Alignment and "good guys"/"bad guys"

[Sethala]

After reading parts of these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232652) two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232995) threads, I started to wonder a bit about what alignment really means as far as "heroes" and "villains".

Personally, I think part of the confusion is just the names "good" and "evil", though I can't think of any terms that would be more appropriate offhand. I don't believe that an "evil" character has to be a "bad guy" in a story, and a "good" character doesn't have to be the "good guy". Of course, they do drift more towards those respective roles, there's exceptions. For instance, while I have no doubt that Belkar is Chaotic Evil, I also fully believe that he is still one of the heroes in the story, in his own misguided, psychopathic way. Similarly, Miko is definitely Lawful Good, though her overzealous nature makes me place her firmly in "bad guy" territory despite that.

Good and Evil, in D&D terms, isn't about whether someone is trying to save the world or to take it over, but instead about how and why people do what they do. A Good character may rescue captives from the band of marauding orcs because it's the right thing to do, while an Evil character may do the exact same because it serves him in some way (a reward from the townspeople, he needs the help of one of the captives, he was going to kill the orcs for some other reason anyway, etc), but in the end both end up as heroes.

Or at least, that's my perspective on things.

[hamishspence]

"Why" is relevant- but "What they do along the way" can sometimes be even more important.

An evil person is someone who consistantly commits "morally unjustified" (those dreaded words!) acts, first and foremost.

Other traits are optional- though the "evil personality type" (see evil description from PHB) might be called upon for creatures that are "always evil" from birth but haven't had any time to commit evil acts yet.

A good person is someone who both avoids committing evil acts (under most circumstances- good people might commit them on rare occasions- they're not flawless) and also "makes personal sacrifices to help strangers".

Neutral is someone who doesn't fit into either of these. While the PHB defines the typical Neutral person as someone who "lacks the commitment to make personal sacrifices to help or protect strangers" + "avoids harming the innocent"- this seems to me to be only one of the many types of Neutral.

Others might commit evil acts, but not "consistantly" or severely- so failing to fall into Good or evil. Such characters might be much more altruistic than your traditional Neutral person.

[rbetieh]

"Why" is relevant- but "What they do along the way" can sometimes be even more important.

An evil person is someone who consistantly commits "morally unjustified" (those dreaded words!) acts, first and foremost.



By whos standard? All good Hobbogblins go to heaven you know. And by Heaven I mean the Dark Ones Army, the ultimate reward for a Hobbo. To the Hobbo culture, Celestia is a Punishment.

[Narren]

After reading parts of these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232652) two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232995) threads, I started to wonder a bit about what alignment really means as far as "heroes" and "villains".

Personally, I think part of the confusion is just the names "good" and "evil", though I can't think of any terms that would be more appropriate offhand. I don't believe that an "evil" character has to be a "bad guy" in a story, and a "good" character doesn't have to be the "good guy". Of course, they do drift more towards those respective roles, there's exceptions. For instance, while I have no doubt that Belkar is Chaotic Evil, I also fully believe that he is still one of the heroes in the story, in his own misguided, psychopathic way. Similarly, Miko is definitely Lawful Good, though her overzealous nature makes me place her firmly in "bad guy" territory despite that.

Good and Evil, in D&D terms, isn't about whether someone is trying to save the world or to take it over, but instead about how and why people do what they do. A Good character may rescue captives from the band of marauding orcs because it's the right thing to do, while an Evil character may do the exact same because it serves him in some way (a reward from the townspeople, he needs the help of one of the captives, he was going to kill the orcs for some other reason anyway, etc), but in the end both end up as heroes.

Or at least, that's my perspective on things.

By "good guy" and "bad guy" do you mean protagonist and antagonist?

[Sethala]

By "good guy" and "bad guy" do you mean protagonist and antagonist?

More "hero" and "villain", as there are plenty of stories with a villain protagonist/hero antagonist, but otherwise yes.

[Fish]

Original D&D alignments were primitive: Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic. There was no goodness or evil, or any attempt at extrapolating alignment into personality. There were simply sides on a battlefield — natural divisions, because it was a wargame simulation. People who help, people who don't, and people trying to harm you.

Later, I assume people saw the labels and argued, "Why can't I be Lawful, but still be on the other side?" D&D tried to backfill this concept into character development, which doesn't really work. It assumed that people joined the same side because they were broadly similar kinds of people. In war it's possible to be on the same side without being the same kind of person, or to have similar goals but different tactics for achieving it. Alignment doesn't really fit the good-guy-bad-guy paradigm.

[suzaliscious]

"Good" and "Evil" are simple, childish concepts. They are abstractions appropriate for a game setting (and a lot of fictional settings) but mean nothing in the context of truly good stories.

Is Redcloak Evil? He was born in an oppressed society and brought up wanting to be a servant to his people, something he strives to do to this very day.

Is Haley Good? She brutally murdered a defenseless woman (Remember Roland Itiative?) and was a thief.

EXACTLY. No, don't post those arguments, I know what you're thinking already and that's exactly what I mean. You need context. You need reasons. You need intent. You need, in short, a lot of information that is simply not encapsulated in the two single-word labels "Good" and "Evil" or even by the much broader yet still limited Alignment system.

[hamishspence]

"Good" and "Evil" are simple, childish concepts. They are abstractions appropriate for a game setting (and a lot of fictional settings) but mean nothing in the context of truly good stories.

You need, in short, a lot of information that is simply not encapsulated in the two single-word labels "Good" and "Evil" or even by the much broader yet still limited Alignment system.

I think Celia's argument here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html

might have something relevant to say.

I feel "truly good story" can use the terms Good and Evil seriously- they don't have to be just abstractions.