Yet another question on alignment [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

King Atticus

2011-06-07, 10:35 PM

So I was having a discussion with a fellow player (who also happens to be one of my DM's) about plans for my CN character. To set this up let me tell you that we almost always play good aligned campaigns so when I get a chance to play CN I want to take full advantage of the opportunity. (Also the way I play CN isn't actually trying to be evil in a neutral clothing, I pretty much play a con-man/thief who is pretty much all about the money. It's more about trying to save my own skin and get the gold.)

Anyway, My thought was this...we have a VoP party member (I know, I know, wait for it). So my idea was to follow him around when we hit a town and see to whom he was donating his share of the loot. Then I wait for him to leave the scene and I reappropriate it. Now, I'm not trying to break WBL I would keep this in a separate total from my actual gold and use it solely for role playing purposes. I want to have my character set up a loan sharking organization with it. I realize getting two shares of the loot would quickly unbalance things and it's not what I'm out to do. I would never spend that money on items for my character.

He thinks it's an evil action because it would be stealing from the needy. He said if Robin Hood was good and he gave to the poor, since this is the opposite it must be an evil action. My question is this, does the identity of the victim of a crime decide whether or not it's an evil action or is it defined by the type of crime itself.

Playgrounders I defer to your expertise.

The Glyphstone

2011-06-07, 10:37 PM

I'd call that evil, yeah. Not on the 'kicking puppies and eating babies' level, but still evil. Stealing is chaotic - harming innocent people is evil. You're doing both, thus making stealing from the poor some degree of chaotic evil.

The plans to use it to fund a loan shark business definitely makes the whole thing evil, since those sorts of businesses center on taking advantage of desperate people and cheating/extorting them horribly.

Flame of Anor

2011-06-07, 10:38 PM

Ozymandias

2011-06-07, 10:41 PM

The plans to use it to fund a loan shark business definitely makes the whole thing evil, since those sorts of businesses center on taking advantage of desperate people and cheating/extorting them horribly.

You're just letting your unfounded presuppositions about loan sharking color your opinion. They need help too! (http://www.theonion.com/articles/momandpop-loan-sharks-being-driven-out-by-big-cred,312/)

Yeah, though, depending on the charity it's probably evil. If it's going for less obviously good things (like maintaining roads or whatever) it might just be neutral.

sonofzeal

2011-06-07, 10:49 PM

Definitely a total scumbag move. Your VoP friend would be within his rights to punch your character in the face if he ever found out. I'd say minorly evil - it won't tip your alignment in and of itself, but it would certainly put downward pressure on it.

King Atticus

2011-06-07, 10:53 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-07, 10:58 PM

What are you stealing from? If you're stealing from rich people and con artists, without giving to the poor, it's chaotic neutral, but it sounds like you're stealing from charity, which is evil no matter how you look at it.

NecroRick

2011-06-07, 11:00 PM

I read something interesting on the Law-Chaos axis of the alignment spectrum recently.

Basically they were equating chaos with personal freedom. So someone asserting their individual rights trump the rights of society is espousing a chaotic viewpoint.

Alternately, chaotic can be anti-law in the sense that lawful might say you have to follow the law even if sometimes there are edge conditions that don't work properly... whereas chaotic would say that each event has to be judged on its own merits (especially the edge cases), and laws that are badly fitted to a particular scenario shouldn't apply.

Example: stealing music online isn't _really_ stealing because nobody loses anything, which differs from stealing in the real world, which deprives the previous owner of the use of that item.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-07, 11:03 PM

King Atticus

2011-06-07, 11:21 PM

It's not up to you. It's not up to any of us. It's not up to your VoP friend. It's up to the DM. If he says it's evil, it's evil. If he says it's not evil, it's not evil.

Think about the possible results of this thread:

1) We don't come to an agreement on whether it's good or evil. Your situation changes in absolutely no way. Who do you turn to in order to resolve the problem? The DM.

2) We all say it's evil. Either you accept it and agree with your friend (and take the punishment for it) or you insist that it's not evil. If the latter, your situation changes in absolutely no way. Who do you turn to in order to resolve the problem? The DM.

3) We all say it's not evil. Your VoP friend won't heed the opinions of a bunch of strangers on the internet, so the conflict will still stand. Your situation changes in absolutely no way. Who do you turn to in order to resolve the problem? The DM.

4) The thread gets derailed. Your situation changes in absolutely no way. Who do you turn to in order to resolve the problem? The DM.

See?

Yeah I get it brutha, I'm actually interested in the opinions AND I realize it doesn't change gameplay. I'm not somebody that would fight a DM over something like this. I just like the view points that other people bring to the table.

Definitely a total scumbag move. Your VoP friend would be within his rights to punch your character in the face if he ever found out. I'd say minorly evil - it won't tip your alignment in and of itself, but it would certainly put downward pressure on it

Oh yeah, the degree of scumbaggedness was never in question. I know it would be shady. I want him to be a scumbag...just not an evil scumbag. This plan would never actually come off because my DM wouldn't like it, I'll just hold on to it for if he ever runs an evil campaign :smallbiggrin:

Shadowknight12

2011-06-07, 11:37 PM

Yeah I get it brutha, I'm actually interested in the opinions AND I realize it doesn't change gameplay. I'm not somebody that would fight a DM over something like this. I just like the view points that other people bring to the table.

Personal opinion: not evil. You are not causing direct suffering, misery, harm or injury to anyone. You are, however, causing indirect suffering. But then again, that can't be evil, or else not donating to charity would also be evil.

Caveat: I also think that cheating, lying, stealing, using poison and the like are not actually evil. Chaotic, perhaps, but not actually evil. In fact, there are a great deal many things I don't consider to be evil. If we're going to allow characters who break into other people's dwellings, slaughter everyone to the last infant, steal their valuables and then sell them to buy more equipment so that they can improve their murder skills, and we're not going to call THAT evil... it really stinks of hypocrisy to say "Ooo, she's using POISON to kill instead of magically conjured acid! She's EVIL!"

Godskook

2011-06-07, 11:40 PM

See, I'm going to disagree with the status quo and say that if you're only stealing your VoP friend's unused share, than it isn't an evil act by D&D standards. I'd say it is CN(evil), and as long as you're never overly confronted by the 'harm' you're doing, you're not at risk of alignment change. 'Course, that's just plot-fuel for your DM to make sure you're always confronted with the harm behind your actions.

*As an aside, the 'who' you're stealing from is not some random charity. Its your party mate who isn't 'technically' using his share. Just cause you're waiting for him to donate it doesn't change that fact. If you're grabbing 'extra' while you're in there, that's evil. Otherwise, you're really only refusing to respect a party member's decisions as concerns his share of the loot, which is more of a law/chaos kind of thing than a good/evil one.

Flame of Anor

2011-06-07, 11:51 PM

*As an aside, the 'who' you're stealing from is not some random charity. Its your party mate who isn't 'technically' using his share. Just cause you're waiting for him to donate it doesn't change that fact. If you're grabbing 'extra' while you're in there, that's evil. Otherwise, you're really only refusing to respect a party member's decisions as concerns his share of the loot, which is more of a law/chaos kind of thing than a good/evil one.

That's just sophistry. The PC is stealing from whoever the VoP is giving it to.

King Atticus

2011-06-08, 12:03 AM

That's just sophistry. The PC is stealing from whoever the VoP is giving it to.

OK, What if I just take it from his pack while he's sleeping BEFORE he can donate it. The charity still doesn't get it AND he doesn't need it or even care about it, apparently, if he's so ready to just give it away.

Godskook

2011-06-08, 12:06 AM

That's just sophistry. The PC is stealing from whoever the VoP is giving it to.

Instead of insulting my logic, could you actually argue against it please?

Honest Tiefling

2011-06-08, 01:09 AM

Breaking and entering a place that probably doesn't have a lot of money for repairs? Stealing money they (Depending on the charity?) might need for food, medicine and other necessities? Or purposefully stopping someone from using the money they risk their life for, and wish to go to a good cause for your own personal gain?

I'd say its...Sorta evil. I agree that it is indirect harm, but I think the degree of it can be rather high. And you and your friend probably risk pissing off the other players by doing it, especially if you guys agree on good campaign.

I think a better way to do CN is to try to instead encourage your friend to donate. His share, of course. And make sure it gets where it is supposed to! And stay there. By associating with this dude and being acknowledged as his ally/companion/friend, you might be able to get some reputation bonuses, for free! If you do the loans, you could perhaps donate a portion of the proceeds to the same charities as he. Again, reputation bonus, and he'll be more likely to help you find those who default on your loans. You should not be a loan shark, but a bank. Stick to the law as it is intended is a less profitable, but less risky venture.

Increase your gold payouts by adventuring. Get a reputation for getting the job done, and getting it done right. No collateral damage, no friendly fire, no innocents being slaughtered. If you can make sure people know your group is not a gang of murderous hobos, hopefully you'll not just get high paying jobs, but start to get jobs from higher ups. Surely, the loss of gold is worth it to hobnob with the nobles. Still, such quality work will not come cheaply. Take diplomacy ranks to show people that you are the best at what you do, and you pay for what you get.

This way, you are still out for yourself, and quite clearly so. However, it gives the DM a few hooks if your PC wants to meet some nobles and try to sway them to your benefit. It also reduces the evil/evil-ish side of things while still making a very greedy character.

Besides. Do you REALLY want to piss off a whole heap of adventurers? What if they all gang up on you?

squeekenator

2011-06-08, 01:22 AM

Absolutely evil, if I were the DM I'd instantly knock your alignment down unless you were completely saintly in every other respect. Stealing is not a chaotic act, chaos is about having the freedom to do what you want rather than what you're expected to do. Stealing from other people isn't motivated by a love for freedom, it's motivated by not giving a flying **** about anyone else and causing others to suffer in order to further your own personal agenda. Yes, alignment is contextual, and Robin Hood is probably good, but Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives it to the poor. You're an adventurer (so you're already filthy stinking rich) who steals from the poor and spends it on himself.

Flame of Anor

2011-06-08, 01:29 AM

Instead of insulting my logic, could you actually argue against it please?

The VoP PC had always intended to give the money to charity. He (or she) had effectively given up his claim to the money--doubly so, because of the VoP. He was simply carrying it around; it might as well already belong to the charity.

Gamer Girl

2011-06-08, 01:51 AM

To steal is almost always evil, you can't be good for long if you steal too much. But it does depend a bit on what you steal and from who you steal.

In your example it's a very evil move. The stealing is bad enough, but your actually stealing from a fellow companion and party member, just indirectly. Just think out of everything in the world you can steal, you steal his donations after he gives them. On Purpose. That's evil.

Godskook

2011-06-08, 01:54 AM

The VoP PC had always intended to give the money to charity. He (or she) had effectively given up his claim to the money--doubly so, because of the VoP. He was simply carrying it around; it might as well already belong to the charity.

1.Intention does not necessarily convey right to property in general, and specifically in this case, it explicitly does not. The VoP character in question is under no mechanical obligation to give his share to any particular charity, and is under no legal(but is under mechanical/religious) restraint against keeping the share for himself.

2.It is the very fact that he keeps his claim to his share that prevents the party from simply refusing to give him one. Without that claim, he cannot claim to have the right to then give it to a charity.

@OP, this particular case you bring up reminds me a *LOT* of Train Job from Firefly, and to maintain a non-evil alignment, I'd expect you to act quite similarly to the captain if you're ever confronted with those who're losing out from your theft.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-06-08, 02:09 AM

If I was your DM, I would suggest setting up a fake charity and advertise it to the VoP character. Same evil, less burglary.

If you want to make it less evil, how about giving yourself (1) an end goal more than just "I can has moneyburger," (2) a method better than "trick the farmer into giving you his farm," and (3, by DM approval) a situation where the VoP person would be wasting his money anyway, at least in your character's eyes.

(1) Maybe you want to buy your way onto an evil king's court and provide enough influence so that he reduces his taxes and pardons lesser offenders. Maybe a family member is stuck in a dungeon somewhere and you need bribe money, like a certain rogue we all know and love.

(2) Loansharking adventurers doesn't seem profitable, given the obscenely high default rate stemming from adventurer mobility and death rate, and loansharking farmers is pretty much out of the question for non-evil, but tricking rich LE barons into emptying their treasuries for you sounds pretty CG to me.

(3) What if the charities spent 99% of their money bribing/giving extortion money to officials so they could operate? In that case instead of a good person vs. a sociopath, we have an idealist versus a realist, at least in your character's POV. Of course, this path requires DM cooperation.

GoblinArchmage

2011-06-08, 02:10 AM

Bhaakon

2011-06-08, 02:15 AM

Just set up your own charity organization and appropriate a hefty cut of the donations as your management fee. You'd get your extra funds, and the orphans would probably still be getting more money than if he'd dropped it to some church poor box. If he needs convincing, make a stirring speech on the costs of the stained glass windows and fresco-ed ceilings that most churches' poor box money actually ends up funding. Maybe you could use the charity money to train orphans in a skill and use them as cheap labor in a sweat shop until they turn 18 (better than starving in a gutter, right?).

King Atticus

2011-06-08, 02:32 AM

Divide by Zero

2011-06-08, 09:05 AM

Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all completely subjective. Dividing "alignment" up into nine types extremely oversimplifies everything, in my opinion. There really isn't any objective answer as to whether anything is good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway. For your character, you and your GM, as Shadowknight said, will have to come to an agreement.

While I agree completely in terms of RL philosophy (not to mention how nebulously defined Law and Chaos are in the first place), in D&D those are objective forces, and every act necessarily falls under one of them.

Feytalist

2011-06-08, 09:26 AM

What is being debated here, as far as I see it, is not whether the act is "Good or Neutral", but whether it is "Neutral or Evil". There's no question that what is planned is Not Good, and seemingly no question that it's Chaotic, so we'll leave that as is.

Instead of bumping it directly into CN/CE, perhaps think of it more as a sliding scale. Sure, it's not good, but is it evil enough to be Evil? If the character were to knowingly and willingly keep committing these acts, for no other reason than to enrich himself and with obvious harm to others, then that should be enough to send him over the edge into Evil. If, however, the character occasionally lets the charities be or does something meaningful (loan sharking does not count) with the spoils, then perhaps that's good enough to be Neutral.

Alignments are not static.

Talya

2011-06-08, 09:41 AM

In general, stealing in D&D is not inherently evil, it's chaotic. Now, the target of your theft can make it evil. VOP characters tend to donate to charities, and I have to think stealing from a charity is evil. (Unless it's stealing from a wealthy church or something, then I'd relegate it to chaotic.)

However, that does not matter. A good person doesn't only do good deeds, and evil person doesn't only do evil deeds. An evil person can do good and still be evil, and likewise a good person can do something horrifically bad and still be, overall, good. You're chaotic neutral. You're a thief. You can get away with a little evil. Just balance it out with a reluctant conscience and the occasional selfless act.

Archwizard

2011-06-08, 09:53 AM

I think this whole discussion is missing an important consideration.

The thief's intent.

If he is stealing to enrich himself and his friends, I think that's much more on the neutral side of things. That others might get hurt (though really, those charities didn't have the money in the first place, so it' snot like they are worse off than they were before) is a very long term consideration (do something selfish for long enough and yeah, maybe you are just an evil jerk, but like someone above said, evil != Evil).

If he is stealing because he wants to keep the charities poor and prevent them from helping others, that's a much more Evil act.

So in the end, I think it's clearly Chaotic, and most likely Neutral, unless the act is clearly intended to spread misery.

Honest Tiefling

2011-06-08, 12:25 PM

Another question would be, why is he targeting the charities his partymate is donating to? Why not rich targets who won't be as put out if the money is gone?

Zale

2011-06-08, 12:42 PM

Steal a few jeweled necklaces that some rich duchess owns. Chances are, unless they're her "Favorites" she won't miss them for weeks. Moreover, stealing a few pieces of jewelry from her won't deprive her of much.

That would be Chaotic Neutral-ish.

Keeping a charity from getting money in that way strikes me as Chaotic with a slight Evil bend.

myancey

2011-06-08, 08:49 PM

When I say loan sharking let me clarify. I'm not talking breaking the church piano players fingers because she can't meet the payments. We (a differnt friend of mine and myself) came up with what amounts to a credit card. The MMMMMM card, (m's magical malidies made more managable) It's a high interest loan for the adventurer in need. So people that can handle themselves and know what they're getting into. But I can see your point.

M's Magical Maladies Made More Manageable Card--the magical D&D credit card that lets you purchase up to the next levels 'starting wealth by character level'...brought to you by your favorite unmentionable magician.

But pay it back or M's Faithful Brutes™ will come and mess your face up...or take your kidney. Their choice.

Slipperychicken

2011-06-08, 09:47 PM

I'm assuming that you're a sneaky-stabby type right? With ranks in social skills?

[Impressive Bluff Check, glibness'd if available] "Mr. VoP, my massive gather information/Sense Motive check revealed that one of the orphanages you donated to was actually a child slave-trafficking operation. My abilities, and experience in dealing with such individuals, can help you find more reputable organizations to distribute your loot more efficiently. And since I'm obviously better at this sort of thing, and more trustworthy, (I risked my life for you in battle, didn't I?) be sure to trust me with the cash so you don't get tricked like that again."

Now you hand big bags of money to the orphans and they all cheer. But those bags were full of the coppers/silvers which you exchanged some of the gold into at Ye Olde Banke (or possibly have gp on the top and coppers on the bottom, in case someone opens the bags while you're there). Keep ~90% of his loot, and everyone's happy, even the orphans.

Morally, it's not quite as bad, but isn't stealing for personal gain Neutral anyway?

Callista

2011-06-09, 02:33 AM

Yeah, it's evil. Not evil enough that a CN guy would never do it, but still evil. There's a difference between stealing from people who can afford to be stolen from, and stealing from charities where it may be equivalent to stealing food out of the mouths of kids or whatever those charities are doing with it. So your CN guy might find it somewhat distasteful, though his desire for money will most likely override any moral qualms he has about it.

What might make a difference, though, is that your guy still has friends--i.e., people he knows he can trust to watch his back. While stealing from a charity might not be something he'd avoid instinctively, stealing from a friend might be. Does he consider Mr. VoP a friend? Does he consider him trustworthy--i.e., say, you guys get ambushed by Generic Bandits; does he feel he can trust the VoP guy to watch his back and not run off when the fighting gets hard? If so, then most likely he will feel that stealing from him is something he'd rather not do if he doesn't have to--and in this case, he doesn't have to.

Remember, chaotic people are generally individual-person-oriented. They ignore or even try to tear down the social order. For the CG, that means they see everyone as a valuable person. For CE, that means they think of themselves as valuable at the expense of all other people, and probably enjoy personally inflicting suffering. CN is somewhere between that--they'll protect themselves and the people they have personal relationships with, like their family and their friends, and won't actively seek to cause suffering for people they don't know (but won't actively try to help them either).

Just ask yourself--Well, does my character value his relationship with this person? Would he rather steal from someone else? There are many targets more attractive to him than a charity. If he's the typical iconoclastic CN, he'll take a lot of satisfaction in finding the snootiest nobleman he can find and cleaning out his jewelry...

crazyhedgewizrd

2011-06-09, 02:40 AM

where is he donating the money to? the place can have the wealth of a small city already.

Mad Gene Vane

2011-06-09, 02:48 AM

I've always viewed chaotic neutral as the ultimate free spirit. They do what feels right to them, without trying to promote some predetermined sense of social justice (good aligned characters) or deliberately promote harm (evil aligned characters).

As others have said, what you are doing by robbing from charities is promoting harm. Even if you robbed your party-mate before donating to charity, it would still be harming your party-mate.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-09, 03:48 PM

Here's my view of alignment and stealing.

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor in Robin Hood style is chaotic good.

Stealing from the rich but keeping all the money you got for yourself is chaotic neutral.

Stealing from charity is any type of evil.

sonofzeal

2011-06-09, 04:44 PM

Stealing from charity is any type of evil.
I'd still say Chaotic. LE would get the contract for the land the charity sits on, and simply raise the rent. Not technically "stealing".

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-09, 04:47 PM

I'd still say Chaotic. LE would get the contract for the land the charity sits on, and simply raise the rent. Not technically "stealing".

Neutral evil or chaotic evil then. And that lawful evil thing is still stealing, it's just stealing approved by the law.

sonofzeal

2011-06-09, 05:11 PM

Neutral evil or chaotic evil then. And that lawful evil thing is still stealing, it's just stealing approved by the law.
Stealing - present participle of steal (Verb)
1. Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle"; "she was found guilty of stealing from her employers"; "stolen goods".

If it's approved by the law, it's not technically "stealing". Still Evil though.

BlueInc

2011-06-09, 05:40 PM

Evil. Two reasons:

1. Performing a harmful act with full knowledge of the consequences of your actions. If you didn't know the money was going to charity and stole it, you wouldn't be evil. If you just happened to see money sitting outside a building unguarded and took it, it would be chaotic, but not evil. This is why most adventurers are inherently chaotic: They'll take anything that's not tied down as long as they're in a "bad" place.

However, you KNOW the purpose of the money AND the problems it will cause (orphans go hungry, etc.).

2. Loansharking, which is one of the most lawfully evil acts out there. It's theft by contract, backed up by threat of violence.Check this out and then tell me high-interest loans aren't evil:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4179-credit-cards/

myancey

2011-06-09, 08:21 PM

Stealing - present participle of steal (Verb)
1. Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle"; "she was found guilty of stealing from her employers"; "stolen goods".

If it's approved by the law, it's not technically "stealing". Still Evil though.

How about:

Steal
–verb (used with object)
to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.

So..technically this is also stealing but has nothing to do with law..unless the city you're in deems it unlawful to steal someone's girlfriend.

Yay using definitions to try and prove a point.

I actually like this definition better:

–verb (used with object)
Baseball . (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.

This definition also has nothing to do with the criminal code of society.

2. Loansharking, which is one of the most lawfully evil acts out there. It's theft by contract, backed up by threat of violence.Check this out and then tell me high-interest loans aren't evil:

And yet in order to for there to be a contract, people have to enter into it willingly. It's their decision to not read the fine print. If you don't want your kneecap busted...make better decisions. Corporal punishment is legitimate.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-09, 08:34 PM

And yet in order to for there to be a contract, people have to enter into it willingly. It's their decision to not read the fine print. If you don't want your kneecap busted...make better decisions. Corporal punishment is legitimate.

The thing he linked was about an infinite cash loop for a credit card, something that a lot of Americans (very likely the majority) have.

myancey

2011-06-09, 09:18 PM

The thing he linked was about an infinite cash loop for a credit card, something that a lot of Americans (very likely the majority) have.

I guess I missed the part where the credit card company forced the 'victim' to sign up at knife point.

In terms of this thread, however, I believe the knife point thing would definitely constitute an evil action. But running a loan shark operation or 'infinite loop' credit card in of itself is not evil...just smart.

crazyhedgewizrd

2011-06-09, 11:22 PM

it could be a good act to steal from whoever he is donating to. the organization can be a front to a evil cult, bent on destruction of the world.

le Suisse

2011-06-09, 11:31 PM

The indentity of the victime doesnt change the alignement, only the consequence. the reason why do you do something affect the alignement

*You can kill somebody because you say so, and it's evil. You can kill somebidy because he's a danger for your life, and it's neutral. And you can kill somebody because he'sa danger for multiple life, and it's good.

*not in real life, only in game.

myancey

2011-06-10, 10:47 AM

The indentity of the victime doesnt change the alignement, only the consequence. the reason why do you do something affect the alignement

Still, stealing from an evil cult is not as bad as stealing from some charity organization. Stealing from an evil cult is something a whole range of alignments can do.

Take Conan, for example. He stole crazy stuffs from that evil snake cult James Earl Jones controlled. He and his buddies were definitely chaotic in nature...and maybe neutral...but the action in pillaging the snake cult's temple was certainly not evil. Just...whimsical.

Now, maybe the cult had a front operation where it helped children afford food. What then? It just depends on your view point. Some would say that taking the cult down is a priority because its possible they're helping these kids for nefarious reasons. Others would advocate for the cult's continued existence despite the fact that they occasionally commit evil...they're still accomplishing a greater good.

*You can kill somebody because you say so, and it's evil. You can kill somebidy because he's a danger for your life, and it's neutral. And you can kill somebody because he'sa danger for multiple life, and it's good.

*not in real life, only in game.

Killing is not as black and white as this. Wartime scenarios, along with many others, destroy this argument.

braxsus

2011-06-10, 12:47 PM

myancey

2011-06-10, 01:05 PM

To Knowingly perform any Act that will cause, either directly or indirectly, pain, hardship or misfortune etc. of others, is evil.

The motivation to perform the an Act will dictate the level of GOOD or EVIL
The DM desides on the severity of the motivation

EVIL
HATE, GREED, PRIDE, ENVY, LUST ETC.

GOOD
HUMILITY, KINDNESS, CHARITY, PATIENCE, DILIGENCE

That's a very idealistic mindset you're sporting. What would Robin Hood say? He certainly performed a number of actions that created 'hardship' and 'misfortune' for people. And yet despite this knowledge, history paints Robin Hood as a hero to the poor rather than an evil brigand. That's because in performing an action that you defined as 'evil', quite a bit of good came out of it. He defied a despot, willingly breaking the law and creating 'hardship' for some, and was made hero for it.

Also, I take issue with your definition of evil including pride. Pride in of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Now, I could possibly agree with you if you had instead used the term 'hubris'.

But there isn't anything wrong with "A feeling of pleasure from one's own achievements"--one of the many definitions offered by Dictionary.com.

Yup, bustin' chops.

Zale

2011-06-10, 01:37 PM

myancey

2011-06-10, 01:40 PM

People In-game alignment issues can not be resolved by actual out-of-game thoughts on morality. It gets annoying and everyone starts yelling at each other.

Wait, you shouldn't be informing the Playgrounders' of this. I'm busy bustin' chops.

gomanfox

2011-06-10, 03:04 PM

Really, I think to determine the place on the good-evil axis stealing falls, you really need to look at both intent and the victim (or at least the thief's perception of who the victim is).

If he is stealing to enrich himself and his friends, I think that's much more on the neutral side of things.

I think in general, using that reason to steal tips the action toward evil. Stealing to help your sick grandmother could be considered more "good." Stealing enough food to survive or feed your family is probably neutral. Stealing to help your adventuring companions who are capable of earning at least that much money on their own and are probably already wealthier than the majority of the people in the world (all those commoners and all), just seems more "evil" than neutral to me.

Although I think who you are stealing from matters more. If you're stealing from a rich noble who you've found out has acquired their wealth by running a slave market, stealing from them doesn't really seem evil, even if you're stealing for your own personal gain.

If you're stealing from a person so rich that they probably wouldn't think twice about the money they lost, then I think the good/evil of this action depends entirely on intent. Doing it for your own person gain would be at least a little evil, but probably still acceptable for a neutral (or even good) character to do occasionally without an alignment shift.

Stealing from a poor commoner who needs the money to feed his family, or a charity that you know is set up to help people in need, would be evil. It causes problems for, or prevents others from resolving problems of people in need of help.

TL;DR: Stealing your VoP party member's share that is going to (or has already been donated to, a charity, for your own personal gain, is an evil act. Whether you are doing it to make your character more powerful and break WBL or just use it for roleplaying purposes doesn't matter because from the character's perspective, it is for their own benefit either way.

myancey

2011-06-10, 04:45 PM

Really, I think to determine the place on the good-evil axis stealing falls, you really need to look at both intent and the victim (or at least the thief's perception of who the victim is).

I think in general, using that reason to steal tips the action toward evil. Stealing to help your sick grandmother could be considered more "good." Stealing enough food to survive or feed your family is probably neutral.

I'd say that the family thing is pretty similar to the grandma thing. Malnourishment goes hand in hand with sickly.

Stealing to help your adventuring companions who are capable of earning at least that much money on their own and are probably already wealthier than the majority of the people in the world (all those commoners and all), just seems more "evil" than neutral to me.

What if your adventuring companions can't fend for themselves normally because the DM allowed min-maxing and the party decided they would dump the Int stat? :smallbiggrin: One person would be intelligent, likely the guardian of the others. He'd need to feed them, care for them. Things like that. Kind of sounds like the 'feeding the family thing'..but you're taking more a root, consumerist approach by requisitioning the gold instead of food.

Plus, you have to consider that while a charity will probably spread the money around to poor folk, an adventurer investing the money in himself will more than likely create the greater good outcome.

Take, for example, a party of good aligned fellows who have a chaotic neutral character tagging along. The VoP character donates to charities, and the neutral character runs along and grabs the money back. These charities likely haven't even written the gold value down in their ledgers yet, and the even if they do take it, the VoPs share in loot now becomes RP money, worth nothing. On the other hand, the neutral guy will probably spend the money on himself--beefing up his stats to become a powerful beast of a character.

As mentioned earlier, this group is good aligned--with a little neutral offshoot. If he continues to tag along with them, it's likely that he will (even if inadvertently) accomplish goodly tasks. The extra money he took to beef up will come in handy with helping the goodly party accomplish their tasks.

Is it still evil taking from this charity then, when they're only capable of accomplishing minute, localized tasks? I'd invest in the chaotic neutral character and his altruistic party. Wouldn't this action be more neutral then, than evil? It's not like he's murdering anyone.

Bustin' chops.

Flame of Anor

2011-06-11, 01:30 AM

That's a very idealistic mindset you're sporting. What would Robin Hood say? He certainly performed a number of actions that created 'hardship' and 'misfortune' for people. And yet despite this knowledge, history paints Robin Hood as a hero to the poor rather than an evil brigand. That's because in performing an action that you defined as 'evil', quite a bit of good came out of it. He defied a despot, willingly breaking the law and creating 'hardship' for some, and was made hero for it.

So.. you can't attack someone or something that is trying to murder someone, because it's causing pain to said murderer?

"I'm sorry, I can't save you from the soul-sucking demon. It would be wrong to hurt it. :smallfrown:"

Guys, I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding braxsus, and if he means what I think he means, he's right. (He wasn't very clear, true.)

The basic idea is this. If you knowingly do something that will hurt someone, that facet of the deed is evil. However, if there is more good than evil in the action, then it is on the whole a good action. You may say that this means there is no action which is not evil in the world. Well, it's just the flip side of "it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good"--this one is "it's a literally-impossibly-good wind that has no secondary bad effects". That does not mean there are no good acts, such as saving someone from a soul-sucking demon, just that such an act nearly always has at least a tiny bad component: for example, if you kill the demon, maybe there was a tiny chance he could have been redeemed. Taking away that chance was bad, but killing the demon, taken as a whole action, was good (because there was much more good in the action than bad).

Rejakor

2011-06-11, 07:51 AM

Yora

2011-06-11, 07:55 AM

Evil is accepting direct damage to others for your own benefit. Even if your benefit is just being lazy.

Neutral would be not making any meaningful sacrifices to help others, but they still are reluctant to see others suffer for their own benefit.

As I see it, there are no aligned deeds. There are only aligned people. Alignment is about long term mind sets and behavior, not about specific isolated actions.

myancey

2011-06-11, 02:58 PM

Guys, I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding braxsus, and if he means what I think he means, he's right. (He wasn't very clear, true.)

But if he means what I think he means...he's definitely wrong. So I guess we're at an impasse on that one.

Bustin' chops.

As I see it, there are no aligned deeds. There are only aligned people. Alignment is about long term mind sets and behavior, not about specific isolated actions.

I can agree with this. Alignment tends to be fairly relative.

Lord_Gareth

2011-06-11, 03:03 PM

It depends on both. Stealing is inherently evil, but it was good for Robin Hood because results which were more good than the stealing was evil balanced it back to the good side.

Basically:

Moral level = good effect - (evilness of deed / how well the victim can take it)

If it's positive, it's good. Negative, evil. Near zero, neutral.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but bear with me on this one: stealing is a chaotic act that is often committed by evil characters, the same as lying and cheating. It's good/evil axis is determined by who you steal from, WHY, and how much.

squeekenator

2011-06-11, 05:35 PM

Acting for your own benefit at the expense of others is Neutral. It's the definition of Neutral. If you do so within the law/rules, that's Lawful Neutral. If you do so by breaking the law/rules, that's Chaotic Neutral.

Good people are specifically called out in that they act for others' benefit, or don't act to benefit themselves when it would be at others' expense. Hell, Exalted Good are called out on doing that.

Evil is actually different from that. Evil is doing things at others' expense even when it doesn't benefit you. Evil is actually just as stupid as good, from a self-motivated point of view. Evil is hurting others even when doing so hurts you, because hurting others is the goal, to you.

Stealing from someone isn't evil. Stealing from someone so that they'll suffer, or when you don't want it/need it, is.

In this case, this guy is just greedy. Greed isn't necessarily Evil with the capital E. It's certainly not Good, but it's not Evil.

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." - PHB, page 104.

Killing because you simply don't care if others live or die is an evil act, not a neutral one. Someone who kills others for fun is certainly evil, but they're an extreme form of 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. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him."

Neutral characters do care for others. They just don't care so much that they would give their life to save some random dude on the street. Acting for your own benefit at the expense of others is the definition of evil. Neutral characters, on the other hand, have a conscience.

Remember that humans "tend towards no particular alignment, not even neutrality". The only logical way to interpret this would be to assume that each alignment is represented equally amongst humans, so 66% of humans are either neutral or evil. If you truly feel that neutral characters don't have the slightest bit of compassion for anyone else and that a third of your fellows humans kill for fun, you must have a very dim view of humanity indeed.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but bear with me on this one: stealing is a chaotic act that is often committed by evil characters, the same as lying and cheating. It's good/evil axis is determined by who you steal from, WHY, and how much.

How is stealing in any way a chaotic act?

""Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions and irresponsibility."

Stealing has nothing to do with any of that. The idea that chaotic characters simply don't care about anyone else is a rather odd one that I assume was brought on by everyone seeing one too many 'totally not evil' chaotic neutral PCs. The only way stealing could possibly be chaotic is if he was doing it as a way of sticking it to the man, and the only reason he was taking all this money was to show that he doesn't need to follow your laws, he can do whatever he likes. If that was the case, he would go around breaking every law he could, regardless of whether it benefited him. That isn't the case. His motivation is that he's greedy and wants to steal from starving children because he simply doesn't care about them. That does not promote freedom. It is a result of a lack of compassion. It is a purely evil act.

Stealing can of course be a good act, just like murder can be a good act if you kill the evil goatee-wearing Grand Vizier before his plan to take over the world can be put into action. It can be a neutral act, if you desperately need the money and steal from someone who can afford to lose a few coins, though unless that someone was a jerk you should at least feel a bit guilty afterwards. But in this case, and in almost every case of theft, it's neither.

King Atticus

2011-06-11, 06:53 PM

Stealing can of course be a good act, just like murder can be a good act if you kill the evil goatee-wearing Grand Vizier before his plan to take over the world can be put into action. It can be a neutral act, if you desperately need the money and steal from someone who can afford to lose a few coins, though unless that someone was a jerk you should at least feel a bit guilty afterwards. But in this case, and in almost every case of theft, it's neither.

Nobody said there was no remorse involved. What if the theft is seen as if not the only, perhaps the quickest, way to make yourself harder to hurt. By either buying gear to become a more imposing fighter or possibly by way of starting an enterprise that elevates your reputation to the point where people won't mess with you. There's nothing there that says he isn't ashamed of what he's doing or feeling guilty about it. It's possible the goal of self preservation motivated, possibly, by fear just overwhelms those feelings of remorse and for that individuals makes it the lesser of two evils.

squeekenator

2011-06-11, 07:12 PM

Nobody said there was no remorse involved. What if the theft is seen as if not the only, perhaps the quickest, way to make yourself harder to hurt. By either buying gear to become a more imposing fighter or possibly by way of starting an enterprise that elevates your reputation to the point where people won't mess with you. There's nothing there that says he isn't ashamed of what he's doing or feeling guilty about it. It's possible the goal of self preservation motivated, possibly, by fear just overwhelms those feelings of remorse and for that individuals makes it the lesser of two evils.

Stealing thousands of gold pieces from charities is an evil act no matter how guilty you feel afterwards. Becoming a more imposing fighter or elevating your reputation are entirely selfish goals. Stealing money from people who need it to survive in order to achieve your own selfish goals is evil. Saying that you feel a bit guilty about it afterwards (but not guilty enough to give the money back, of course) doesn't excuse that, regardless of how you attempt to justify it to yourself.

Archwizard

2011-06-11, 07:56 PM

Stealing thousands of gold pieces from charities is an evil act no matter how guilty you feel afterwards. Becoming a more imposing fighter or elevating your reputation are entirely selfish goals. Stealing money from people who need it to survive in order to achieve your own selfish goals is evil. Saying that you feel a bit guilty about it afterwards (but not guilty enough to give the money back, of course) doesn't excuse that, regardless of how you attempt to justify it to yourself.

But as someone above said, you have no idea if the charity is real. If the charity ends up being a front for a secret society of Bane, then stealing from it is probably Good. That's why I said it's really the intent of the thief that's the determining factor. The rest is supposition.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-11, 07:57 PM

Archwizard

2011-06-11, 07:58 PM

If he steals from it and doesn't know that, it's evil. If he knows he's stealing from a secret society of Bane, it's good, but if he just thinks he's stealing from charity, it's evil.

What if he steals not caring? He's stealing regardless of other effects, his concern is not with stopping evil societies or harming orphans, he just wants the gold. Being selfish is not necessarily evil.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-11, 08:02 PM

What if he steals not caring? He's stealing regardless of other effects, his concern is not with stopping evil societies or harming orphans, he just wants the gold. Being selfish is not necessarily evil.

Being selfish may not be, but he's stealing from charity. Stealing from rich merchants and nobles who can do fine without 50 gold is neutral, but stealing from people who need every gold piece is evil.

Archwizard

2011-06-11, 08:08 PM

Being selfish may not be, but he's stealing from charity. Stealing from rich merchants and nobles who can do fine without 50 gold is neutral, but stealing from people who need every gold piece is evil.

But see, you're assuming he's stealing from people who need every gold piece. Just because it's ostensibly a charity does not mean it actually is a charity, or that the gold would have done anything constructive (say feeding orphans as opposed to giving the charity head new mahogany furniture).

I think we just have a fundamental difference of how we view how alignment should be affected by actions and intentions.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-11, 08:11 PM

But you also gotta remember, the thief in question doesn't need any of it. He has full WBL for a PC, before stealing the stuff.

King Atticus

2011-06-11, 08:49 PM

Stealing thousands of gold pieces from charities is an evil act no matter how guilty you feel afterwards. Becoming a more imposing fighter or elevating your reputation are entirely selfish goals. Stealing money from people who need it to survive in order to achieve your own selfish goals is evil. Saying that you feel a bit guilty about it afterwards (but not guilty enough to give the money back, of course) doesn't excuse that, regardless of how you attempt to justify it to yourself.

There is no such thing as an unselfish act, just people who lie to themselves about their motivations. People do good things because they like the way it makes them feel or their god told them it's the right thing to do and obeying that edict is in their best interest. Sentient beings are inherently selfish, it is the biological imperative to make things better for themselves. Just because some actions make it easier for you to sleep at night does not mean that the core intent of those actions is any less selfish than the baser actions of someone without the moral high-ground

squeekenator

2011-06-11, 08:58 PM

But as someone above said, you have no idea if the charity is real. If the charity ends up being a front for a secret society of Bane, then stealing from it is probably Good. That's why I said it's really the intent of the thief that's the determining factor. The rest is supposition.

And the intent of the thief is "I want money and I don't care about anyone else". That is an evil intent. He has absolutely no reason to expect that it is anything other than a charity, and furthermore a character with Vow of Poverty will often donate to multiple different charities. The idea that every charity in the world is a front for a secret devil-worshipping cult that wants to destroy the world is frankly ridiculous. Anyone attempting to justify theft by saying that "well maybe every poor person in the world is actually a pit fiend in disguise" is grasping at straws, to say the least.

There is no such thing as an unselfish act, just people who lie to themselves about their motivations. People do good things because they like the way it makes them feel or their god told them it's the right thing to do and obeying that edict is in their best interest. Sentient beings are inherently selfish, it is the biological imperative to make things better for themselves. Just because some actions make it easier for you to sleep at night does not mean that the core intent of those actions is any less selfish than the baser actions of someone without the moral high-ground

The D&D alignment system, which is merely a tool for deciding whether your character has altruistic tendencies or not, defines your character as evil. Lecturing me on psychological egoism is hardly relevant to this discussion.

King Atticus

2011-06-11, 09:22 PM

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

"These folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them."

This doesn't mean that they only do things that neither the good or evil alignments do. It means that they do some of what both would do. While this action WOULD be an evil action it does not make him an evil character. It could be him balancing out the good stuff that he does. The great thing about a Neutral character travelling with a good party is there is a whole lot of good stuff that needs to be balanced out. :smallbiggrin:

Archwizard

2011-06-11, 09:24 PM

And the intent of the thief is "I want money and I don't care about anyone else". That is an evil intent. He has absolutely no reason to expect that it is anything other than a charity, and furthermore a character with Vow of Poverty will often donate to multiple different charities. The idea that every charity in the world is a front for a secret devil-worshipping cult that wants to destroy the world is frankly ridiculous. Anyone attempting to justify theft by saying that "well maybe every poor person in the world is actually a pit fiend in disguise" is grasping at straws, to say the least.

And taking an example and then pushing to an absurd extreme is also frankly ridiculous.

I disagree that "I don't care about anyone else" is evil. I think that's pretty much end of discussion between us.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-11, 09:26 PM

"These folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them."

This doesn't mean that they only do things that neither the good or evil alignments do. It means that they do some of what both would do. While this action WOULD be an evil action it does not make him an evil character. It could be him balancing out the good stuff that he does. The great thing about a Neutral character travelling with a good party is there is a whole lot of good stuff that needs to be balanced out. :smallbiggrin:

So killing the leaders of the orc horde cancels out killing everyone in the court room while you were on trial? I'm not buying it. Granted, you killed less than the orc horde would've, but you guys are just a few people, and you're still alive and without charges.

Edit:
And taking an example and then pushing to an absurd extreme is also frankly ridiculous.

I disagree that "I don't care about anyone else" is evil. I think that's pretty much end of discussion between us.
Not caring about anyone else is evil.

Talakeal

2011-06-11, 09:33 PM

Lots of very smart stuff .

:biggrin: Well done Squeekenator. I was going to make a post about how weird it is that people think hurting others is neutral because you did it for selfish rather than sadistic reasons, but you said everything I was going to say and in a far more eloquent manner. I wish every alignment thread contained a link to your post.

There is no such thing as an unselfish act, just people who lie to themselves about their motivations. People do good things because they like the way it makes them feel or their god told them it's the right thing to do and obeying that edict is in their best interest. Sentient beings are inherently selfish, it is the biological imperative to make things better for themselves. Just because some actions make it easier for you to sleep at night does not mean that the core intent of those actions is any less selfish than the baser actions of someone without the moral high-ground

And thus we have reached the inevitable "I am not evil because evil doesn't exist and therefore even good people are just as bad as me!" which has been used in every alignment argument I have ever had with a "chaotic neutral" player in game or on the forum when they have run into a consensus that they are in fact evil. Not really much more can be said once an arguing party stops defending the circumstances and attacks the foundation upon which the argument, and human morality in general, is based.

Edit: I will say that D&D would have a lot fewer alignment restrictions if it split evil into "selfish / sadistic" and good into "altruistic / self sacrificing" instead of lumping them together, perhaps using the terms Exalted and Vile from the BoED and BoVD respectively. Because there is a distinct difference between the two, but they are still not neutral.

Lord_Gareth

2011-06-11, 09:39 PM

You raise some excellent points, Squeekenator, which I shall address in whatever fashion they crop into my mind in:

- First and foremost, stealing is chaotic by RAW, found in various sourcebooks. Now, you're free to disagree with WotC (Gods only know I do on almost everything), but if we ever get down to "what does the book say about stealing?" the answer is "chaos".

- More importantly, stealing has too much potential for non-harm or even good, potential that murder, bringing despair, human sacrifice, kicking orphans et cetera simply doesn't have. You can steal from oppressors and give to the oppressed. You can steal the McGuffin and run it away from the BBEG; you can steal from demons and, well, keep it. They're demons. Not like they're using it for anything good. Point is, there's a lot of reasons you can steal, and "callous indifference" and "the evulz" are only two of them.

- Kinda tying into the last point, stealing can be seen as chaotic because chaotic characters are more likely to embrace it either as an expression of absolute freedom ("I'm free to take it, you're free to try and stop me.") or out of either a lack of recognition or respect for the concept of private ownership. They may reason that their need is greater or that the needs of their organization, mission, or cause come first. They may embrace theft as part of the worship of a chaotic deity such as Olidammara or as a method of teaching people not to develop attachments to material concepts.

- Finally, we should look at why Good characters generally don't steal, and why Evil ones (with the exception of LE characters, who usually don't) do. Good characters respect the life and dignity of others, and would never steal if it caused someone direct harm. They might also abstain from stealing from someone that wouldn't be hurt by it because they don't want to cause that person emotional distress or force them to waste their resources hunting for the lost object. However, a good character is free to steal from those they would not harm by doing so - but they're less likely than TN or CN characters to do so without some kind of justification. Evil characters, on the other hand, often steal because they don't actually care about the consequences; like good characters, the act of the theft doesn't actually mean as much to them, but the fact that they have something they want does. If they happen to cause suffering, they don't care - or worse, they revel in it. In both cases, the act of theft isn't as important as the question, "Who am I harming by doing this?"

Talakeal

2011-06-11, 09:44 PM

D&D by RAW is very wierd and inconsistent about how it treats actions.

Killing is evil, unless you are killing a "bad guy" in which case it is neutral or even good.

Stealing is chaotic, unless it is from a bad guy or in self interest, in which case it is neutral or even good.

Poison Use is evil, even if done against the bad guy or self interest.

Dealing with Outsiders, undead, and [Evil] spells are evil, even if used against the bad guy or in self interest or to help the good guys.

IMO stealing is always evil. It might be a justified evil, for example stealing food while starving, or a neccessary evil for the greater good, for example stealing from the rich or giving to the poor.

Likewise using violence is always evil. It might be a justified evil, in the case of self defense, and it might even be a neccesary evil for the greater good, for example in a case where execution is the only way to stop an evil creature from harming others.

But in both cases it boils down to hurting others for your own ends. The only time I could see the argument made that the act is innately good is if it was requested, for example a drunk asking you to take their careso they won't be tempted to drive, or if a character enjoys pain, usually in the form of sport fighting, or possibly needs help ending their own life.

Lord_Gareth

2011-06-11, 09:55 PM

Talakeal

2011-06-11, 10:05 PM

Dealing in absolutes like that is Lawful-think, Tala. In a D&D context, violence isn't inherently evil. Violence to defend oneself or others (especially the innocent) is also not evil. Unnecessary violence, violence against the innocent, and disproportionate violence (as in, too much) are all evil actions which may, or may not, have a justification depending on why they happen. Likewise with theft, lying, cheating, et cetera - these are acts that CAN be used for evil, but can ALSO be used for good. Law/Chaos, on the other hand, have firmly defined stances on them that are easy to delineate.

Which is an argument I could accept if the book didn't flat out tell you that the ends never justified the means and no matter how good the rationale was evil acts would still damn you.
They want the game to be subjective about certain things like killing and looting and objective about other things like torture, necromancy, and poison, because it upholds the traditional "we are good they are evil so let's kill them and take their stuff" paradigm that the game rules support.
As a result you have a contradictory alignment system that doesn't follow any internal logic, let alone real world ethical system, and spawns endless alignment debates like this.

Read the Player's Handbook or Book of Exalted deeds view on violence and killing, then read the heroes of horror explanation for why the dread necromancer can't be good. There is a major disconnect between how the authors feel about violence and evil magic that just doesn't make sense.

King Atticus

2011-06-11, 10:10 PM

And thus we have reached the inevitable "I am not evil because evil doesn't exist and therefore even good people are just as bad as me!" which has been used in every alignment argument I have ever had with a "chaotic neutral" player in game or on the forum when they have run into a consensus that they are in fact evil. Not really much more can be said once an arguing party stops defending the circumstances and attacks the foundation upon which the argument, and human morality in general, is based.

I didn't say I'm not evil because evil doesn't exist. Far from it. I merely stated that selfishness ≠ evil. I have acknowleged that it would indeed be an evil act (an act which hasn't occured btw...thanks for reading the thread :smalltongue:) but not that it's evil strictly because it's selfish.

Archwizard

2011-06-11, 10:16 PM

Not caring about anyone else is evil.

So in your world Ebeneezer Scrooge is Evil? In my world he's just a jerk (I'd assign him LN in a D&D world alignment).

King Atticus

2011-06-11, 10:18 PM

As an aside, I want to say that I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I know this subject matter brings out strong feelings and can get people upset or feeling like they are backed into a corner and needing to defend themselves. That's was not my intent in starting the thread, I like the debate aspect and the fact that everyone feels so strongly impresses me very much. Hopefully there's no hard feelings. :smallsmile:

Lord_Gareth

2011-06-11, 10:22 PM

Read the Player's Handbook or Book of Exalted deeds view on violence and killing, then read the heroes of horror explanation for why the dread necromancer can't be good. There is a major disconnect between how the authors feel about violence and evil magic that just doesn't make sense.

I didn't say it was consistent (though the reason Dread Necromancers are nongood is because most of their spell list has the [Evil] descriptor, not because of violence); what I did say was that the acts I mentioned can be used for [Good], good, lawful, chaotic, evil, or even [Evil] ends. I didn't mention [evil] spells, necromancy, et cetera - I talked about, specifically, violence, theft, lying, and cheating, the latter three of which are defined as being chaotic in general nature.

Dealing in moral absolutes is, incidentally, one IRL philosophy which also happens to be a tenant of some religious beliefs. Myself, I tend to be Utilitarian.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-11, 10:24 PM

So in your world Ebeneezer Scrooge is Evil? In my world he's just a jerk (I'd assign him LN in a D&D world alignment).

There's a difference between stealing from an orphanage and not donating to an orphanage. If you don't steal from someone, but don't donate to someone, that's basically just telling them to take care of themselves.

Archwizard

2011-06-11, 10:49 PM

There's a difference between stealing from an orphanage and not donating to an orphanage. If you don't steal from someone, but don't donate to someone, that's basically just telling them to take care of themselves.

Except you changed the premise that I was responding to.

Your assertion was:

Not caring = Evil.

That had nothing to do with stealing.

Ebeneezer Scrooge cared about no one but himself at the start of "A Christmas Carol" (that's pretty much the whole point of the story).

So if Not Caring = Evil, and Scrooge = Not Caring, then Scrooge = Evil.

That is the logical conclusion of your assertion. So either defend it and say that yes, you think Scrooge is Evil, or back off that assertion.

Lord_Gareth

2011-06-11, 10:50 PM

There's a difference between stealing from an orphanage and not donating to an orphanage. If you don't steal from someone, but don't donate to someone, that's basically just telling them to take care of themselves.

To elaborate on this point:

- Good characters help others (especially the innocent) even if doing nothing or harming them would be of greater personal profit (or just less cost). A good character will almost always help someone in need, whether it's an orphan starving on the street, someone asking for a hand pulling their cart home, or a villain begging for forgiveness and seeking to repent.

- Neutral characters may choose to help others, but do so for their own reasons. They may do so out of loyalty, love, obligation (such as employment), pleasure, the threat of force, or some other outside force. Lacking an outside force, Neutral characters will help others only if there is greater profit in it than doing nothing.

- Evil characters by definition do not care about others without an outside force such as love, the threat of force, or a pre-existing agenda. As such, evil characters may choose to harm others for personal profit and often come up with creative ways to do so. Lacking an outside influence, Evil characters will only help others if it is the most profitable or pleasurable course of action above and beyond doing nothing or harming them.

myancey

2011-06-12, 01:52 AM

Not caring about anyone else is evil.

So quick to throw people on the chopping block. Some might consider that evil.

Chops busted.

Killing is evil, unless you are killing a "bad guy" in which case it is neutral or even good.

Stealing is chaotic, unless it is from a bad guy or in self interest, in which case it is neutral or even good.

Poison Use is evil, even if done against the bad guy or self interest.

Dealing with Outsiders, undead, and [Evil] spells are evil, even if used against the bad guy or in self interest or to help the good guys.

IMO stealing is always evil. It might be a justified evil, for example stealing food while starving, or a neccessary evil for the greater good, for example stealing from the rich or giving to the poor.

Likewise using violence is always evil. It might be a justified evil, in the case of self defense, and it might even be a neccesary evil for the greater good, for example in a case where execution is the only way to stop an evil creature from harming others.

But in both cases it boils down to hurting others for your own ends. The only time I could see the argument made that the act is innately good is if it was requested, for example a drunk asking you to take their careso they won't be tempted to drive, or if a character enjoys pain, usually in the form of sport fighting, or possibly needs help ending their own life.

So you're saying that if someone requests physical violence be brought upon them then it is good? Um...what? Instead of beating up the guy who is tempted to drive drunk, why don't you take his keys instead?

Wouldn't anything in the last paragraph you wrote still qualify under your 'justified evil'? I'm not sure if violence by request could be considered good...ever...and is not a great dividing line.

Dealing in absolutes like that is Lawful-think, Tala. In a D&D context, violence isn't inherently evil. Violence to defend oneself or others (especially the innocent) is also not evil. Unnecessary violence, violence against the innocent, and disproportionate violence (as in, too much) are all evil actions which may, or may not, have a justification depending on why they happen. Likewise with theft, lying, cheating, et cetera - these are acts that CAN be used for evil, but can ALSO be used for good. Law/Chaos, on the other hand, have firmly defined stances on them that are easy to delineate.

I like the relativity of the argument. Basically what alignment really boils down to. Absolutes provide nothing but cushions for people afraid to think of anything but black and white.

There exists no indelible line between good and evil--they are simply two concepts made up in attempt to formulate the human 'social contract'--and defined through societal majorities.

These definitions will continue to be relativistic as long as we live on planet Earth. As a society we lack a collective moral compass.

Playgrounders have posted on this thread their opinions of good/evil examples..but if you look at them, they all point back to the social contract. The actions branded as evil are simply ones that go against that which elevates the human society above the animal kingdom--creating chaos when people want order. Stealing creates chaos, not evil.

That doesn't mean, of course, that other actions can't be evil. But it is perceived. We cannot lump killing into a purely evil position. War has killing, and in war there is chaos, and in war there is usually evil. But not all deaths in war are necessarily evil. Simply unfortunate, and chaotic in nature.

The problem with the absolutist arguments presented on this thread...they all have some pretty big holes in them.

Meh, late night ramblings. And chops bustin'.

squeekenator

2011-06-12, 02:07 AM

Playgrounders have posted on this thread their opinions of good/evil examples..but if you look at them, they all point back to the social contract. The actions branded as evil are simply ones that go against that which elevates the human society above the animal kingdom--creating chaos when people want order. Stealing creates chaos, not evil.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally have been talking about what the D&D rules define as evil, which is, after all, what we're supposed to be discussing. Moral issues become a lot less subjective when the rules of good and evil are clearly printed in the PHB.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-12, 02:13 AM

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally have been talking about what the D&D rules define as evil, which is, after all, what we're supposed to be discussing. Moral issues become a lot less subjective when the rules of good and evil are clearly printed in the PHB.

The problem is that every rule is up to the DM's interpretation (that's part of his job). I originally suggested that this whole mess (along with every alignment debate ever) is really up to the DM to figure out. The OP then proceeded to clarify that he knew this and wanted the opinions of the people in the Playground. I consider this a waste of everyone's time, but that part of myancey's post is absolutely right.

This more of a poll of opinions than an actual debate of where this situation falls within the rules.

Talakeal

2011-06-12, 04:03 AM

So you're saying that if someone requests physical violence be brought upon them then it is good? Um...what? Instead of beating up the guy who is tempted to drive drunk, why don't you take his keys instead?

Wouldn't anything in the last paragraph you wrote still qualify under your 'justified evil'? I'm not sure if violence by request could be considered good...ever...and is not a great dividing line.

I said that stealing the drunks keys is good, not beating him up for them.

I was saying I could see requested violence being good. For example if someone is in constant pain and you put them out of their misery, or if someone needed a sparring partner to toughen them up for real combat or just because they enjoy the thrill of fighting. Or hell, someone is just a masochist and enjoys getting beat up.

I didn't say any of these circumstances were good, I just said that I could see where someone was coming from if they claimed they were.

Edit: I was just looking over the alignment section of my PHB and noticed something. The only concrete example of a good action in the whole chapter is "self sacrifice" and the only concrete example of an evil actions is "murder for conveniance or pleasure". That is it. Stealing, lying, cheating, and using poisons are listed as "dishonorable" but are not ever specified as being Chaotic or Evil. Likewise casting alignment tagged spells has no effects on a players alignment in Core, it is merely a descriptor of what gods grant access to them.

Boy it would be simpler to play in a core only RAW game than bringing in all the inconsistent wackiness of the BoED, BoVD, Heroes of Horror, and Fiendish Codexes.

Narren

2011-06-12, 09:20 AM

IMO stealing is always evil. It might be a justified evil, for example stealing food while starving, or a neccessary evil for the greater good, for example stealing from the rich or giving to the poor.

Always is usually a bad word to use. I think stealing food because you're starving is neutral at worst, especially if it's uncommon behavior and you feel bad about it. It's no longer really a choice when it comes down to your survival, call that "justified" evil if you like.. And I can think of examples where stealing can be good. The evil McWizard has an evil MacGuffin that he will use to subjugate the kingdom. You don't even live here, but innocent people are at risk. It's his property....he made it. You're not strong enough to stop him, so you sneak into his tower and steal it so that you may find a way to destroy it. You do this at great personal risk to yourself. You're telling me that's a "justified" evil?

Likewise using violence is always evil. It might be a justified evil, in the case of self defense, and it might even be a neccesary evil for the greater good, for example in a case where execution is the only way to stop an evil creature from harming others.

Again with the "always" :smalltongue:

I don't see how you can say self-defense is evil, even "justified" evil. Does that mean every police officer in the country is evil? I've had to hurt people, and I've been hurt, to protect people from predators. Does that make me evil? One of the recent officers that fell in the line of duty fired back after being mortally wounded. Does that make him evil?

An execution is a bad example, because it will bring up a debate about pro and anti death penalty (which is a whole other argument). I think a better example of "necessary evil for the greater good" might be killing one to save ten. Can't think of any good real life examples right now (RL usually isn't that dramatic) but the movie The Crazies is an example. The government basically wipes out the town to prevent the disease from spreading. They were only trying to do the right thing, it just doesn't look like that from the other side of the glass.

But in both cases it boils down to hurting others for your own ends. The only time I could see the argument made that the act is innately good is if it was requested, for example a drunk asking you to take their careso they won't be tempted to drive, or if a character enjoys pain, usually in the form of sport fighting, or possibly needs help ending their own life.

What if the drunk doesn't WANT you to take his keys? Now you have options. The best option is try to convince him to give them to you, or get a sober ride home, or arrange for a ride, etc. Drunk people are often hard to reason with, so this may be impossible. You could take them, through force or guile. Is that evil? Or you can let him drive home. And if he kills a family of five on his way, and you could have stopped him from driving, I think you're just as responsible as he is (well...maybe a little less so, but still responsible).

King Atticus

2011-06-12, 07:02 PM

I don't see how you can say self-defense is evil, even "justified" evil. Does that mean every police officer in the country is evil? I've had to hurt people, and I've been hurt, to protect people from predators. Does that make me evil? One of the recent officers that fell in the line of duty fired back after being mortally wounded. Does that make him evil?

OFF TOPIC POST
Are you a police officer? If so , just wanted to say thanks for the work you do. It's mostly underappreciated so to do it is a noble thing.

Talakeal

2011-06-12, 07:18 PM

Lots of stuff

See, here is the thing; in D&D ACTIONS are innately good or innately evil. Casting raise dead to create a horde of skeletons to destroy a village is just as evil casting raise dead to create a horde of skeletons to protect a village from rampaging ogres.

The reasoning behind an action or the end results are irrelevant as far as D&D is concerned. What I was saying is that in my opinion a justified or necessary evil action is still evil, but I won't ding a player's alignment for it, and in extreme cases it might actually have the opposite effect.

Now, if you want to go into my real life philosophy inflicting suffering is always a bad thing, but sometimes it is necessary to prevent a greater bad thing.
If someone kills another person out of revenge or self preservation they are not a bad person, but they are not a good person either, they are just a human doing what comes naturally.
Now if someone causes suffering for a good reason, for example vaccinating a child, they are actually doing a noble act, inflicting pain not because of selfish motives or sadism, but in spite of them.

As for police officers, some are good some are bad, most are neither, I would need to discuss specific examples to answer your question, which I believe is against the forum rules.

Lord_Gareth

2011-06-12, 08:54 PM

I'm kinda disappointed to see that my points are being ignored by the folks I addressed them to T_T

squeekenator

2011-06-12, 11:30 PM

I'm kinda disappointed to see that my points are being ignored by the folks I addressed them to T_T

I was somewhat abandoning this thread, since it seems to be going nowhere fast, but since you asked so nicely...

- First and foremost, stealing is chaotic by RAW, found in various sourcebooks. Now, you're free to disagree with WotC (Gods only know I do on almost everything), but if we ever get down to "what does the book say about stealing?" the answer is "chaos".

Could you provide some examples? I can't remember any sources saying that stealing is chaotic. It's certainly not lawful, but that doesn't make it chaotic.

- More importantly, stealing has too much potential for non-harm or even good, potential that murder, bringing despair, human sacrifice, kicking orphans et cetera simply doesn't have. You can steal from oppressors and give to the oppressed. You can steal the McGuffin and run it away from the BBEG; you can steal from demons and, well, keep it. They're demons. Not like they're using it for anything good. Point is, there's a lot of reasons you can steal, and "callous indifference" and "the evulz" are only two of them.

Perhaps I should redefine my argument somewhat, then. When I talk about stealing, I'm talking about any sort of theft that isn't done for virtuous, selfless purposes - in other words, the sort of thefts that happen in real life, because that's what the OP was talking about. Stealing the Ultimate McGuffin that Dark Lord Evildeathstabby needs to complete some ritual that will grant him infinite power is not an evil act, but it's also a rather rare example of theft. Every evil act can be performed for good purposes. You can murder Dark Lord Evildeathstabby to save the world, you could torture his mooks if it's the only way you can find where the Ultimate McGuffin is hidden. In fact, the number of things PCs do that aren't evil in most circumstances is low indeed. Clearly, saying that 'well a PC might do that to save the world' is a rather poor way of determining the morality of one's actions. So as a general rule, excluding situations that would only occur within a game of D&D (or any similar game revolving around the actions of a group of holy murderous homeless millionaires), stealing, just like murder, kicking puppies or burning down orphanages, is evil. Stealing from charities is not something that would only occur within the realms of fantasy, so I would call it an evil act.

- Kinda tying into the last point, stealing can be seen as chaotic because chaotic characters are more likely to embrace it either as an expression of absolute freedom ("I'm free to take it, you're free to try and stop me.") or out of either a lack of recognition or respect for the concept of private ownership. They may reason that their need is greater or that the needs of their organization, mission, or cause come first. They may embrace theft as part of the worship of a chaotic deity such as Olidammara or as a method of teaching people not to develop attachments to material concepts.

True, but these are rather exceptional individuals and circumstances, and with the limited information the OP gave us I see no reason to believe that his character is one of them. The fact that some people might conceivably steal for chaotic purposes doesn't mean that it's an inherently chaotic act. He described himself as a con-man who is all about the money, not a cleric of the trickster god performing his holy duty. He doesn't want to teach people to avoid material attachments, he simply wants to take their stuff for himself. His cause (presumably saving the world, since he's a PC) is indeed noble, and might sometimes justify stealing, but 1) not from charities and 2) he's spending it on his loan-shark organisation, not on some holy quest. Everything he does is for personal gain.

As for your final paragraph (I don't want to clutter up the page too much by quoting that much text), I agree completely. A good character is unlikely to steal because they're concerned that doing so would hurt others. A neutral character would still be against the idea, because they do have some sort of respect for others. They don't care for everyone else enough that they would make personal sacrifices for them, but they aren't so uncaring that they would consistently cause harm to others for a bit of cash. Evil characters steal because they don't care if they harm others. Theft, an act which involves causing harm to others in order to benefit yourself, is an evil act. Simply listing a few rare cases in which it has an overall neutral or good outcome doesn't change that.

Lord_Gareth

2011-06-12, 11:34 PM

Talakeal

2011-06-12, 11:56 PM

I'll address the rest of you (excellent) post later, as I'm knee-deep in some intense homebrewing, but I'd like to mention that theft-as-chaos is detailed in the BoVD and, to a lesser extent, in the BoED (though the latter spends a lot more time talking about lying and then forgetting that lying is chaotic too).

Part of WotC - and Western society in general's - problem is that folks often think that Law is Good, and Good is Lawful. D&D postulate social contracts that are not inherently worth following and further postulates that some really, truly horrific ones are all over the place, so it's important to try and separate law-think from morality-think.

Yeah, I've noticed that. My father, a former lawyer, believes that morality and law are 100% the same thing, and that the behaviors of a good person in one culture are the same as the behaviors of an evil person a culture with drastically different laws. It is very perplexing to me.