PDA

View Full Version : Is the alignment system "tilted" toward Evil?



hamishspence
2011-07-15, 05:36 AM
For one example- do evil behaviours/attitudes tend to trump good ones, when assessing where a character's alignment ends up?

A lot of people would say that a unrepentant evildoer is not going to change alignment from Evil merely through doing Good acts- it takes a change of outlook, with actual repentance of evil deeds, to change the character's alignment.

But I suspect very few people will say that the reverse is true.

That, a "unrepentant dogooder" cannot change alignment from Good merely through doing Evil deeds- they have to repent of their past good deeds.

This would IMO be rather ridiculous.

Avilan the Grey
2011-07-15, 05:53 AM
I play very little D&D outside computer games, but my experience in practical play is the opposite; the usual situation is that the DM is too lenient towards "Good" players who should start sliding on the alignment scale.

On the other hand I think it makes sense that it takes "more" to move from Evil to Good, than from Good to Evil.
A Good person who does something Evil is (usually) knowingly doing something (more or less) despicable. They do it on purpose, and that should be enough; no truly Good person should do anything like that on purpose.

An Evil person that does Good deeds on purpose is a different matter: The difference is the purpose itself. Is the purpose to do good for the sake of Good, or is it to do good to appear as Good? That is the main difference. An Evil PC that gives money to orphans to improve his standing in his part of town, is not really doing a good deed (well he is, but not in that way). If he gives the money because his primary concern is the welfare of the kids, on the other hand, he might "run the risk" of becoming Neutral.

supermonkeyjoe
2011-07-15, 06:05 AM
The common attitude seems to be If a villain saves an orphanage to improve his standing then he's still evil, if a hero burns down an orphanage to save the world then it's a slippery slope all the way down to evil. All things being equal the two events should be the same but people tend to view good as having to be constantly and unerringly good, whereas evil can do a few "good" acts and not be troubled.

Avilan the Grey
2011-07-15, 06:26 AM
The common attitude seems to be If a villain saves an orphanage to improve his standing then he's still evil, if a hero burns down an orphanage to save the world then it's a slippery slope all the way down to evil. All things being equal the two events should be the same but people tend to view good as having to be constantly and unerringly good, whereas evil can do a few "good" acts and not be troubled.

The key element, for me, is if the purpose was selfish or not. Most Evil acts are in themselves Evil, simply because otherwise they would be Neutral or Good (circle argument, but you get the idea). Good acts are really only Good acts if they are performed unselfishly. Giving money to an orphanage to improve his standing is Not Good, because it is done with a Selfish intent. Meaning it becomes a Neutral act.
Burning down an orphanage full of kids to save the world would, to me, be a Neutral act, because the act is far from selfish. In fact a well played Good character will probably never forgive himself for this, ever, but it has to be done...

hamishspence
2011-07-15, 06:27 AM
If he gives the money because his primary concern is the welfare of the kids, on the other hand, he might "run the risk" of becoming Neutral.

I lean to the view (based primarily on Champions of Ruin) that at least some evil people are in fact "unrepentant do-gooders"- they really do have the compassion and altruism that marks a normally Good character.

What makes them evil, is that they consistantly do Evil things as well.

They might be a speciesist, who abuses members of some other D&D races- but will risk their own neck to save a stranger that's not of the "hated groups".

Good doesn't have to be "unerringly good"- but their evil deeds probably have to be the exception rather than the rule- they never reach the point of "consistantly doing evil deeds".

caden_varn
2011-07-15, 06:33 AM
This is human nature more than the alignment system really.

If I sacrifice my time and money to say, help the homeless, going far above and beyond the normal scope of charity, and become well-known for the way I have sacrificed my time and energies into this good cause, and along the way I commit a couple of murders, I am going to go to jail, and I am probably not going to find a lot of defenders.

It is much more important to our survival to spot and deal with the murderers than it is to appreciate and laud the selfless, and our sense of morality echoes that.

hamishspence
2011-07-15, 06:39 AM
This is human nature more than the alignment system really.


Pretty much- the question is, did the game designers take this into account when building alignment, or is it "supposed" to be perfectly symmetrical, with a person who consistantly does both good and evil, being Neutral?

Personally I think this smacks too much of "stupid neutral" as TV Tropes puts it, and prefer CoR's emphasis on "consistant evil behaviour marks an evil alignment".

Fiendish Codex 2 also has a corruption system, that seems to work based on a similar presumption.

Yora
2011-07-15, 06:44 AM
I agree, it's really about the concepts of good and evil, regardless of the alignment system.

Ocasional moments of compassion and kindness don't redeem brutal murderers and slavers. But occasional acts of evil are much more meaningful than an otherwise virtuous life.

It's like clean water and industrial waste: When you pour a cup of water into a barrel of waste, it's still waste, but when you pour a cup of waste into a barrel of water, you also end up with a barrel of liquid waste.

Avilan the Grey
2011-07-15, 07:23 AM
What makes them evil, is that they consistantly do Evil things as well.

Well yes, in order to actually redeem themselves, on purpose or not, they can't "compensate" caring for orphans by committing evil acts.


It's like clean water and industrial waste: When you pour a cup of water into a barrel of waste, it's still waste, but when you pour a cup of waste into a barrel of water, you also end up with a barrel of liquid waste.

Best. Explanation. Ever.

hamishspence
2011-07-15, 07:58 AM
Well yes, in order to actually redeem themselves, on purpose or not, they can't "compensate" caring for orphans by committing evil acts.

They might not even be aware that they are evil- perceiving their acts against a particular group as "justified"- or subscribing too much to an "ends justify means" morality.

After all, just because the DM knows certain acts are evil, doesn't mean characters in the setting always do.

And that metaphor is a pretty good one.

TriForce
2011-07-15, 09:45 AM
good and evil is all about outlook at life, acts are a representation of your uitlook, not a completly seperate thing.

for instance, someone with a evil outlook had no problem in acting good, since thats in his own advantage in some situations.

however, someone with a good outlook does have problems with doing evil deeds, since his outlook prevents that.

saying "evil can do good deeds without becoming good but good cant do evil deeds without becoming evil, so the system is unbalanced" is faulty becouse deeds are not a seperate thing from outlook. you either have a evil outlook and can pretend to be good, or you have a good outlook and therefor refuse to do evil deeds.

to compare it to a slightly different thing, does one become good by saying good things even if he doesnt mean it? does one become evil by saying evil things even if you dont mean it? both the awnsers are no, but its just unlikely for a good person to say evil things. deeds work like that too

hamishspence
2011-07-15, 09:51 AM
"Outlook" can have multiple components.

Two of the traditional "good outlook" components are "Will not harm the innocent" and "Will make personal sacrifices to help strangers".

However "will do evil deeds" is not incompatible with both of these.

In this case, the reason might be "pay evil unto evil" "eye for eye" and so on.

Conversely, a person with a traditionally evil outlook "takes pleasure in evil deeds" might be surprisingly willing to make personal sacrifices for strangers.

So it's not as cut and dried as "people with a good outlook refuse to do evil deeds"

Or "people with an evil outlook only do good deeds when it's to their advantage".

I think of it this way- there are two major traits- compassion and cruelty. They are not inherently incompatible- a character can exhibit both. But dial them both "up to eleven" and no matter how compassionate the person is, their cruelty outweighs it for alignment purposes.

lerg2
2011-07-15, 10:19 AM
Something similar would be the difference between Richard and Cale in looking for group. Cale was lawful good, but he slid down to neutral. Richard does some few good acts, but he's still totally evil.

thamolas
2011-07-15, 10:51 AM
Most people are monsters, but are ignorant of the fact. Perhaps it is what we ignore about ourselves that allow us to define good and evil.

Talakeal
2011-07-15, 11:18 AM
It's like clean water and industrial waste: When you pour a cup of water into a barrel of waste, it's still waste, but when you pour a cup of waste into a barrel of water, you also end up with a barrel of liquid waste.

Your analogy would imply that yes, evil is more powerful than good, as the "evil" toxic waste corrupts far greater amounts of water but the opposite isn't true.



Most people are monsters, but are ignorant of the fact. Perhaps it is what we ignore about ourselves that allow us to define good and evil.

While this may be true, some people are a lot more monstrous than others. You have to use good and evil as relative to humanity as a whole, otherwise the terms are meaningless and you become unaware of the difference between the guy who will give you food and shelter if you are in need and the guy who will torture you and bury your body in his basement.

HenryHankovitch
2011-07-15, 11:18 AM
You know that old joke? You can make love to thousands of women, but if you're caught with just one goat...

Evil is like that. Except in videogames. Saving five orphanages does not, in fact, absolve you of that one family that you raped and murdered for the lulz.

HenryHankovitch
2011-07-15, 11:27 AM
I lean to the view (based primarily on Champions of Ruin) that at least some evil people are in fact "unrepentant do-gooders"- they really do have the compassion and altruism that marks a normally Good character.

What makes them evil, is that they consistantly do Evil things as well.

They might be a speciesist, who abuses members of some other D&D races- but will risk their own neck to save a stranger that's not of the "hated groups".

Good doesn't have to be "unerringly good"- but their evil deeds probably have to be the exception rather than the rule- they never reach the point of "consistantly doing evil deeds". I think more common is just the ability to view all your personal whims and prejudices as morally justified. "I think this, and I'm a good person, therefore what I think is good." So you have someone capable of great works of charity and philosophy, who is also able to rationalize invading his neighbor's country and slaughtering/enslaving the inhabitants. At its extreme you have psychopathy, or a Napoleon complex; but I think the mild version is actually much more common in people, where the traditional, "easiest," least inconvenient option can always be morally justified. "Well sure, slavery looks ugly, but I always try to treat my slaves decently; and it's necessary if we're going to save all their primitive souls from Hell anyway."

Reluctance
2011-07-15, 11:54 AM
The only thinking I thought the devs did re: alignment, at least when 3.0 was being released, was to change neutrality from balance fanatic to indifferent. The text was then copied verbatim to 3.5. Even ignoring the mess that is Law/Chaos, they didn't have more than a vague intuitive grasp of Good/Evil because people in general don't have more than a vague intuitive grasp of Good/Evil.

Lidya
2011-07-15, 12:04 PM
No, at least not in 4e. The main beef I have with WOTC is that they have almost no options for evil characters in their new edition. Even Heroes of Shadow just provided a different power source. Back in the day, you couldn't have a good Assassin or Blackguard. Everything about 4e is about doing things for the greater good of the world, not yourself. If we had a book of vile darkness, maybe it would be different.

Admiral Squish
2011-07-15, 12:16 PM
I think, generally speaking, evil wins. In any kind of competition, all other things being equal, the more evil character will generally win. This is because the more evil character has fewer scruples. Nothing preventing them from taking the cheap shots that a more moral character would avoid out of general respect for the human condition. Even if they don't completely avoid them, the more moral character tends to show more hesitation to take that cheap shot or the killing blow. The evil character feels none of this. This is why there's such a high percentage of psychopaths among the extremely rich and successful.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-15, 12:25 PM
I think I've made my position on this topic clear before. In case it bears repeating:

"D&D alignment is left in many cases deliberately vague so that the DM and the players can work out together how the system works, so that they may follow whatever benefits their campaign the most. There is sufficient evidence to sustain that the alignment system is tilted towards Evil, that it's perfectly flat, that it's actually a four-sided pyramid (tilted towards all forces) and that it's subjective.

What is actually a mistake is stating that only one of these (or another one) is the right one, and all others are wrong."

Jeff the Green
2011-07-15, 03:06 PM
It actually seems pretty balanced to me, or, if anything, tilted towards neutral. While most of the source books are pretty clear that there are objectively evil and good deeds (murder is evil regardless of culture; protecting the innocent is good regardless of culture) they also suggest that outlook, or more intuitively, intention, is important as well. So the way I see it:
{table]|Good motive|Evil motive
Good act|Good|Neutral
Evil act|Neutral|Evil[/table]
So someone who consistently murders, tortures, etc. but does so out of a sincere desire to protect the innocent is neutral (a la Champion of Ruin). Someone who consistently protects the innocent, feeds the hungry, and increases happiness overall, but does so cynically to increase their own power, is also neutral (though if they start committing evil deeds once in power, their alignment is likely to shift).

Talvereaux
2011-07-15, 03:52 PM
I do think it's "tilted" towards evil in a sense. Build a thousand bridges, no one calls you a bridge builder, murder one person in cold blood, and now you're suddenly a killer.

Evil acts are generally harder to scrub off the record than good. I think that makes sense, as it's easier to be selfish than selfless. It's easier to think for the needs of few instead of the needs of many. Taking others' lives apart for your own benefit is easier than helping put them back together for no personal gain.

Being good, resisting the temptations of evil, and walking the path of redemption would mean a lot less if it were just as easy as falling. Evil's supposed to look like the easy way out, and that's how it hooks the selfish and short-sighted.

Talakeal
2011-07-15, 03:59 PM
I do think it's "tilted" towards evil in a sense. Build a thousand bridges, no one calls you a bridge builder, murder one person in cold blood, and now you're suddenly a killer.

Evil acts are generally harder to scrub off the record than good. I think that makes sense, as it's easier to be selfish than selfless. It's easier to think for the needs of few instead of the needs of many. Taking others' lives apart for your own benefit is easier than helping put them back together for no personal gain.

Being good, resisting the temptations of evil, and walking the path of redemption would mean a lot less if it were just as easy as falling. Evil's supposed to look like the easy way out, and that's how it hooks the selfish and short-sighted.

The problem with D&D alignment is that is isn't just about selfish actions. Performing a necessary evil, or the lesser of two evils in the course of doing something good corrupts the entire endeavor.

Talvereaux
2011-07-15, 04:03 PM
Cases like that are a lot more grey, I agree with that. I was mostly speaking in the broadest strokes as to why the alignment system appears to gravitate towards evil more than good.

I think it's situational how those are handled, whether they 'corrupt the entire endeavor' seems up in the air, seeing as unfortunate sacrifices are just a part of being good, especially in the less 'black and white' campaign settings.

Talakeal
2011-07-15, 04:23 PM
Cases like that are a lot more grey, I agree with that. I was mostly speaking in the broadest strokes as to why the alignment system appears to gravitate towards evil more than good.

I think it's situational how those are handled, whether they 'corrupt the entire endeavor' seems up in the air, seeing as unfortunate sacrifices are just a part of being good, especially in the less 'black and white' campaign settings.

I would agree with you, but RAW according to the BoED page 9 an endeavor's overall alignment is determined by its blackest portion. Something to do with the "balance of cosmic power" shifting towards evil every time a good act is done with evil's help.

Talvereaux
2011-07-15, 04:31 PM
I would agree with you, but RAW according to the BoED page 9 an endeavor's overall alignment is determined by its blackest portion. Something to do with the "balance of cosmic power" shifting towards evil every time a good act is done with evil's help.

In most cases where a necessary evil would corrupt the entire endeavor, there's a few factors to consider. For one, is it really a necessary evil? There are a lot of cases where it is possible to form a third option, and it's only a "necessary evil" because the character convinces their self it is through inflexible thinking. I can cite Redcloak from OOTS as an example of this.

SoD spoilers:
His motives are pure, and he considers his actions a necessary evil to further the goblin cause, but in reality, the Plan is not the only way to help goblins. His brother Right-Eye tried to prove that there are ways to deal with injustice and hardships besides ending all life in the universe. Redcloak is evil because he refuses to accept any path other than the necessary-evil-that's-not-really-necessary.

In other cases, coping with the consequences of a necessary evil, and being forced to repent is just part of the package of being good. Good is not the easy way out. Unlike evil, it forces you to take responsibility for your actions, and that's just one of the challenges of being good.

Talakeal
2011-07-15, 04:38 PM
In most cases where a necessary evil would corrupt the entire endeavor, there's a few factors to consider. For one, is it really a necessary evil? There are a lot of cases where it is possible to form a third option, and it's only a "necessary evil" because the character convinces their self it is through inflexible thinking. I can cite Redcloak from OOTS as an example of this.

SoD spoilers:
His motives are pure, and he considers his actions a necessary evil to further the goblin cause, but in reality, the Plan is not the only way to help goblins. His brother Right-Eye tried to prove that there are ways to deal with injustice and hardships besides ending all life in the universe. He's evil because he refuses to accept any path other than the necessary-evil-that's-not-really-necessary.

In other cases, coping with the consequences of a necessary evil, and being forced to repent is just part of the package of being good. Good is not the easy way out. Unlike evil, it forces you to take responsibility for your actions, and that's just one of the challenges of being good.


While you make a good point, I actually draw the opposite conclusion. Good absolves you of responsibility for your actions, because the good solution is spelled out for you in black and white. A neutral character will have to weigh the options to try and figure out what the right thing to do is, a good character will simply fall back on a set of inflexible rules.
BoED page 9 also goes on to talk about how performing a deed you feel bad about and then repenting is not a noble sacrifice, it is a concession to the forces of darkness on a cosmic scale and only misery can come from it in the long run.
BoED is presented as a book for people who want a more mature game that deeply explored the nature of good and evil, but it really does the opposite, removing choice and decision making from good characters and replacing it with a set of arbitrary rules and cool powers you get for following them.

Talvereaux
2011-07-15, 04:55 PM
While you make a good point, I actually draw the opposite conclusion. Good absolves you of responsibility for your actions, because the good solution is spelled out for you in black and white. A neutral character will have to weigh the options to try and figure out what the right thing to do is, a good character will simply fall back on a set of inflexible rules.
BoED page 9 also goes on to talk about how performing a deed you feel bad about and then repenting is not a noble sacrifice, it is a concession to the forces of darkness on a cosmic scale and only misery can come from it in the long run.
BoED is presented as a book for people who want a more mature game that deeply explored the nature of good and evil, but it really does the opposite, removing choice and decision making from good characters and replacing it with a set of arbitrary rules and cool powers you get for following them.

I'm not a fan of alignment-based powers, either, really, but that's not the point right now. I haven't actually read the BoED, so I can't really argue much for or against its contents.

However, I don't think playing a good character absolves you of responsibility. There's a lot more to redemption in a decently run campaign than doing a PSA to tell everyone you're sorry.

According to the SRD, garden variety Atonement (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Atonement) requires you to find a cleric who's willing to pay the XP cost to intercede with their deity, usually requiring a quest before even allowing that, then it's up to the deity whether or not you'll be redeemed. It isn't a foregone conclusion that a good character can always just run to the nearest redemption booth and be redeemed every time they decide they want to be naughty. You can't really make loopholes out of it either, seeing as in such a case the spell wouldn't work on someone who isn't genuinely remorseful of their evil actions. There are ways to repent for being evil besides Atonement spells, anyway, which is just as well, as I'm not a fan of those myself.

Tiktakkat
2011-07-17, 07:46 PM
Pretty much- the question is, did the game designers take this into account when building alignment, or is it "supposed" to be perfectly symmetrical, with a person who consistantly does both good and evil, being Neutral?

The original designer did, yes.
Of course he was operating from a significantly different standard than most all follow-up designers, and the vast majority of players.
That makes discussions of RAW/RAI on alignment difficult as you first need to settle which set of rules are being discussed, and understand how the changes in both have affected the entire system over time. (And for me, those changes have reduced that entire system to barely above a self-parody at this point, which is why I still use a near-1st ed RAI version of the system for my campaigns.)

No, Neutrality is (war original designer RAI) not keeping a log of Good and Evil acts and ticking off an equal number of each. (Or an equal number of Lawful and Chaotic acts for that matter.) Neutrality is acting for a cause without concern for the Good or Evil effects and side effects.
Of course that be a severely confusing concept, which is why all the cordant alignments were originally described as being particularly esoteric while the extreme alignments were more easily comprehended and followed.

hamishspence
2011-07-18, 02:52 AM
Neutrality is acting for a cause without concern for the Good or Evil effects and side effects.

Good implies respect for life- Evil implies a severe lack of it, at least in some aspects.

So wouldn't being "without concern for Evil effects and side effects" approach Evil in its callousness?

Personally I think it was an improvement, to recognize that extreme devotion to a cause, to the point of that much less of concern for Evil side effects, is closer to Evil than Neutral.

Being "without compassion, and hurting people if doing so is convenient" (that is, if it furthers one's cause" is associated with Evil in 3.0 and 3.5. And possibly earlier editions as well.

Kalirren
2011-07-19, 01:29 PM
Pretty much- the question is, did the game designers take this into account when building alignment, or is it "supposed" to be perfectly symmetrical, with a person who consistantly does both good and evil, being Neutral?.

I don't think so. Alignment is an old, old system. It predates the idea of playing an RPG with the miniatures. It comes out of wargames where you have opposite classes of units, some of which deal extra damage to each other. Back then you didn't -have- people, characters, dealing with the alignment system. You had classes of units. In high fantasy these classes naturally broke along the line of Good/Evil, just as in sci-fi these classes often break along the biological/cybernetic line.

So no, there is no RAI regarding how the alignment system deals with characters. Alignment as first conceived was never intended to be applied to characters. It's a holdover from a previous era of gaming. In practice the way people deal with this relic is to ask, at any given point, would it make more sense for me to put this person in the Good bin, the Evil bin, or neither? But the idea that most people have alignment at any point before it is measured is just sort of dumb.

The exceptions are of course creatures that are explicitly aligned.