so I was offered a pony which the DM described as "looking to be on it's last legs". My character, insulted, killed the pony (which in his mind he had rightly paid for anyway).

So then the man becomes outraged and attacks me (over the slaughter of a half-dead pony); My not-so-pally Pally, aware that this was no time to engage in wanton slaughter (and I, as a player, not wanting to make things even more difficult than they already were) used his Imperious Command to subdue the man peacefully, and the same for the small child which inexplicably then tried to knife him.

And so, ponyless and frustrated, the PoS commanded the man to lead him and the other adventurers to the nearest town, from whence they could conduct their search for the bandits. Again, the DM had to be difficult; "the man refuses" (an intimidate check clears that up;) "He tries to run away" (I catch him;) "He's so scared of you he ****s all over your chainmail" (people, animals and inanimate objects ****ting all over everything is a long-standing trait of this DM's style - my character demands the man use his shirt to wipe away the ****).

At this point, I'm getting tired of all this pointless hassle, and I feel that so are the other players. The DM, however, has a solution. His DMPC says to the other characters; "this paladin's being a ****. Lets kill him."

The other players agree that my character is indeed being a **** to this insignificant NPC (of course he is, he's ****ING EVIL) and promptly attack him. Left at low enough health to die from one more attack, he is given the ultimatum; "do whatever we tell you or die". My character says, essentially, "**** this, I'm leaving." But no; "we don't trust you. If you try and leave, we'll kill you".

In a way, I have to blame myself for this. Firstly, I should've known to just go with the DM, make things easy for him the first session. Secondly, I shouldn't have spoken to him about how we could roleplay having an evil character in the party; my reassurance to his skepticism was, "the other characters will be enough to hold my evil guy in check". I didn't mean that they should literally hold him hostage and effectively make him their slave.

Anyway, it was at this point that I broke character and ranted indignantly how "he was being a ****; by attacking him we were just roleplaying" is not a good reason to try and kill another player's character at the start of the first ****ing session. Maybe, at a stretch, if they were lawful good, but their characters were chaotic ****ing neutral.

I'm not sure if I really got the point across to them; but they eventually let my character live on, free. Although after a few sessions I replaced him with a nice friendly lawful neutral arcane gish, and have kept the paladin in the background as a comic relief character (he led a small army of his fellow kobolds to seize a ship for the rest of the party; he returned with a ship, and only seven kobolds left after his brutal standards of discipline - kill anyone who does anything wrong, or kill someone whenever he feels there is lack of progress).

If I'm to make a point to add to this thread, and not just whine about prejudice towards evil, abusive kobolds, it's that it's not enough for the DM to let you be evil; you have to compromise to keep things running smoothly. If either of these things fails, then your evil character will probably simply annoy the other players and frustrate you. Probably my best evil character was a Ghost-Faced Killer, who was quietly sadistic and fiercely loyal to his military superiors. This meant that during trips to the setting's big city, the DM could let my character go off and experiment on the homeless with new torture devices, then send him a message from a general giving him orders to help the party on some quest of strategic importance. This worked absolutely perfectly (until my last session, when the DM gave my GFK a chance to redeem himself with a heroic act of self-sacrifice, and I couldn't resist the temptation to simply walk through the nearest wall and leave the other PCs to die. They survived anyway:)

profitofrage
2011-02-05, 10:53 PM
Just as an observation from what ive been reading in this thread.

It appears that people ban evil characters because they think the character wants to stab or otherwise cause the campaign chaos. Whats more...is they will then accept a chaotic good characters, then get upset when said character stabs the main arch villian before gathering proof.

Has nobody made the rather obvious link that maybe its not the "evil" part of the allignment that inherintly holds the problems?
I mean in terms of a campaign...someone doing immoral things isnt much of an issue if they dont derail the campaign.
I think DM's should be more conerned with the Chaotic part of a characters allignment...because the "stabbing someone randomly" thing...can only really occur with a chaotic character.

Evil characters have wants goals and motivations...much like the main evil villians. You can at least stop and consider what there actions MIGHT be..thus allowing you to build a campaign around it.

my suggestion to all the DM's out there...fear not the evil allignment...fear the chaotic :P

Greenish
2011-02-05, 11:14 PM
I can agree with this to a degree, but a villain can be a protagonist (villainous hero sounds oxymoronic).Try villain protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist) or anti villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiVillain). :smallwink:

[Warning]: The links above lead to Tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage), which will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife). You have been warned.

Fhaolan
2011-02-06, 02:16 AM
I think DM's should be more conerned with the Chaotic part of a characters allignment...because the "stabbing someone randomly" thing...can only really occur with a chaotic character.

Doing something randomly is not acting in the Chaotic alignment. It's acting psychotically. Just because you are Chaotic in alignment does not mean you're a raving lunatic.

In the same way that compusively sorting all the objects on your desk is not acting in the Lawful alignment. It's having a neurosis. Just because you are Lawful in alignment does not mean you have OCD.

Alignment =/= Mental Illness

If you describe your character to me as having a mental illness, and are specific about what the character's problem is, that's fine. That's playable. Describing your character as a 'Lawful Evil Fighter' and assuming that everyone at the table should *know* that means your character rapes babies in order of weight and age, gets you ejected from the gaming group. [I did not make that example up. Thirteen years ago, when I was living in Victoria, B.C., a girl joined one of the groups I was also a player at and pulled that on the DM. And a knife which she stabbed one of the other players for having a similar tatoo. It was an interesting Thursday night game.]

Callista
2011-02-06, 02:27 AM
So true. Chaotic characters may be impulsive or spontaneous, but they do NOT stab people randomly unless they're CE and usually not even then. (CE characters who stab people randomly don't tend to live very long; therefore, it makes sense that if your CE character is still alive, he learned some time in his past that one does not stab people unless one can get away with it...)


On topic, my group plays with an alignment system that's slightly different from vanilla 3.X alignments. The group I'm currently with has no good and evil, just law and chaos. Someone either follows the rules, or is a free spirit. The man who gives the beggar a coin is a nice person. The man who stabs the beggar and burns the city down is a horrible person. People judge other people by their actions, not by what some 1st level spell claims they are. But that's already present in the game as it is. The guy who gives gold to the beggar (assuming that this is typical of his actions and he doesn't do anything too far removed from that norm) would show up as Good on a detect spell. Detect spells aren't arbitrary--you show up as one or the other based on the decisions you've made. So the spell judges you on your actions, because your actions draw you closer to one or another of the aligned planes, and that gives you your aura which the spell can detect.

However, it's possible to confuse a Detect spell, either deliberately through abjuration or involuntarily, like for example being a neutral cleric of an evil deity, having the Evil subtype but not an evil alignment, or being a non-evil undead creature. That there's an in-game reason for detect spells to show a result that differs from your true alignment implies that alignment is intrinsic to the person and his decisions rather than just a matter of which aura surrounds them.

profitofrage
2011-02-06, 02:56 AM
Yes its rather obvious that allignment =/= mental illness...but players tend to use allignment as an excuse to act in exactly that way. this isnt a debate as to what allignements are and arnt...its about why evil characters are often not accepted for fear that they will act exactly as i described. However i dont believe that the "evil" is what the DM's should be avoiding, its the chaotic since a character that is lawful...is very unlikly to suddenly start slaughtering people without a reason and then say "its my allignment" where as a CE character very well could...a CN very well could...even a CG could..if the town happened to be a goblin one.

Greenish
2011-02-06, 02:56 AM
Thirteen years ago, when I was living in Victoria, B.C., a girl joined one of the groups I was also a player at and pulled that on the DM. And a knife which she stabbed one of the other players for having a similar tattoo.She stabbed the players?

Fhaolan
2011-02-06, 12:12 PM
She stabbed the players?

Yup. The girl pulled a knife and stabbed the guy next to her, supposedly because he had just got a tattoo of a bird similar one she already had. I'm a little vague on the exact details because I was in the bathroom at the time. All I saw was the DM (who's house it was, and who was an EMT-in-training at the time) burst into the bathroom to get his big first-aid kit out of the closet and run back out of the room all while on a cell phone calling 911.

From what the other players told me, the girl had gotten tackled by them and the knife taken away, but she had already started to cut herself as if to carve off the tattoo. She was still raving when the cops took her away.

In about thirty years of gaming, I've been aware of about a dozen instances when players turned violent against other players, but only twice when RL weapons were involved. And about two dozen other cases where it didn't turn into violence, but the crazy showed up in other ways. [Not all at games I was present at, but I know a lot of different gaming groups.] In a significant number of cases these were people who fixated and obsessed over the alignments of their characters. So, as a rule of thumb anyone at one of my games who defines characters by alignment rather than by personality, it raises red flags.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-06, 12:24 PM
Yup. The girl pulled a knife and stabbed the guy next to her, supposedly because he had just got a tattoo of a bird similar one she already had. I'm a little vague on the exact details because I was in the bathroom at the time. All I saw was the DM (who's house it was, and who was an EMT-in-training at the time) burst into the bathroom to get his big first-aid kit out of the closet and run back out of the room all while on a cell phone calling 911.

Was her character evil or good?

WarKitty
2011-02-06, 12:25 PM
Yes its rather obvious that allignment =/= mental illness...but players tend to use allignment as an excuse to act in exactly that way. this isnt a debate as to what allignements are and arnt...its about why evil characters are often not accepted for fear that they will act exactly as i described. However i dont believe that the "evil" is what the DM's should be avoiding, its the chaotic since a character that is lawful...is very unlikly to suddenly start slaughtering people without a reason and then say "its my allignment" where as a CE character very well could...a CN very well could...even a CG could..if the town happened to be a goblin one.

Actually, from what I've dealt with it's the LG players you have to watch out for suddenly stabbing things "because they were evil."

Fhaolan
2011-02-06, 12:40 PM
Was her character evil or good?

"A Lawful Evil Fighter", was the way her character was introduced to us. And really mean that. When our characters asked her character, he said he was a Lawful Evil Fighter. When pressed for details, she got this puzzled look on her face, and the rest of the players decided to drop the conversation.

Triskavanski
2011-02-06, 12:50 PM
The only time I'd describe like that is OOC usually, and it would be "This guy is so totally evil that you can taste evil in the air, despite never tasting evil before."

Such as one of my characters I'm about to play who has a trait, and a few feats that keep saying how evil he is.

In game, it would be a character who describes himself as (alignment, usually just good or evil) in order to make people think he is that.

Such as a guy who will say "I'm the evil badguy here! Be afraid of me!" or something like that. Usually though he is more of the opposite alignment. In otherwords he says he is evil, but he does everything he can to try to save people.

Callista
2011-02-06, 01:39 PM
Actually, from what I've dealt with it's the LG players you have to watch out for suddenly stabbing things "because they were evil."Yup. LN or LE characters are the most likely of any character to use stereotypes when it comes to goblins; and LG characters in the process of switching toward LN are quite prone to it, too. Lawful characters want to use a coherent set of rules to interact with the world, and it can be very tempting for a Lawful person to make a rule that says, "If it's a goblin, assume it's evil." They will make judgments about entire groups, trying to create rules that apply globally. LG characters are likely to make global rules that are more like, "Sentient creatures are redeemable," or, "Negotiation is better than honorable combat; honorable combat is better than chaos"; their good side will tend to ward off prejudice, though they can of course have non-good tendencies.

Chaotic characters, on the other hand, will see people as individuals. To a chaotic character, it's who's right in front of him, right then, that matters. A CE character is more likely to kill you because he doesn't like your face than because he doesn't like your race. A CN character will go on a murderous rampage on the goblin village that sent the raiding party that killed his family--but he's likely to do the same if it were a human village. And a CG person will simply see the people in front of him as people, and likely as equals, deserving of freedom and respect--though he will certainly get violent if they are threatening others' freedom (for example, a CG character would not have a problem killing a slave trader... and wouldn't care whether the slave trader was orc, elf, or human when he did it.)

Spontaneous, freedom-loving, impulsive people are not necessarily better than Lawful people. When they do evil, they do it in a disorganized, impulsive manner rather than the Lawful person's systematic, rules-driven style. But I do not think that Chaotics are more prone to prejudice, because they aren't particularly prone to having rules for the world in general--they just like to take things as they come.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-06, 01:42 PM
"A Lawful Evil Fighter", was the way her character was introduced to us. And really mean that. When our characters asked her character, he said he was a Lawful Evil Fighter. When pressed for details, she got this puzzled look on her face, and the rest of the players decided to drop the conversation.

You aren't serious? She described her character with terms Fighter and Lawful evil? :smallbiggrin:

Wow.

Callista
2011-02-06, 01:48 PM
Yeah, that kind of sounds like an inexperienced role-player to me. Maybe forcing her to write a paragraph of backstory would be beneficial here. That's how I taught my new players to RP when they were coming from computer RPGs and didn't really have a clue. It doesn't take an epic; they just have to explain who their character is and what they're like. The rest comes with experience. (You will have the inevitable mary sue, of course, but that's better than no personality at all.)

snikrept
2011-02-06, 01:51 PM
I've actually had other players get mad at me before for NOT playing a psychopath Stupid Evil guy when it says "evil" on my char sheet.

Like somehow if the character is not out kicking puppies every minute, he becomes Neutral or Good :smallsigh:

Callista
2011-02-06, 01:55 PM
Yeah. I've played "smart Evil" before and the group was initially surprised that I wasn't playing a psychopath... but strongly reminded that my character was, indeed, evil when she casually used (psychological) torture to get the layout of a dungeon from a low-level guard. It was simply the easiest, fastest way to get the information we needed; and that kind of cold-blooded reasoning is absolutely typical of Evil characters.

I don't see too many well-played Evil characters around. It's kind of sad. Evil doesn't mean you can just do whatever you think will get you cool loot... you have to RP just as much--probably more--when you play Evil.

Triskavanski
2011-02-06, 01:58 PM
You aren't serious? She described her character with terms Fighter and Lawful evil? :smallbiggrin:

Wow.

Well he did say wit was like 30 years ago.. If we take that literally from this date, that would me about 1981 or so. (Not really thinking heavy in the math area right now.)

DnD started 1974, giving her about 7 years to learn of the game, how to play, and how to roleplay. Course she is a raving lunatic her self.. so..

RndmNumGen
2011-02-06, 02:08 PM
Alignment =/= Mental Illness


May I sig this?

Gnorman
2011-02-06, 03:12 PM
Well he did say wit was like 30 years ago.. If we take that literally from this date, that would me about 1981 or so. (Not really thinking heavy in the math area right now.)

DnD started 1974, giving her about 7 years to learn of the game, how to play, and how to roleplay. Course she is a raving lunatic her self.. so..

Thirteen. Thirteen years ago.


edit: whats the from Shademan? The only problem I see with it is that he wouldn't regret the death of his pack. That's more of a chaotic neutral vibe.

Why do people assume that being evil means you can't have regrets, or feeling, or friends? It's ridiculous.

Triskavanski
2011-02-06, 03:38 PM
He changed it! I know he did.

Well, then thats less of an excuse for her then.

Fhaolan
2011-02-06, 04:51 PM
He changed it! I know he did.

Well, then thats less of an excuse for her then.

..Nope, it was always thirteen years ago for that incident. You're thinking of where I said that I had over thirty years of dealing with different gaming groups. :smallsmile:

As I've mentioned before, I tend to run in social circles with high incidence of serious drug use, mental illness, and social maladjustment. So it's kind of a given that I've run into players with all of these issues, in many cases simultaneously.


May I sig this?

Sure. :) I think this will be the second time I've been sigged on this forum. Yay!

Yahzi
2011-02-06, 08:17 PM
I don't particularly want it in my games.
Best reason to ban anything.

If the DM isn't having fun, it seems unlikely that the players will have any fun.

I let people play evil characters, but I run a sand-box world, so the consequences of your actions will whatever seems reasonable. If you go around stabbing people at random, other people will try to stop you.

What I generally do, however, is require the entire party to be good or evil; since, logically speaking, the first people to stop Mr. McStabby would be the people standing next to him, i.e. the party. While inter-party conflict is fun for me (the DM), the party doesn't seem to enjoy it that much. :smallbiggrin:

WarKitty
2011-02-06, 08:25 PM
Some of it will also depend on the DM's view of evil. DM's who view evil as primarily rape and murder are more likely to ban evil than those who view is as taking bribes and manipulating people.

Callista
2011-02-06, 08:31 PM
The less-extreme Evil character is probably the more overlooked kind. People who are simply selfish, who will profit at others' expense, but who aren't outright murderers/rapists/general puppy-kickers, are also evil. Just like there are less-extreme Good-aligned characters who are generally nice people and will stick their necks out for others and work to make the world a better place, but still balk at sacrificing themselves entirely, there are less-extreme Evil characters.

Don't start with an alignment. Start with a personality and a concept, and then tack on an appropriate alignment afterward.

faceroll
2011-02-06, 09:28 PM
Alignment =/= Mental Illness

Why not? I'd think that one's actions influence their alignment, would they not?

Callista
2011-02-06, 09:47 PM
Yes, actions do influence alignment, but that doesn't have much to do with mental illness. Mental illness can happen to people of any alignment, just like HP loss or stat damage can. And while your thinking or your reasoning ability may be impaired, that doesn't force you to suddenly become violent for no good reason. Mentally ill people are no more likely to be violent than anyone else.

Confusion effects--magical insanity--are compulsions and not under your control any more than if you'd had a seizure; so there's no reason to think they would change your alignment. You might come away pretty traumatized if you'd been forced to kill your friend, though.

faceroll
2011-02-06, 09:58 PM
Yes, actions do influence alignment, but that doesn't have much to do with mental illness. Mental illness can happen to people of any alignment, just like HP loss or stat damage can. And while your thinking or your reasoning ability may be impaired, that doesn't force you to suddenly become violent for no good reason. Mentally ill people are no more likely to be violent than anyone else.

Regardless of what the specifics of your mental illness are, if it affects your actions, and those actions have an alignment component, then your mental illness affects your alignment.


Confusion effects--magical insanity--are compulsions and not under your control any more than if you'd had a seizure; so there's no reason to think they would change your alignment. You might come away pretty traumatized if you'd been forced to kill your friend, though.

I'm pretty sure magic does affect your alignment. Alignment is determined by the actions of intelligent creatures. There's no intent clause. If a paladin gets dominated and performs chaotic evil acts, he won't stay lawful good for long.

But then, I've always been a fan of the taint interpretation of evil in dnd. It's real, palpable stuff, not something whose nuances theologians and philosophers argue about. It gets on you, and it stains. It's a physical phenomena, like radioactive decay.

Callista
2011-02-06, 10:24 PM
Regardless of what the specifics of your mental illness are, if it affects your actions, and those actions have an alignment component, then your mental illness affects your alignment.No, because it doesn't change your motives. It doesn't make you more violent or more benevolent. It just changes what mental resources you have available. Your actions are related to your alignment, but your motives are the really important element. If I know why you did something, I would find it much easier to figure out your alignment than if I just knew what you did.

There's no reason you would go evil from being dominated into doing evil. You would be just as likely to rebel and become more and more Good-aligned because you have come to see exactly how bad it is and why you need to fight it.

faceroll
2011-02-06, 10:40 PM
No, because it doesn't change your motives. It doesn't make you more violent or more benevolent. It just changes what mental resources you have available. Your actions are related to your alignment, but your motives are the really important element. If I know why you did something, I would find it much easier to figure out your alignment than if I just knew what you did.

Motives mean nothing.
Alignment is about the works of things with an int above 2.


There's no reason you would go evil from being dominated into doing evil. You would be just as likely to rebel and become more and more Good-aligned because you have come to see exactly how bad it is and why you need to fight it.

You certainly wouldn't keep your good alignment while you killed innocents. Perhaps if you ever had the chance to break free of the enchantment and perform good deeds, you could wash that sin from your soul.

FelixG
2011-02-06, 11:06 PM
@OP:

Just play neutral and do the actions you like. Alignments can shift and the GM is responsible for such things.

LansXero
2011-02-06, 11:06 PM
No, because it doesn't change your motives. It doesn't make you more violent or more benevolent. .

But they do, in a roundabout way. Well, some of them at least. And then when they involve memory loss; would your alignment change to good overtime if you forgot what an evil bastard you were and started to do good?

Callista
2011-02-06, 11:46 PM
Well, it's not like a mental illness leaves you unchanged. Of course it affects you. But it can affect you in many different ways, just like any major life event can affect you in many different ways. And the alignment change, if it happens, can go many different ways depending on how you react. (Someone whose brain is so badly damaged that he becomes incapable of making moral choices probably stays at his last alignment until he is healed or until he dies and travels to whatever aligned plane represents his afterlife. The ability to make moral choices is a prerequisite for having an alignment, which is why animals are true neutral; if you cannot make moral choices, you cannot change your alignment.)

Regarding involuntary evil acts: They don't change your alignment because they do not involve a moral decision.

For example: If someone poisoned candy in the supermarket and you bought it and gave it to a child, who would be to blame? You, for involuntarily poisoning a child? Or the person who actually set up the situation that resulted in the child's being poisoned?

It's the person who is doing the forcing who takes the actual alignment change (if his alignment isn't already Evil--which it most likely already is). Morality is all about choices; it's the person who makes the choice that is expressing his alignment, and it's the person who makes a choice that's inconsistent with his current alignment who is expressing a changing personality and a change in alignment.

Changing your alignment against your will must be done directly. There are various ways, including magical brainwashing such as what you can do with Mindrape or Morality Undone or by turning someone into some types of undead. These directly change your alignment, rather than just forcing actions that are against your nature. And it's not a coincidence that this sort of corruption is considered by most DMs to be among the most strongly Evil of possible actions.

Fhaolan
2011-02-07, 12:06 AM
Why not? I'd think that one's actions influence their alignment, would they not?

Let me try a different formula:

Correlation =/= Causation

Just because people who have Intermittent Explosive Disorder (look it up), are Chaotic, does not mean that all Chaotic people have IED.

Just because people who have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder are Lawful, does not mean that all Lawful people have OCD.

The problem I run into is all the people who assume that anyone who is Chaotic *must* have IED, and anyone who is Lawful *must* have OCD, to the point that they get upset (and occasionally violent) themselves when it is pointed out that this is not true.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-07, 12:19 AM
"You Don't Have to be Crazy to be Chaotic Evil, But it Helps"-mug seen on the desk of the Local Friends of Fiendish Fiends of Fiendishness #616

faceroll
2011-02-07, 01:37 AM
Let me try a different formula:

Correlation =/= Causation

Just because people who have Intermittent Explosive Disorder (look it up), are Chaotic, does not mean that all Chaotic people have IED.

Just because people who have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder are Lawful, does not mean that all Lawful people have OCD.

The problem I run into is all the people who assume that anyone who is Chaotic *must* have IED, and anyone who is Lawful *must* have OCD, to the point that they get upset (and occasionally violent) themselves when it is pointed out that this is not true.

It's directional. Having a particular alignment may not be part of having a mental illness, but mental illnesses that cause actions that are aligned definitely affect alignment.


Well, it's not like a mental illness leaves you unchanged. Of course it affects you. But it can affect you in many different ways, just like any major life event can affect you in many different ways. And the alignment change, if it happens, can go many different ways depending on how you react. (Someone whose brain is so badly damaged that he becomes incapable of making moral choices probably stays at his last alignment until he is healed or until he dies and travels to whatever aligned plane represents his afterlife. The ability to make moral choices is a prerequisite for having an alignment, which is why animals are true neutral; if you cannot make moral choices, you cannot change your alignment.)

Regarding involuntary evil acts: They don't change your alignment because they do not involve a moral decision.

For example: If someone poisoned candy in the supermarket and you bought it and gave it to a child, who would be to blame? You, for involuntarily poisoning a child? Or the person who actually set up the situation that resulted in the child's being poisoned?

It's the person who is doing the forcing who takes the actual alignment change (if his alignment isn't already Evil--which it most likely already is). Morality is all about choices; it's the person who makes the choice that is expressing his alignment, and it's the person who makes a choice that's inconsistent with his current alignment who is expressing a changing personality and a change in alignment.

Changing your alignment against your will must be done directly. There are various ways, including magical brainwashing such as what you can do with Mindrape or Morality Undone or by turning someone into some types of undead. These directly change your alignment, rather than just forcing actions that are against your nature. And it's not a coincidence that this sort of corruption is considered by most DMs to be among the most strongly Evil of possible actions.

Then there really can't be anything evil because either a) it's a mental illness or b) you're an outsider or were undead and were made that way, in which case you weren't ever given a chance.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-07, 01:58 AM
It's directional. Having a particular alignment may not be part of having a mental illness, but mental illnesses that cause actions that are aligned definitely affect alignment.



Then there really can't be anything evil because either a) it's a mental illness or b) you're an outsider or were undead and were made that way, in which case you weren't ever given a chance.
Well, while Demons are the personifications of Evil, Chaotic Evil to be specific, the way a Fire Elemental is the personification of Fire, Lawful Evil Devils did indeed have choice, been fallen in most fluff, at least at one time. Some undead actually do have a choice to be evil or not, and of those that don't either engage or have engaged in activities that can be considered evil by many, such as blood drinking from sentients in the case of Vampires, instinctual eating of sentients, Ghouls and ghasts, or some horrid unspeakable, and unspoken of, ritual in the case of SRD Liches, or really don't make sense in the case of Zombies and Animated Skeletons. Mummies, for instance, have no peculiar dietary requirements and are only Usually Evil and Ghosts can potentially be of Any alignment.

Fhaolan
2011-02-07, 02:48 AM
It's directional. Having a particular alignment may not be part of having a mental illness, but mental illnesses that cause actions that are aligned definitely affect alignment.

I think we're agreeing, but I'm not 100% sure. Let me try a different phrasing.

Many mental illnesses may in of themselves be aligned. Using the example illnesses so far: OCD is inherently Lawful, IED is inherently Chaotic.

However, simply having that mental illness is, by itself, not enough to set a character's alignment. Depending on the severity of the illness, and the presense of other factors, it will be an influence but not a guarentee. A character can be an extremely staid, hidebound, and traditional dwarven accountant and still overall be Lawful, despite that character also having a light form of IED.

Nor does a character having a specific alignment guarentee that the character will be aflicted with all the mental illnesses that are similarly aligned. Not all Lawful characters compulsively sort their candles by length. Not all Chaotic characters have disorganized schizophrenia.

faceroll
2011-02-07, 03:33 AM
I think we're agreeing, but I'm not 100% sure. Let me try a different phrasing.

Many mental illnesses may in of themselves be aligned. Using the example illnesses so far: OCD is inherently Lawful, IED is inherently Chaotic.

However, simply having that mental illness is, by itself, not enough to set a character's alignment. Depending on the severity of the illness, and the presense of other factors, it will be an influence but not a guarentee. A character can be an extremely staid, hidebound, and traditional dwarven accountant and still overall be Lawful, despite that character also having a light form of IED.

Nor does a character having a specific alignment guarentee that the character will be aflicted with all the mental illnesses that are similarly aligned. Not all Lawful characters compulsively sort their candles by length. Not all Chaotic characters have disorganized schizophrenia.

Yes, we are in agreement. :smallsmile:
I quoted you, I think, because you were the originator of this particular discussion.

It seemed that people were saying that mental illnesses had no effect on alignment, and that is clearly not the case. Being OCD is certainly going to make you act more lawful than someone with IED. Of course, alignment is a composite of actions, so it could be possible to be both chaotic and have a mild form of OCD. I think full blown mental illnesses would almost necessitate one's alignment, like a severe case of OCD or a psychopath.

Dr Gunsforhands
2011-02-07, 04:54 AM
I'm a DM who doesn't allow evil characters.

It's not because I'm worried about them trolling the game because I'm lucky to have a pretty good group of gamers. They know that whether they're evil or not if they make unwise choices like murder casually and leave witnesses, there will eventually be consequences such as a group of guards posting wanted posters or bounty hunters. That's not punishing the group, that's just what happens, and it can be fun to deal with that.

The thing that always happens every time I've let just one evil character into the game is that eventually they run out of reasons to fight the good fight.

Most campaigns I run when I'm running long term with the intention of bringing everyone to 20 run in this arc:

A. Adventurers must deal with immediate problem ("kobolds attack the expedition")

B. They must now locate and deal with what caused the original immediate problem ("the kobolds were manipulated to attack the expedition by a hermit who wants to scare everyone away")

C. They must now deal with the reason the source of the original problem caused havok in the first place ("the party must now destroy the eldritch machine the hermit's cult was building to aid his demon lord")

D. They must now save the world from the greater threat ("the demon lord is going to lead an army from his plane to this world when he gets enough power")

In steps A and B there are enough reasons for an evil character to go with the flow. They're getting paid, getting favors, getting power, getting revenge, not as much concerned with the welfare of others but for the time their goals match the goals of the other heroes.

In steps C and D the evil character starts risking his life. Whereas before there were a lot of reasons for him to go with the flow, now it's pretty much self preservation ('The demon lord wants to conquer the world and torture the inhabitants. I don't want to be tortured.'). If self preservation disappears as a good reason (i.e. assaulting that cult is extremely dangerous, the demon lord offers power, wealth, and safety if he joins him) he's left with loyalty to a group of adventurers that keep cramping his style. There is no logical reason for this person to stay with this group while staying evil.

I know what you're gonna say. 'If you were a better GM you could think of an idea that would keep him against the demon lord!' (Maybe the evil character worships a different demon lord that doesn't like competition, maybe one of the party members is family) It's been done. It never works. Loyalty only goes so far with evil characters.

Evil Demon Lord: "You are looking out for the other demon lord/your brother? Well, he's not looking out for you. You're slumming it with a group of do-gooders, living off the scraps of things you kill, lured to the seat of my control and power to die. Take your rightful place with the side of evil, many will suffer but you will be rewarded."

Triskavanski
2011-02-07, 05:12 AM
No, what I'm going say is that its the same for good and neutral characters as well.

For example batman & superman pair up every now and then. But they never stay together in a party until the justice league is formed. But then why are they in the league together for any reason?

I mean truthfully what is the point of a bunch of good aligned characters to party together? It boils down to loyalty sure, but their "style" is just as cramped together as an evil character's would be.

It works only because the magical plot fairy waves her wand around and the party stays together. This is how a TN character is going around partying with a bunch of good characters instead of doing what a TN character would do.. which is constantly seek balance or otherwise become unaligned.

You cannot tell me that a CG characters style is not cramped when paired with a LG character. Imagine Robin Hood trying to adventure with someone like Miko. Beyond self preservation, why would Robin hood ever party with Miko, beyond Miko making RH into her prisoner?

I've had on more times seen where good characters end up hitting the point in time where the fairy has to wave her plot wand in order to keep the party together than when evil characters are involved.

Course that may because I'm always the one who is playing said evil character, and is currently using the useful idiots to increase his own power and weaken the nation by removing the common folks ability to earn exp. (as in actual exp, not just the game mechanic)

In Diaspora, we've got a guy who is the incarnate of evil and has been manipulating the entire party to his end, whatever it may be. (Not me this time. The guy playing the evil character he is a freeking genius when it comes to this sort of skullduggery cloack and dagger ninjitsu)


There is actually many many times that an evil character does party with the good party.

One of which is Bastard!! (name of the anime) were the CE Dache Schneider parties up with the LG girl who he cares about. Yes, she cramps his style a lot. He even sacrifices himself for another woman he loves. He constantly makes threats of killing people, but always focuses his energy towards the badguys because they drew blood or almost hurt Kioko.

Sorcerer on the Rocks is an inverse of the Miko arc of OOTS. The Evil character has the completely LG character bound in a chain and often forces her to work as a polestripper, while she believes she can change him. The CG character though isn't in chains and is unknown exactly why he is allowed to hang around the main character. (He does scare the main character though)

Slayers often has Xellous helping the party, Or Naga the Serpent who tends to give off the impression she is evil.. but unknown. Martini pairs up with the main party for a time while Xellous isn't there. She is the evil equivalent of Elan, and is constantly trying to increase her demon gods power (that she may or may not have made up).

Shademan
2011-02-07, 06:22 AM
snip

but isnt that the players job? to find a reason to stick around?

DwarfFighter
2011-02-07, 08:11 AM
Now, it might just be from my personal experience, but almost every time I try to play an evil character, I get turned down, with the people citing that they don't want team killing, rampant murder, theft, arson, ect. ect. ect..

So I ask you Playgrounders, why do the evil alignments get such...um...hostility? I dunno. Why do people seem to expect the worst when the concept of an evil character comes up?

I dunno, maybe because D&D evil is actually evil?

We're not talking about different political/religious views, here. Evil characters actually register as such to alignment-detecting abilities. It's as if your alignment makes you radioactive or something.

-DF

Starbuck_II
2011-02-07, 08:16 AM
One of which is Bastard!! (name of the anime) were the CE Dache Schneider parties up with the LG girl who he cares about. Yes, she cramps his style a lot. He even sacrifices himself for another woman he loves. He constantly makes threats of killing people, but always focuses his energy towards the badguys because they drew blood or almost hurt Kioko.


Schneider isnt evil. He is CN. He doesa very good balance act between good/evil. He can be motivated twoward evil or even good, but he himself is neither.

Callista
2011-02-07, 11:35 AM
Then there really can't be anything evil because either a) it's a mental illness or b) you're an outsider or were undead and were made that way, in which case you weren't ever given a chance.What? No. People choose evil just like they choose good. What I said was that if you're not capable of making choices, you're true neutral. But that doesn't apply to people who aren't either infants, severely injured or profoundly disabled, unable to use logic, unconscious, or otherwise unable to make choices entirely, who can't change their alignment because they can't make moral choices. Most people can make moral choices and thus can change their alignment. And that includes people who are insane--almost all insane people are capable of making moral choices; only the most extreme mental illnesses really take away that choice.

Even people who have it bad enough to need to be institutionalized don't usually lose the ability to make moral decisions, at least some of the time--and are still responsible for those moral decisions they can make. In D&D, of course that also applies to people who are dominated, under the effect of a confusion spell and not currently able to act freely, etc. The same ability you use to plan and decide things is the ability you use to make moral choices; and if you lose the ability to decide not to do something evil, you also lose the ability to make complex plans, and that probably means you're in serious trouble and quite impaired--something that, by that point, would be obvious to anyone who doesn't have a negative Heal bonus.

So yes, that means that the Joker (among other insane and evil folks) is responsible for his own actions... because he is still capable of complex rational thought, he is also capable of thinking about morality, and he's chosen evil.

Triskavanski
2011-02-07, 12:07 PM
Schneider isnt evil. He is CN. He doesa very good balance act between good/evil. He can be motivated twoward evil or even good, but he himself is neither.

Well they kept saying how evil he was throughout the show.

Another anime with a party of characters..

Hitman reborn. Hibari, while not evil (LN in fact) rarely ever parties with the party unless it suits him. He hates groups, and only loves his highschool.

Dispite being not-evil this is a very hard guy to RP due to constantly requiring careful thought and planning on DM/Player.

hamishspence
2011-02-07, 02:49 PM
Champions of Ruin suggests that "repeatedly doing evil deeds" (regardless of the reasons) tends to be the mark of an Evil character.

It is up to the DM how often those deeds need to be, and how Evil they need to be- to mandate an Evil alignment regardless of other Good deeds and Good intentions.

An Evildoer might only do evil deeds to certain specific targets. Members of an enemy nation during war. Members of a "hated group".

or perhaps even (if you go with the more brutal vigilantes being Evil rather than Neutral) the "specific target" might be "particularly vile villains".

Being evil might be more about what you do (or are willing to do), than who you do it to.

faceroll
2011-02-07, 07:13 PM
What? No. People choose evil just like they choose good. What I said was that if you're not capable of making choices, you're true neutral. But that doesn't apply to people who aren't either infants, severely injured or profoundly disabled, unable to use logic, unconscious, or otherwise unable to make choices entirely, who can't change their alignment because they can't make moral choices. Most people can make moral choices and thus can change their alignment. And that includes people who are insane--almost all insane people are capable of making moral choices; only the most extreme mental illnesses really take away that choice.

Even people who have it bad enough to need to be institutionalized don't usually lose the ability to make moral decisions, at least some of the time--and are still responsible for those moral decisions they can make. In D&D, of course that also applies to people who are dominated, under the effect of a confusion spell and not currently able to act freely, etc. The same ability you use to plan and decide things is the ability you use to make moral choices; and if you lose the ability to decide not to do something evil, you also lose the ability to make complex plans, and that probably means you're in serious trouble and quite impaired--something that, by that point, would be obvious to anyone who doesn't have a negative Heal bonus.

So yes, that means that the Joker (among other insane and evil folks) is responsible for his own actions... because he is still capable of complex rational thought, he is also capable of thinking about morality, and he's chosen evil.

In which case you agree that mental illness has an affect on your alignment.

Callista
2011-02-07, 07:46 PM
Only because life events in general have an impact on your alignment.

More correctly, how you react to having a mental illness may have an effect on your alignment. Mental illness is a major event for most people, and can change your life for the better or the worse. It's called "character development"...

Gensh
2011-02-07, 10:17 PM
Schneider isnt evil. He is CN. He doesa very good balance act between good/evil. He can be motivated twoward evil or even good, but he himself is neither.

The introductory pages in each volume up to 18 list him as "Chaotic Evil (with Neutral tendencies)." :smalltongue:

Ignoring those times when the text itself gives a character's alignment, there is a rather muddled area between each component and Neutral, and it falls to individual DMs to determine the boundary lines for this area. In this case, the author is making the point that despite DS being the hero, he is a really terrible person, and no matter how many good deeds he does, each of them is both for a selfish reason (because Yoko will beat the daylights out of him/because he might get laid) and also is horribly violent. Apocalypse from the Sky is a child's plaything compared to, say, Led Zeppelin.

Spoiler, Volume 14+
Similarly, around the time of the big reveal, the most heroic character is debatably Abigail. What's his alignment? NE; he's been plotting like a big boss since before the story began, and he's willing to kill the entire population of King Crimson Glory in order to revive DS. At the same time, he's the only one of the Ten Wise Men who displays any sort of humanity and is genuinely sorry for his actions while possessed by Anthrax. By this point, all the Good-aligned characters are either villains or cannon fodder, even DS' former rival Lars. Abigail's entirely personal desire to kill God is the only thing that was able to stall the heavenly host long enough for Satan's physical form to break out of the Abyss, necessitating a reallocation of troops from the human elimination plan to defense. In essence, it was human vanity that saved the world.

Triskavanski
2011-02-07, 10:27 PM
Another set of characters who are not evil but have a hard time partying together is Dr. House and friends.

House would be totally CN, while his new assistant would be LG. Tao would be CG with some N tendencies. Foreman would probally be LN with G tendencies and Chase would be.. N?

Callista
2011-02-07, 10:51 PM
House is CE... He's one of those milder Evil characters that I'm talking about--not completely without compunctions, not generally capable of murder, but perfectly wiling to harm innocents if it means getting his way. He just doesn't have a reason to kill people, so he doesn't; he saves people's lives because he likes the medical puzzles, not because he cares about other people. It's rather an interesting situation.

Triskavanski
2011-02-07, 11:38 PM
That is still CN.

He wants to "win the game". He doesn't care if the patient lives, he only wants them not to die so he won't lose the game.

A N character would basically sit there and watch people die not lifting a figure to either help nor harm the dieing.

That is basically what house is doing, only that he wants to figure out puzzles that have a desired end result of the person living.

Course if you want me to, I might go through my book "The Psychology of House" and pull of a number of hits that further this.

Coidzor
2011-02-08, 12:14 AM
A N character would basically sit there and watch people die not lifting a figure to either help nor harm the dieing.

I'm pretty sure that's categorized as evil, for what that's actually worth, having the ability to help and just sitting and watching people die.

archon_huskie
2011-02-08, 12:48 AM
In steps C and D the evil character starts risking his life. Whereas before there were a lot of reasons for him to go with the flow, now it's pretty much self preservation ('The demon lord wants to conquer the world and torture the inhabitants. I don't want to be tortured.'). If self preservation disappears as a good reason (i.e. assaulting that cult is extremely dangerous, the demon lord offers power, wealth, and safety if he joins him) he's left with loyalty to a group of adventurers that keep cramping his style. There is no logical reason for this person to stay with this group while staying evil.

Go with an illogical reason. That party of good adventures is made up of his friends. People he has fought beside and bled with. And this Demon wants to take over HIS world. He happens to like this world The people the Demon lord wants to enslave? those are HIS people to enslave, not its. If it wants to take over, it's going to find HIM standing in the way by Hextor!

faceroll
2011-02-08, 01:11 AM
I'm pretty sure that's categorized as evil, for what that's actually worth, having the ability to help and just sitting and watching people die.

No, it's not. Evil is described as actively harming others. Not doing anything is decidedly neutral.

Here, you can read the description for yourself:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil

huttj509
2011-02-08, 01:30 AM
Go with an illogical reason. That party of good adventures is made up of his friends. People he has fought beside and bled with. And this Demon wants to take over HIS world. He happens to like this world The people the Demon lord wants to enslave? those are HIS people to enslave, not its. If it wants to take over, it's going to find HIM standing in the way by Hextor!

Heck, to paraphrase a few evil guys working against chaos (and some just taking over), "I don't want the world destroyed, all my stuff is here."

PersonMan
2011-02-08, 01:46 AM
No, it's not. Evil is described as actively harming others. Not doing anything is decidedly neutral.

In one of the later books(BoVD? I'm not sure) it's mentioned that not doing anything to help when you could is evil. Besides, indirectly killing someone is still killing someone, at least in this case.

faceroll
2011-02-08, 01:55 AM
In one of the later books(BoVD? I'm not sure) it's mentioned that not doing anything to help when you could is evil. Besides, indirectly killing someone is still killing someone, at least in this case.

So does that make adventurers like paramedics, with a legal obligation to be "good samaritans?"

You know, there are other alignments besides Good and Evil. Just because you're not good, it doesn't make you evil.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 02:50 AM
In one of the later books(BoVD? I'm not sure) it's mentioned that not doing anything to help when you could is evil. Besides, indirectly killing someone is still killing someone, at least in this case.

When the book was describing evil as such, it was viewing it as only black or white. Ignoring the shade of grey that is neutral. Notice that they didn't make "Book of Law" and "Book of Chaos" or "Book of Neutrality."

I agree with face on this one.

There is no such thing as "Indirectly killing". There is a such thing how as "Indirectly causing the death of". The word killing implies an direct act to result in the death of someone. Causing the Death is less direct.

Imagine for example a village of people who keep sending adventurers to kill a monster in a tower that would have otherwise been ignored. The monster kills said adventures. The towns folk indirectly cause the death of the adventurers therefor are not evil. But if they knew the monster was too much for the adventurers and were actively seeking the death, it would still be slightly less evil than killing them, usually.

Coidzor
2011-02-08, 03:21 AM
There is no such thing as "Indirectly killing". There is a such thing how as "Indirectly causing the death of". The word killing implies an direct act to result in the death of someone. Causing the Death is less direct.

That's just arguing semantics.


Imagine for example a village of people who keep sending adventurers to kill a monster in a tower that would have otherwise been ignored. The monster kills said adventures. The towns folk indirectly cause the death of the adventurers therefor are not evil. But if they knew the monster was too much for the adventurers and were actively seeking the death, it would still be slightly less evil than killing them, usually.

Purposely sending someone to their death is morally superior to stabbing them in the face? :smallconfused: Why? Because one doesn't risk getting blood one one's fancy dress? :smallyuk:

So is locking someone up and starving them to death more morally acceptable than suffocating them in their sleep? What about poison? "I didn't kill him, it was the strychnine in his bratwurst!" actually holds some weight now?

What's the point in that fine of a distinction in terms of whether something is evil? :smallconfused:


So does that make adventurers like paramedics, with a legal obligation to be "good samaritans?"

You know, there are other alignments besides Good and Evil. Just because you're not good, it doesn't make you evil.

There's a quote, probably part of the reason for them putting in that bit, actually... Something like:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men stand by and do nothing

Ignore the word "good," and instead look at the idea of how standing by and letting an evil act that one could stop continue makes one complicit in the wrongdoing.

Which one may not agree with but there's a good chunk of moral philosophies that subscribe to similar notions.

MightyPirate
2011-02-08, 03:52 AM
So does that make adventurers like paramedics, with a legal obligation to be "good samaritans?"

You know, there are other alignments besides Good and Evil. Just because you're not good, it doesn't make you evil.

Going by the srd link you posted I'd say that standing by and letting someone die when you could do something about it, without making any personal sacrifices is actually more evil then neutral. Now if you need to give something up or there's some other reason not to help them I can see it being neutral. Otherwise that falls under the "no compassion" segment of evil.

Callista
2011-02-08, 05:47 AM
Yup. If it requires a sacrifice, that's one thing; but if you are not acting when you could totally safely act to save someone's life, then that's evil. "Having no compassion for others... will kill if doing so is convenient" sounds very much like someone who won't save another person just because he'd have to go out of his way--not even sacrifice, just go out of his way--to do it. People do things for a reason, and someone who would watch another person die rather than save them is not anywhere near neutral. That's solidly evil. Apathetic evil, lazy evil, maybe, but still evil.

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 05:54 AM
In one of the later books(BoVD? I'm not sure) it's mentioned that not doing anything to help when you could is evil. Besides, indirectly killing someone is still killing someone, at least in this case.

It was the section on killing- when it's accident, negligence, and intentional.

It went on to discuss what happens if you are possessed of incorrect information (everyone in the town is a demon) and act on it, to poison the well of the town).

(It suggests that it might not be evil even if you turn out to be wrong- if you could not have been expected to think otherwise- but also says that in general its very risky)

And whether it's evil to stop you with lethal force, even though you're not technically committing an Evil Act- answer- no

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning".

So there may be circumstances when a character might have a moral obligation to act, and "doing nothing" might qualify as "doing an evil act".

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 11:43 AM
Well in a world that you are either good or evil, sure.

However, Alignment is not just good or evil, otherwise you should just remove that middle section and have a total of six alignments. But then we would also start saying you are either upholding the law, or breaking it, and so we remove NG and NE as well leaving us with the "We believe in something" alignments.

Batman in your 4 alignment system is CE, because he didn't save that bad man on the train.

But in the 9 alignment system, death is a part of life. Your death is your destiny, and who am I to deny destiny? Who am I to deny nature?

If there is a man poisoning the well of a town, Unless I am that man, actively attempting to help the man, or want the man to succeed ect. I'm not being evil, it is still an act of neutrality. Why? because N seeks not being involved, stopping the man is an act that is good.

Why do you think Druids remove themselves far away from man and have their own little clubhouse even if the world is going to crap?

The quote says "For evil to triumph good men need to do nothing"
The good part shouldn't be ignored. Its the most important part of the quote!

Is says if good men do nothing, which means that the good men be neutral, then evil triumphs. It doesn't say that if good men become evil, which would also allow for evil to triumph, but just that they do not get involved with the acts of evil men.


"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning".

So there may be circumstances when a character might have a moral obligation to act, and "doing nothing" might qualify as "doing an evil act".

It says its far more evil, but it doesn't actually say it really is evil. It means that it is not good.

Not good does not mean it is evil. It means its not good.

Xiander
2011-02-08, 12:57 PM
It says its far more evil, but it doesn't actually say it really is evil. It means that it is not good.

Not good does not mean it is evil. It means its not good.

I would think that followed naturally from the structure of the sentence.

Really though, no one here is arguing that you have to stop every evil act in your general vicinity in order to avoid becoming evil. What people are saying is that there is such a thing as doing to little and that it can result in an evil stain on your alignment.

There has been a lot of good examples thrown around on these forums, to show how situations where not acting is evil can exist. Typically not acting is indeed neutral, i will agree with that, but in very extreme situations it could be evil. If one word out of your mouth could prevent a general from sending his men into an ambush, and thus save many lives and perhaps alter the outcome of a war between good and evil forces, then how is not acting neutral?

Less extreme situations give more room for personal interpretations. Giving a man a shove might save him from being trampled by a mad bull at no particular expense on your part, but is it evil not to shove him out of the way? I would say it depends on your motivation.
Are you making sure to get out of the bulls path yourself and thinking the other man can do the same? Then it is probably neutral.
But if you are thinking that it does not matter whether or not the man gets gored by the bull, or even worse if you are hoping he will be, then your act is evil.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 01:13 PM
I would think that followed naturally from the structure of the sentence.

Really though, no one here is arguing that you have to stop every evil act in your general vicinity in order to avoid becoming evil. What people are saying is that there is such a thing as doing to little and that it can result in an evil stain on your alignment.

There has been a lot of good examples thrown around on these forums, to show how situations where not acting is evil can exist. Typically not acting is indeed neutral, i will agree with that, but in very extreme situations it could be evil. If one word out of your mouth could prevent a general from sending his men into an ambush, and thus save many lives and perhaps alter the outcome of a war between good and evil forces, then how is not acting neutral?


How is it acting neutral? You just altered the war of good and evil.



Less extreme situations give more room for personal interpretations. Giving a man a shove might save him from being trampled by a mad bull at no particular expense on your part, but is it evil not to shove him out of the way? I would say it depends on your motivation.
Are you making sure to get out of the bulls path yourself and thinking the other man can do the same? Then it is probably neutral.
But if you are thinking that it does not matter whether or not the man gets gored by the bull, or even worse if you are hoping he will be, then your act is evil.

The act is not evil unless you wanted the man to get gored. Note that the mad bull isn't evil, even though he is the one goring the man. the bull is N.

If the man lives or dies, it is because destiny determined so. The fates have not spun me to action in order to save the man or to kill the man. I am still N.

Xiander
2011-02-08, 01:33 PM
How is it acting neutral? You just altered the war of good and evil.

Acting is not supposed to be neutral, the intention is to create a thought scenario where there is no neutral act and not acting is evil.




The act is not evil unless you wanted the man to get gored. Note that the mad bull isn't evil, even though he is the one goring the man. the bull is N.

If the man lives or dies, it is because destiny determined so. The fates have not spun me to action in order to save the man or to kill the man. I am still N.

Well i get that you think it can only be evil if you intend the man to be injured, my point is that an argument can be made for standing by being an evil act.

There are two more things i take from your comments.

The first is that an agent can do an evil act, without itself being or becoming evil. The bull is by the rules neutral but very angry, and will most likely retain its alignment once the situation is over with.

The second thing is that you seem to be arguing that you are neutral because fate decides what you do... which would either mean that all mortals are neutral as they are all ruled by faith, no matter what they do, or that you are not fit to be the actor in the example as you are the only mortal completely without a will of your own.

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 02:31 PM
It says its far more evil, but it doesn't actually say it really is evil. It means that it is not good.

Not good does not mean it is evil. It means its not good.

Using that reasoning, it would be "Neutral behaviour is far more evil than Good behaviour"

which really isn't a very good way of putting it.

"Far more evil than" really shouldn't be used for Neutral acts.

It's like saying "I brushed my teeth- this was a far more evil act than giving money to charity"

Which sounds silly.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-08, 03:23 PM
Using that reasoning, it would be "Neutral behaviour is far more evil than Good behaviour"

which really isn't a very good way of putting it.

"Far more evil than" really shouldn't be used for Neutral acts.

It's like saying "I brushed my teeth- this was a far more evil act than giving money to charity"

Which sounds silly.

But neutral is more evil than good. Or at least less good.
Evil is sometimes loosely selfishness.
And brushing your teeth is more selfish than giving to charity.

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 03:31 PM
But neutral is more evil than good. Or at least less good.
Evil is sometimes loosely selfishness.

Neutral acts don't really have an alignment.

A paladin does not become "less good" simply because they start brushing their teeth. Even if the motive for brushing one's teeth is selfish.

When describing X act as "far more evil" than Y act, this usually implies that the act is in fact Evil, and not "unaligned".

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 03:47 PM
Acting is not supposed to be neutral, the intention is to create a thought scenario where there is no neutral act and not acting is evil.


No, not acting is still not evil, unless you are specifically intending for the group to be slaughtered and so long as you are a 3rd party person.

If there is two groups about to fight, and you are a reporter and happen to notice that one group is getting ready to go into an ambush, you are a third party person not directly involved in the conflict.

If you were the commander or recon for the about to be ambushed army, then yes it would be a hellava lot less neutral. Alignment then depends if you are the good guys or the bad guys, but mostly will likely be an evil act.




Well i get that you think it can only be evil if you intend the man to be injured, my point is that an argument can be made for standing by being an evil act.

There are two more things i take from your comments.

The first is that an agent can do an evil act, without itself being or becoming evil. The bull is by the rules neutral but very angry, and will most likely retain its alignment once the situation is over with.

The second thing is that you seem to be arguing that you are neutral because fate decides what you do... which would either mean that all mortals are neutral as they are all ruled by faith, no matter what they do, or that you are not fit to be the actor in the example as you are the only mortal completely without a will of your own.

Yes, nearly every mortal is Neutral. For them to be less neutral or even approach the edges of alignment they have to have heavy beliefs and/or actions.

If you relish in structure, you are going to be more lawful.
If you relish in freedom, you are going to be more chaotic
If you relish in helping the common man, you are going to be more good
If you relish in hurting the common man, you are more evil.

Getting to the corners, LG, CG, LE, and CE require even more dedication and focus.

Shademan
2011-02-08, 03:47 PM
In one of the later books(BoVD? I'm not sure) it's mentioned that not doing anything to help when you could is evil. Besides, indirectly killing someone is still killing someone, at least in this case.

so the source material is contradicting itself.
next question: which one is more cannon? PhB or BoVD?

also, consider this: the D&D cosmos does not care what level you are. your actions are just as good/evil regardless.
so a 18th level evil cleric kicking a puppy does an act just as evil as a lv2 evil cleric kicking a puppy.
Now, when the grim warlord UBERDEATH the nasty comes into your village with his army of rabid rhino buggers and kills the mayor in front of all the scared villagers, are they commiting an evil act for not trying to stop it?

Xiander
2011-02-08, 03:56 PM
No, not acting is still not evil, unless you are specifically intending for the group to be slaughtered and so long as you are a 3rd party person.

If there is two groups about to fight, and you are a reporter and happen to notice that one group is getting ready to go into an ambush, you are a third party person not directly involved in the conflict.

If you were the commander or recon for the about to be ambushed army, then yes it would be a hellava lot less neutral. Alignment then depends if you are the good guys or the bad guys, but mostly will likely be an evil act.

So you do admit that not acting can be evil?

Good.

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:03 PM
Yes, nearly every mortal is Neutral. For them to be less neutral or even approach the edges of alignment they have to have heavy beliefs and/or actions.

If you relish in structure, you are going to be more lawful.
If you relish in freedom, you are going to be more chaotic
If you relish in helping the common man, you are going to be more good
If you relish in hurting the common man, you are more evil.

This might fit for "beliefs" but actions may matter more.

Not all Evil acts involve "hurting the common man" (or "relish" for that matter).


so the source material is contradicting itself.
next question: which one is more cannon? PhB or BoVD?


Does the PHB explicitly state: Choosing not to act, is never an "aligned decision"?

If not, then "Sometimes inaction can be an evil act in itself" is not strictly contradicted by the PHB.

As to "canon" different people have different interpretations. For some, all books other than the PHB, DMG, and MM are "irrelavent" for debates on whether an act can qualify as Evil, Good, or what.
For others, these books help to expand on what the PHB says, and help to answer questions the PHB doesn't.

Generally, new books tend to trump old books when there is a contradiction. Everything the 3.5 PHB says is copied from the 3.0 PHB, so arguably the BOVD is "newer" material.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 04:08 PM
I meant, so long as you are NOT a third party person.

And no, still not acting doesn't exactly mean that you are in fact committing evil even if you are a 1st party person. Some of it does depends on the what your army is.

As I said if you were the Recon for an army, and you didn't report all your information, this is not inherently an act of evil.

The army might actually be the bad-guys and you are leading a group to get killed by the good guys. Is this still an act of evil? It certainly isn't a LG act..

Shademan
2011-02-08, 04:12 PM
This might fit for "beliefs" but actions may matter more.

Not all Evil acts involve "hurting the common man" (or "relish" for that matter).




Does the PHB explicitly state: Choosing not to act, is never an "aligned decision"?

If not, then "Sometimes inaction can be an evil act in itself" is not strictly contradicted by the PHB.

As to "canon" different people have different interpretations. For some, all books other than the PHB, DMG, and MM are "irrelavent" for debates on whether an act can qualify as Evil, Good, or what.
For others, these books help to expand on what the PHB says, and help to answer questions the PHB doesn't.

Generally, new books tend to trump old books when there is a contradiction. Everything the 3.5 PHB says is copied from the 3.0 PHB, so arguably the BOVD is "newer" material.

true, it is newer. but as previously stated, it is a book dealing with black/white morality.

Again, I will use the rabid rhino buggers as an example.
They slay the mayor of the village while the peasants watch. The cosmos judges by action, not motivation, and as such the rabid rhino buggers get yet another evil mark on their soul. The people in the crowd do not take action and recieve neither good nor evil, but in the crowd there is two paladins, both unaware of each other. One is allready making his way trough the crowd, intent on killing as many of the rabid rhino buggers as he can, trying to save innoccents, now he didnt stop the buggers in time to kill the mayor, yet he remains good, and his following attack on them is a good action. the other paladin is, however, low level and wounded, he decides to fight another day and leaves, earning himself a neutral mark (and making pelor sad).

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:12 PM
"Not acting" might be an act of good, in some circumstances. If, by doing so, the character is effectively choosing to be martyred to save people.

The point to be made, is that "not acting" is not automatically Neutral- there are in fact circumstances when it might be Evil or Good.

When someone has a "duty to act" so to speak, inaction might qualify as Evil.
And when inaction is in fact self-sacrificing, and saving of others, it might qualify as Good.


true, it is newer. but as previously stated, it is a book dealing with black/white morality.

It does mention "grey areas" though- as well as acts that are "not an evil act, though certainly not a good act" (in this case, slaying an Always Evil monster primarily for profit).

It mentions that some of the traditionally Evil acts are "not always Evil, but very risky" such as lying.

So- while some of it is black and white, it does allow for grey.

Shademan
2011-02-08, 04:15 PM
"Not acting" might be an act of good, in some circumstances. If, by doing so, the character is effectively choosing to be martyred to save people.

The point to be made, is that "not acting" is not automatically Neutral- there are in fact circumstances when it might be Evil or Good.

When someone has a "duty to act" so to speak, inaction might qualify as Evil.
And when inaction is in fact self-sacrificing, and saving of others, it might qualify as Good.



It does mention "grey areas" though- as well as acts that are "not an evil act, though certainly not a good act" (in this case, slaying an Always Evil monster primarily for profit).

It mentions that some of the traditionally Evil acts are "not always Evil, but very risky" such as lying.

So- while some of it is black and white, it does allow for grey.

when does one have a "duty" to act?
who decides this?

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:20 PM
The DM, probably.

When lives are in immediate danger, and a character is aware of this, and chooses not to attempt to save those lives, and they have the capacity to do so,

then it might be a case of "need to provide a convincing reason to the DM, to avoid the inaction being classified as evil".

Even in the real world, some jurisdictions take the view that sometimes a person has an obligation to act, and failure to act might make them criminally liable.

So, it makes sense that a character's inaction might make them "morally liable" so to speak, in D&D.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 04:20 PM
This might fit for "beliefs" but actions may matter more.

Not all Evil acts involve "hurting the common man" (or "relish" for that matter).


Give me an example of an actual evil act that doesn't involve hurting the common man.

The term relish is a bit figurative.
A character who is a town guard is going to be most likely LN even if he doesn't really like his job being so "structured."

TN has the largest amount of people that would be considered this. They exist, the move through life and then die. They are unintresting, and are actually much harder to party with due to and often lack of drive.

LN and CN have the second largest amounts of people. There is now a drive here, either to uphold law or structure or to seek freedom or self benefit.

NG and NE have the third largest group of people. Being either requires slightly more work than LN or CN, though often not enough to really be noticeable.

The four corners have the least amount of people due to a much harsher regiment that these people would have to follow to maintain these alignments. This is why Paladins are in these corners.




Does the PHB explicitly state: Choosing not to act, is never an "aligned decision"?

If not, then "Sometimes inaction can be an evil act in itself" is not strictly contradicted by the PHB.

As to "canon" different people have different interpretations. For some, all books other than the PHB, DMG, and MM are "irrelavent" for debates on whether an act can qualify as Evil, Good, or what.
For others, these books help to expand on what the PHB says, and help to answer questions the PHB doesn't.

Generally, new books tend to trump old books when there is a contradiction. Everything the 3.5 PHB says is copied from the 3.0 PHB, so arguably the BOVD is "newer" material.

Again, the BOVD states much of this viewing the world as black and white, in order to pair off against BOED.

The "shades of grey" is a blurb. For the most part is just asks "Is this really evil or is this good.. Can you even really decide?"

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:22 PM
Give me an example of an actual evil act that doesn't involve hurting the common man.


Torturing a particularly vile criminal to death for personal pleasure.

It's not "hurting the common man" or "hurting the innocent" yet, both BoED and Fiendish Codex 2 state that torture is an evil act.

Shademan
2011-02-08, 04:25 PM
but when you bring in "in his power to do so" then someone or something must take assessements of their powers and deicde wether they were strong enough to maybe stop the evil, and even then, that is not true good.
true good tries to stop evil regardless of their own chances of survival.

Shademan
2011-02-08, 04:26 PM
Torturing a particularly vile criminal to death for personal pleasure.

It's not "hurting the common man" or "hurting the innocent" yet, both BoED and Fiendish Codex 2 state that torture is an evil act.

causing needless pain and suffering is indeed evil. the man should just be humanely executed.
...er....as humanely as a sword to the neck is, anyways.

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:30 PM
causing needless pain and suffering is indeed evil. the man should just be humanely executed.
...er....as humanely as a sword to the neck is, anyways.

Yup- BoED states that "execution for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil"- so, under at least some circumstances, an Exalted character can carry out an execution and retain all their abilities.

It's when an execution can fairly be called "Death By Torture" that it might qualify as evil.

Also, since BoVD and FC2 both call out Murder as evil- a strongly Good character may have to be careful about how they kill enemies, lest it qualify as Murder by the DM's definition.


but when you bring in "in his power to do so" then someone or something must take assessements of their powers and deicde wether they were strong enough to maybe stop the evil, and even then, that is not true good.
true good tries to stop evil regardless of their own chances of survival.

A truly good character might- but saving innocent lives may qualify as a Good act anyway- so a Neutral character who saves lives whenever doing so does not put him in danger (such as a doctor) could be committing Good acts even if he's not the sort of person who is fully Good.

The point being made is to do with "when is inaction Evil" rather than "when is action Good".

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 04:34 PM
Torturing a particularly vile criminal to death for personal pleasure.

It's not "hurting the common man" or "hurting the innocent" yet, both BoED and Fiendish Codex 2 state that torture is an evil act.

You take this a bit too literally when i say something, I'm not writing RAW..

Next you would say that if you kill the last unicorn, while committing evil, you are not harming the common man, for unicorns are neither man nor is the last one "common"


(Inaction is evil)

Inaction becomes evil when you are in a position where you are suppose to be good or saving lives and instead of saving them you do nothing.

For the N character however this does not me than a sudden extraordinary situation is presented, such as the bull running over someone or someone attempting to poison the well, and the N character is third party...

These sorts of things do not qualify for him as evil acts. Now not doing anything to stop either so you can loot the village or the dead man, would end up becoming a more evil, if not actually evil, act.

But not even realizing the well is being poisoned, or being unable to save the man from the bull, and then looting wouldn't be evil.

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:40 PM
The point I was trying to make, was that not all Evil acts involve "harming innocent people/beings".

It is possible to commit Evil acts against "not-innocent" beings- ones that are strongly Evil- perhaps evil enough to deserve execution.

And a person who makes a career out of this kind of Evil act, might qualify as Evil-aligned.

Even if they are compassionate, kind, and altruistic toward the "common being" (any being that hasn't done acts that trigger their wrath) the character's excessive cruelty toward "the deserving" could be enough for a valid Evil alignment.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 04:46 PM
The point I was making however was that Evil enjoys harming others.

Doesn't mean he does it all the time, doesn't mean he always likes it. But in the end he still causes harm purposefully for the sake of causing harm.

Callista
2011-02-08, 04:46 PM
Oh, definitely. I think that kind of a character might even fit into a good-aligned party. The "I punish evildoers" where "punish" is extreme and "evildoers" is overly broad... could actually work. But there will inevitably be conflict between that character and Good-aligned party members whose primary goal is to protect the innocent rather than punish the guilty.

Shademan
2011-02-08, 04:49 PM
Oh, definitely. I think that kind of a character might even fit into a good-aligned party. The "I punish evildoers" where "punish" is extreme and "evildoers" is overly broad... could actually work. But there will inevitably be conflict between that character and Good-aligned party members whose primary goal is to protect the innocent rather than punish the guilty.

but he is very likely to be lawful neutral at best
because of his balance of good (protect the innocent)
and evil (torture evildoers)
"I AM THE LAW!"

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:51 PM
The point I was making however was that Evil enjoys harming others.

Even the PHB doesn't actually make this a requirement- it says some evil characters simply lack compassion, others actively enjoy harming others.

A character who harms for reasons other than "for the sake of causing harm" might still qualify as Evil, depending on how evil their acts are.

Some might do so "For the Greater Good" but actually hate doing so- but that "dislike of harming others" may not be enough to move them into Neutral.

Ozymandias in Watchmen, might qualify as this depending on the DM.


but he is very likely to be lawful neutral at best
because of his balance of good (protect the innocent)
and evil (torture evildoers)
"I AM THE LAW!"


I was thinking more Dexter from Darkly Dreaming Dexter- only a slightly more altruistic version.

Champions of Ruin suggests "repeatedly doing Evil acts is a sign of Evil alignment"
Heroes of Horror suggests that a "flexible Neutral" character can sometimes "balance evil deeds with good intentions and remain Neutral".

So it can be up to the DM whether the character is "Evil, but does Good deeds a lot" or whether they're "a flexible Neutral".

There's a lot of ways in which an Evil character can be.
Some enjoy Evil acts.
Some hate Evil acts, but do them anyway for a perceived "greater good".
Some might neither enjoy nor hate their own acts- being sociopathic, but not sadistic.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 04:55 PM
Ozy still seeked out causing harm into the most effective way to create fear in order to make the masses obey him.

Shademan
2011-02-08, 04:55 PM
Even the PHB doesn't actually make this a requirement- it says some evil characters simply lack compassion, others actively enjoy harming others.

A character who harms for reasons other than "for the sake of causing harm" might still qualify as Evil, depending on how evil their acts are.

Some might do so "For the Greater Good" but actually hate doing so- but that "dislike of harming others" may not be enough to move them into Neutral.

Ozymandias in Watchmen, might qualify as this depending on the DM.




I was thinking more Dexter from Darkly Dreaming Dexter- only a slightly more altruistic version.

Champions of Ruin suggests "repeatedly doing Evil acts is a sign of Evil alignment"
Heroes of Horror suggests that a "flexible Neutral" character can sometimes "balance evil deeds with good intentions and remain Neutral".

So it can be up to the DM whether the character is "Evil, but does Good deeds a lot" or whether they're "a flexible Neutral".

a persons dislike for the action doesnt matter. as long as he is still casuing suffering out of his own free will he is still evil

hamishspence
2011-02-08, 04:59 PM
"Causing unnecessary, excessive suffering" is one of those things that might be a but subjective depending on the DM and the player.

It might be, that the character, in-universe, believes their acts are necessary, but the DM and the player are both agreed that the acts are unnecessary and excessive.

They don't have to be "harm for the sake of causing harm" though- in fact I'd say most Evil characters are more nuanced than that.


a persons dislike for the action doesnt matter. as long as he is still casuing suffering out of his own free will he is still evil

Or- at the very least, committing Evil acts, and in immediate danger of an alignment shift.

My view is that, to qualify as "a flexible Neutral" a character's evil acts need to be mostly pretty minor, and always done with Good intentions.

A Heroes of Horror dread necromancer, who only ever rebukes Undead or casts evil spells, in order to protect others, especially innocents, would be a perfect example- but there can be others.

It's when the evil acts are stronger, and the intentions less Good- personal gratification rather than a desire to protect people- that an Evil alignment may become more appropriate- even if the character has other Neutral or Good traits.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 07:38 PM
Yep, just like my DM was saying. You basically view the world as Good and Neutral vs Evil. Instead of Good vs Evil, while neutral kinda stands by the side.

http://fringepedia.net/wiki/The_Observer

Course they are the most extreme example of TN

Coidzor
2011-02-08, 07:47 PM
Inaction becomes evil when you are in a position where you are suppose to be good or saving lives and instead of saving them you do nothing.

Nope. That's not how D&D morality works. An act is of whatever alignment it is, regardless of the alignment of the person doing it.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 08:08 PM
You highlighted and bolded

"Inaction"

Inaction as in the opposite of actions, which actions are defined by the persons intentions more than the action itself.

This is the inaction of the character, which the DM is trying to force a character to do something that he normally wouldn't do based on the alignment of the character *not* being evil.

Xiander
2011-02-08, 08:49 PM
You highlighted and bolded

"Inaction"

Inaction as in the opposite of actions, which actions are defined by the persons intentions more than the action itself.

This is the inaction of the character, which the DM is trying to force a character to do something that he normally wouldn't do based on the alignment of the character *not* being evil.

At some point some years ago in my ethics class i came across the statement: "Not to act is an action." The point being that people are also responsible for the things they decide not to do.

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 08:59 PM
At some point some years ago in my ethics class i came across the statement: "Not to act is an action." The point being that people are also responsible for the things they decide not to do.

So your ethics class looked at the world through the eyes of "DnD"?

I seriously doubt it. I mean the DM compelling the player's character to do something even due to the alignment of the character.

Shademan
2011-02-08, 09:43 PM
At some point some years ago in my ethics class i came across the statement: "Not to act is an action." The point being that people are also responsible for the things they decide not to do.

which is kinda true in our world (but can be debated all over the place)
but in D&D where ACTION makes alignment innaction simply cannot register as good or evil. it's illogical

Coidzor
2011-02-08, 09:56 PM
So your ethics class looked at the world through the eyes of "DnD"?

No, but the idea having real-world precedent and being brought up in the rules would suggest that you're wrong and that inaction does count towards alignment in certain cases.


I seriously doubt it. I mean the DM compelling the player's character to do something even due to the alignment of the character.

Right. I got that, and imagine others did as well, and don't want to discuss it because it's a tangent on railroading rather than being pertinent to the topic at hand. Regardless of the situation at the table, action x given situation y is evil regardless of actors. Simply being neutral or evil rather than good does not change the situation meaningfully in and of itself as it reflects alignment.


which is kinda true in our world (but can be debated all over the place)
but in D&D where ACTION makes alignment innaction simply cannot register as good or evil. it's illogical

How, exactly? Choosing not to choose as a decision has been brought up in so many places in media and popular culture that you can't have not already run into the idea, so it can't be that the concept is unfamiliar to you (and you said you know it exists as a concept IRL).

Triskavanski
2011-02-08, 10:08 PM
No Action X isn't evil regardless of the actors. The Actors are the most important part of the action.

The act of killing someone when devoid of motive, rhyme and reason is viewed as evil.

The act of not killing someone when devoid of actors is not evil.

The act of saving someone when devoid of actors is good.


But now the act of someone who is evil aligned saving someone is this good? Yes you would say.

Cept he is saving the person so he can use them later. Is this evil? probably.
A good person doing the same thing, now is it evil? Probably not.

by the standards of removing the actors from the action, and removing thier motives and even alignments, then every single thing in the world is constantly committing an evil act.

...

What Shademan seems to be saying is that in game you are calling the inaction an action, and therefor always evil if it results in the death is illogical.

for example.. http://www.cfsoaz.org/cfsa/

Now if you don't donate, you are committing evil.

MightyPirate
2011-02-09, 12:41 AM
causing needless pain and suffering is indeed evil. the man should just be humanely executed.
...er....as humanely as a sword to the neck is, anyways.

Mal: "If anyone gets nosy, just . . . you know . . . shoot 'em."
Zoey: "Shoot 'em, sir?"
Mal: "Politely."



What Shademan seems to be saying is that in game you are calling the inaction an action, and therefor always evil if it results in the death is illogical.

for example.. http://www.cfsoaz.org/cfsa/

Now if you don't donate, you are committing evil.


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.
Inaction when presented with a decision to do a good deed or not is only evil if doing said good deed will not harm or inconvenience the deed doer in any way. A good character will do it without regard to any personal sacrifices. An evil character will only do it if there's something in it for them.


As for enjoying causing pain in others, I'm actually going be playing an evil character who really doesn't care one way or another about hurting people. She just does it whenever it's convenient for her with no real restrictions other than what's in her best interest.

Triskavanski
2011-02-09, 01:03 AM
So then, Inaction when presented with a decision to do a evil deed or not is only good if doing said evil deed will not harm or inconvenience the deed doer in any way.

Since this is Good vs Evil, what is true for one the reverse must also be true to the other.

MightyPirate
2011-02-09, 01:20 AM
So then, Inaction when presented with a decision to do a evil deed or not is only good if doing said evil deed will not harm or inconvenience the deed doer in any way.

Since this is Good vs Evil, what is true for one the reverse must also be true to the other.

I wouldn't say the not doing an evil deed makes you good. However not doing an evil deed when there is the risk of personal harm or sacrifice is something that would be more common a decision for a good character than it would be for a neutral character. So in a silly sort of way, what you say about the opposite holding true is pretty accurate.

I find the best way to approach this sort of moral decision making is from the POV of a neutral character. Unless there are extraneous circumstances it is often easier for a good or evil character to decide what to do in a moral decision. A neutral character will consider the situation in a sort of economical or reasonable manner (probably) where an evil or good character will just act on their beliefs.

Generally the more you favor the well being of others, especially over your own well being, the more good it is. The opposite is true of evil. The more you favor your own well being, even if it is at another's expense, the more evil it is.

Xiander
2011-02-09, 05:58 AM
now the act of someone who is evil aligned saving someone is this good? Yes you would say.
.

yes.


Cept he is saving the person so he can use them later. Is this evil? probably.

The act of saving a life will still be good, no matter what evil acts you plan to commit later. except in extreme situations, like healing a torture victim so you can torture him some more.


A good person doing the same thing, now is it evil? Probably not.


I agree.


by the standards of removing the actors from the action, and removing thier motives and even alignments, then every single thing in the world is constantly committing an evil act.

Personally i do not want to remove the actors from the equations, their motivations are important, and the context even more so. There alignments however i don't care about. Alignments are a function of actions not vice versa.


Now if you don't donate, you are committing evil.

No. No one is arguing that failing to take the most good action is evil. We are arguing that there can be a situation where not acting is the evil thing to do.

A further note: One evil act does not make you an evil person. No matter where on the alignment scale you stand.

hamishspence
2011-02-09, 06:06 AM
Inaction when presented with a decision to do a good deed or not is only evil if doing said good deed will not harm or inconvenience the deed doer in any way. A good character will do it without regard to any personal sacrifices. An evil character will only do it if there's something in it for them.

This may depend on the evil character in question. A character who is both altruistic and cruel, might help strangers even when there's nothing in it for them, and even when there's personal risk.

Their cruelty, might outweigh their altruism, enough to make them Evil rather than Neutral.

Triskavanski
2011-02-09, 11:06 AM
Personally i do not want to remove the actors from the equations, their motivations are important, and the context even more so. There alignments however i don't care about. Alignments are a function of actions not vice versa.


Yes is is vice versa.

You don't just wake up one day and go "Gee, I think I want to be evil" and start kicking puppies as a LG character.

Something extreme has to happen in order for that to happen.

The same act, committed by people of different alignments can be differently aligned because the people of different alignments will tend to have completely different outlooks on preforming the action.

Xiander
2011-02-09, 01:14 PM
The same act, committed by people of different alignments can be differently aligned because the people of different alignments will tend to have completely different outlooks on preforming the action.
My own emphasis here.

I hold that the characters alignment stem from his actions and his world view. These actions and views have reasons behind them, and those reasons do have an effect on the final judgement.
The thing which i object to is saying that writing "good" on your character sheet makes it necessary to value your actions differently. No matter your alignment, some actions are evil while others are good. If you deny this, good people can get away with murdering large percentages of the worlds population, simply by referring to the fact that they are good, so their actions must be good.
Of course intention plays a large role as well. As you say, no one just spontaneously decides to be a murdering bigot (at least no normally functioning person). There are always reasons, some good and some bad, and they do influence the judgement. If they did not a person who decided to kill the first person he saw, and happened to bump into a disguised demon and then managing to kill it, would have done a good deed. Since random murder cannot be consolidated to the good side of the spectrum we have to deal with intentions and reasons.
However, "I am neutral" is not a reason. It is a meta-game excuse. A completely apathetic who cannot be pushed to action unless his pants are on fire might seem neutral, but if he stands by and watches while someone is drowning and he could easily throw them a rope and thus give them a fighting chance, we have to ask how does that not count as at least slightly evil?
I have a feeling that you will counter, that unless he wants the person to drown he cannot be evil, and thus not acting because he has no affiliation to the person must be seen as neutral. I disagree. If you can, without making any significant sacrifice, and without getting your hands the least bit dirty, save a life and you choose not to do so, that merits you evil points. Probably not enough to change your alignment. Not the first time at any rate. But a character who would always, under all possible circumstances refuse to help anyone he was not clearly affiliated with would have a hard time claiming neutrality in my book.

Note: I use extreme examples to make the points clear. The likelyhood of actually seeing such things in a game is low, but it is easier to discuss extreemes.

Second note: This is of course all filtered through a D&D morality system where good and evil exist. Real life ethics gets much more complicated.

Talya
2011-02-09, 01:22 PM
In traditional (pre-4e) D&D alignments, evil is a lot deeper than people take it to be. A character like "The Punisher" in Marvel Comics is absolutely chaotic evil. He's a vigilante that works outside the law and has almost no belief in any inherent value to human life.

A CE character is not nessarily difficult to work into a group. They are not necessarily unpredictable murderers who will gut anyone that crosses them. A CE character may even have the same goals as good characters, just a different means of accomplishing them.

Alignment conflicts can still arise, though. The good characters won't sit by while an evil character murders the neutral guards to the BBEG's castle to get to him. The Paladin can't even associate with the evil character. An evil character is not appropriate to every group. But not all evil types are moustache-twirling megalomaniacal psychotic killers.

Callista
2011-02-09, 01:22 PM
"Deciding not to act" counts as an action, for alignment purposes. Evil by inaction may not be as extreme, but it's still evil.

You can't weasel out of making moral choices by just deciding not to act. It just doesn't work that way.

The kind of thing I'm talking about--
Kitty Genovese murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese)
Kitty was stabbed in public, but multiple people decided not to act, and the police were not called for half an hour after the attack began.

The decision not to act can be a moral decision, just like zero represents nothing but is still a number, just like "Delay" is considered an action in combat...

While, yes, not acting in a way that results in someone's death is not quite the same thing as murder, it is not devoid of moral implications either. The man who killed Kitty Genovese performed a much more strongly evil act than the observers who didn't call the police; but (in the cases where they were aware that this was an assault) they did commit an evil act.

Someone who is Neutral may commit an evil act through inaction without it being out of character for them.

Grelna the Blue
2011-02-09, 01:40 PM
I have played my share of evil characters in nominally good campaigns. They all fit into one of two categories:

The kind who thinks that pursuing good ends justifies using evil means
Sociopaths after personal aggrandizement who still want societal approval


Both can work well when trying to work with groups of heroes. The first generally gets credit for having his/her heart in the right place (even though it may not be), and the second can be played sneakily enough that others never find out that they lack a conscience or guiding morality.

Other types of evil exist, but I don't see the appeal in playing them in nonevil campaigns, as they are disruptive to the enjoyment of the other players.

Triskavanski
2011-02-09, 01:48 PM
My own emphasis here.

I hold that the characters alignment stem from his actions and his world view. These actions and views have reasons behind them, and those reasons do have an effect on the final judgement.
The thing which i object to is saying that writing "good" on your character sheet makes it necessary to value your actions differently. No matter your alignment, some actions are evil while others are good. If you deny this, good people can get away with murdering large percentages of the worlds population, simply by referring to the fact that they are good, so their actions must be good.
Of course intention plays a large role as well. As you say, no one just spontaneously decides to be a murdering bigot (at least no normally functioning person). There are always reasons, some good and some bad, and they do influence the judgement. If they did not a person who decided to kill the first person he saw, and happened to bump into a disguised demon and then managing to kill it, would have done a good deed. Since random murder cannot be consolidated to the good side of the spectrum we have to deal with intentions and reasons.
However, "I am neutral" is not a reason. It is a meta-game excuse. A completely apathetic who cannot be pushed to action unless his pants are on fire might seem neutral, but if he stands by and watches while someone is drowning and he could easily throw them a rope and thus give them a fighting chance, we have to ask how does that not count as at least slightly evil?
I have a feeling that you will counter, that unless he wants the person to drown he cannot be evil, and thus not acting because he has no affiliation to the person must be seen as neutral. I disagree. If you can, without making any significant sacrifice, and without getting your hands the least bit dirty, save a life and you choose not to do so, that merits you evil points. Probably not enough to change your alignment. Not the first time at any rate. But a character who would always, under all possible circumstances refuse to help anyone he was not clearly affiliated with would have a hard time claiming neutrality in my book.

Note: I use extreme examples to make the points clear. The likelyhood of actually seeing such things in a game is low, but it is easier to discuss extreemes.

Second note: This is of course all filtered through a D&D morality system where good and evil exist. Real life ethics gets much more complicated.

Actually my counter to the first one..

You wrote good on the character sheet. But you go on a mass-murdering rampage.

Why did you go on the mass murdering rampage?
Who are are you mass murdering?

You once again devoided the argument of everything other than "He kills people and says he is good, but he is wrong because killing is wrong"

What if the population he is killing is evil, is he still committing evil? If we want to go into this sort of extreme of killing is wrong, and by killing spiders you become a spider yourself, then the party is evil.

Think about it. The "good" party heroically adventures across the world killing just about anything that comes across their way. If by going to the latent extreme of killing lots of people is evil, then the party is constantly committing evil actions.


The person is drowning and there is apparently a man with a rope sitting idly by. This is also devoid of everything beyond "Throwing a rope at the drowning man isn't a heavy sacrifice, so the rope man is doing evil by not"

The actors however are still pretty much nothing. Throwing the man the rope may not seem like much to you, but to the rope man it could easily mean his own life or death, it could mean something much worse.

The drowning man may be evil incarnate. Maybe the rope man is an "Observer". http://fringepedia.net/wiki/The_Observer

Either way, in the real world, the hand of god doesn't come down and bi*** slap the rope man, as it would in DnD.

Here is a story...


BENEFITS OF STRUGGLING

A man found a cocoon of a butterfly. One day a small opening appeared, he sat
and watched the butterfly for several hours as it struggled to force its body
through that little hole.

Then it seemed to stop making any progress. It appeared as if it had gotten as
far as it could and it could go no farther. Then the man decided to help the
butterfly, so he took a pair of scissors and snipped off the remaining bit of
the cocoon. The butterfly then emerged easily.

But it had a swollen body and small, shriveled wings. The man continued to
watch the butterfly because he expected that, at any moment, the wings would
enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time.

Neither happened!

In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a
swollen body and shriveled wings.

It never was able to fly.

What the man in his kindness and haste did not understand was that the
restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through
the tiny opening were God's way of forcing fluid from the body of the
butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved
its freedom from the cocoon.

Sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our life. If God allowed us
to go through our life without any obstacles, it would cripple us. We would
not be as strong as what we could have been.

And we could never fly.


In order for the inaction to be truely evil, everything has to align up to such an extreme case.

But here, Observe all of these people as they commit evil as you say it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoL44h91_QI

MightyPirate
2011-02-09, 01:56 PM
This may depend on the evil character in question. A character who is both altruistic and cruel, might help strangers even when there's nothing in it for them, and even when there's personal risk.

Their cruelty, might outweigh their altruism, enough to make them Evil rather than Neutral.


A CE character is not nessarily difficult to work into a group. They are not necessarily unpredictable murderers who will gut anyone that crosses them. A CE character may even have the same goals as good characters, just a different means of accomplishing them.

This is what I really like about the alignment system. For all its faults it still has room for versatility and interpretation. This leads to discussions like the ones in this thread and conscious thought about morality. I think that's what it's really supposed to do. It's not a rigid set of rules laying down what's good and what's evil but it's a place to start, just a moral prompt.

Even looking at the srd, it says:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
The implication of these implications is that you can have a good character with evil traits and an evil character with good traits. This flexibility allows for more developed characters. Arguably, a character cannot really be functional without aspects of both good and evil.

An all good character would be self sacrificing to the point of being ineffectual in most circumstances because they haven't got time to take care of their own needs, spending all of their resources for others.

An all evil character just lacks any kind of support. It's just a matter of no man being an island. Spend all his resources on himself without concern for others will result in the character getting crushed by his own "me against the world" mentality.

This might make it seem like playing a class like a paladin would be impossible but it isn't so. A paladin should have to make difficult decisions and live with the consequences, always questioning her own morality at every turn.

I'd say it's partially the GM's job to tap a pally player in the right direction, particularly if said player seems lost in a maze of moral contradictions. This take the form of a paladin taking time to pray and imploring her god for direction. Not only is it very flavorful, it's religiously realistic. If her god can bless her with powers to heal the innocent, banish evil, and inspire the faithful, then why not have the god manifest in the pally's mind's eye (if not physically) and give them their divine will.

Also: a pally without guilt and an urge to repent for any and all failings is like a caster without spells and a rogue without sneak attack. Walking the path of the righteous is not easy but what can one expect when walking in the footsteps of the gods?

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-09, 02:10 PM
On the subject of "saving a life is a good act"...

What if the person being saved is truly evil? Saving a "Freddy Kruger" type villian from being destroyed, knowing that said villian will then move to take revenge on those who tried to destroy him...

Yeah, that's not a "good act".

hamishspence
2011-02-09, 02:15 PM
Allowing the villain to do that,, after being saved, might fall into the "evil by inaction" class.

Motive may play a part. A person who saves a villain, at some risk to themselves, purely out of a desire to redeem that villain, might be doing a good act.

But if the villain's ally saves the villain, purely of of a desire to ensure that the villain survives to destroy all that person's enemies, that's not so good. Could be an Evil act.

Good has a great deal to do with "respect for life"- and when that's the motivation for saving a villain, doing so might qualify as Good rather than Neutral or Evil.

Callista
2011-02-09, 02:21 PM
On the subject of "saving a life is a good act"...

What if the person being saved is truly evil? Saving a "Freddy Kruger" type villian from being destroyed, knowing that said villian will then move to take revenge on those who tried to destroy him...

Yeah, that's not a "good act".Saving him without also preventing him from doing evil is not a good act.

The Cat Goddess
2011-02-09, 02:28 PM
My assertation is that it's not the "not preventing him from doing evil" that is the evil act.

It's saving him with the intention of allowing him to do more evil that is the evil act.

MightyPirate
2011-02-09, 02:29 PM
You once again devoided the argument of everything other than "He kills people and says he is good, but he is wrong because killing is wrong"
That depends on why you're killing. A good character will only kill if it's in the interest of protecting other life, and even then only if no other (feasible) option is present. A neutral character has compunction against killing the innocent.


Think about it. The "good" party heroically adventures across the world killing just about anything that comes across their way. If by going to the latent extreme of killing lots of people is evil, then the party is constantly committing evil actions.
They're only evil if they have no reason to be killing the creatures they come across. If it's purely a "kill->loot->?->profit" agenda then yes, that's pretty evil.


The drowning man may be evil incarnate. Maybe the rope man is an "Observer". http://fringepedia.net/wiki/The_Observer Deciding whether or not inaction in these cases requires more information, mostly in terms of motives. Does the rope man know the drowning man is evil incarnate? Is he letting him drown just to let him die or is it because he wants to spare others from the drowning man's evil? Why is the observer observing? Why is it so important that he not influence his environment? If it's in the interest of benefiting others this may be a case of non-evil inaction. However making others sacrifice to help people rather than self-sacrificing to do the same is probably neutral territory if not completely evil.



But here, Observe all of these people as they commit evil as you say it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoL44h91_QISorry, this is kind of a ridiculous example. It's pretty obvious that the bystanders don't believe the "hitman" is really trying to kill him. I can't blame them either, the acting of the victim and the hitman is totally unrealistic. Even if it weren't, stopping the hitman personally would involve probably more than a little personal sacrifice on the part of the bystanders. That'd make them neutral according to the srd.


People who are neutral . . . lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

If the "killing" were more believable I'd expect you'd see a lot more bystanders doing something non-self-sacrificing to help, like calling the police.

hamishspence
2011-02-09, 02:41 PM
What counts as a "personal sacrifice"?

Time? Money? Personal comfort? Personal risk?

If Good and Evil are defined fairly widely- so that Neutral, while more common than Good or Evil, is not the majority alignment,

as PHB seems to imply wiht "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral" yet humans being in the Neutral slot on the chart that shows the typical alignment for various races

then fairly small "personal sacrifices" might still be enough to make for a Good alignment in the absence of Evil acts. Good characters have to be self-sacrificing- but it doesn't necessarily have to be "big sacrifices".

And, going by Heroes of Horror, self-sacrificing, altruistic characters don't have to be Good, they can be Neutral, or possibly even in rare cases, Evil.

So "Neutral characters lack the commitment to make sacrifices to help others" is a generalization- it doesn't have to be Always True.

Xiander
2011-02-09, 03:02 PM
he person is drowning and there is apparently a man with a rope sitting idly by. This is also devoid of everything beyond "Throwing a rope at the drowning man isn't a heavy sacrifice, so the rope man is doing evil by not".

This was purposefully made to be so. Yes there could be a hundred different situations where throwing the man a rope would be against a characters best interest, or where it indeed would be evil to throw the rope.
I purposefully left out that kind of twist as my only purpose was to say that in a situation where there is no reason not to throw the rope a GM would be in his right to call standing idly by an evil action.

The youtupe link does nothing to make me alter this statement.

Loki Eremes
2011-02-09, 03:05 PM
What if the rope is EVIL an refuse to save the man or strangles him in the process? :xykon:

MightyPirate
2011-02-09, 03:06 PM
Time? Money? Personal comfort? Personal risk?

All of the above but then a neutral character might make personal sacrifices in exchange for personal gain. It's as I said before, it's a system of moral economics. Do I (or someone I care about) gain more from this action than I risk?




So "Neutral characters lack the commitment to make sacrifices to help others" is a generalization- it doesn't have to be Always True.

This is what I really like about the alignment system . . . It's not a rigid set of rules laying down what's good and what's evil but it's a place to start, just a moral prompt.
A neutral character can make personal sacrifices to help others but it's likely going to benefit them as well or at least be their "only logical choice". Contrast this with a "Stupid Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidGood)" character who will make personal sacrifices even when it doesn't really benefit anyone at all.

edit:
What if the rope is EVIL an refuse to save the man or strangles him in the process? :xykon: So . . . much . . . win. The best BBEGs are the ones no one sees coming. :smallbiggrin:

Xiander
2011-02-09, 03:23 PM
edit: So . . . much . . . win. The best BBEGs are the ones no one sees coming. :smallbiggrin:

No one ever expects evil rope, yet rope has so many reasons to begrudge humanity :smallwink: