PDA

View Full Version : Redemption via Pragmatism



Morithias
2012-08-28, 04:03 PM
Let's say you have some kind of tyrant like Elan's father (I forget how to spell his name), and a travelling neutral good healer merchant wanders into town, and makes him a deal that she can increase his empire's efficiency and revenue with some minor changes.

However in order to do this it involves making the subjects a bit happier, healthier, and more well fed. "The strong make many, the weak make few, the dead make none."

If she managed to talk him into changing like this, would you consider this a form of redemption? If she basically managed to go "Yeah making 10k a year is good, but I can boost that up to 25k if you act a bit more on the good side of things, plus your afterlife will be much more enjoyable, and your people won't be rebelling."

Would you consider that enough to change his alignment, or would it still fall into the evil or neutral area since he's motivated by pragmatism and not the joy of being nice to people.

I just want the forum's opinion on this before my healer/merchant starts trying to explain economics and days off to dragons and blackguards. I don't need her getting her head lopped off.

Dr Bwaa
2012-08-28, 04:51 PM
Personally I think alignment has more to do with intent than raw actions (though I suppose if your self-serving whims somehow resulted in you creating a utopia for everyone else and just generally improving QoL for everyone, you're might be getting a good-aligned afterlife even if you're evil? Or not; who knows.).

My real question is how that's even relevant to whether or not you get beheaded. I'm pretty sure that's a diplomacy/tact thing entirely separate from what the blackguards in question do with their alignments.

Water_Bear
2012-08-28, 04:53 PM
Not really.

In D&D, Evil and Good are primarily about intentions. Killing a Metallic Chromatic Dragon to take it's hoard is Neutral, killing it to protect nearby townsfolk is Good, killing it for pleasure is Evil. Obviously there are acts which are automatically Evil regardless of intent; casting [Evil] spells, summoning and dealing with Fiends, worshiping Evil gods, indiscriminate mass murder. But those are the exception rather than the rule.

What your Tyrant did was back off from Stupid Evil and move towards more Machiavellian tactics. After all, while there are plenty of pleasent ways to keep your citizens happy and increase production, there are at least as many amoral and evil options.


Keeping the citizenry complacent with propaganda and gladiatorial games or other spectacular public executions reduces dissent and increases compliance with authority.
Workers who are addicted to Sannish [BoVD] are immune to pain while high, only need to take it every 5 days to avoid withdrawal symptoms, and the drug itself is fairly cheap. Providing it free of charge, and making it's production illegal, ties workers to the state and increases productivity.
Regular public human sacrifices to evil dieties, at least using the BoVD sacrifice rules, will drastically increase production of Magic Items thus benefit all of society (Create Food traps aren't free!).
Encouraging Racism and Nationalism means that foreign influences will have less weight among your people, and gives a sense of community defined in opposition to hated groups.
Combined with a Zone of Truth, torture in D&D is actually spectacularly effective. Very few people have the Will saves or magical skill to circumvent the Zone of Truth, and everyone will fail an Intimidate check eventually especially with modifiers from torture equipment.
Making deals with Devils in exchange for enacting LE policies means that they are invested in keeping you on the throne. Fiendish Codex II says that Devil's "Hunting Grounds" like this are their primary sources of Souls, which they jealously guard and maintain. Plus, if you're worried they'll betray you you can always get a contract in writing. :smallwink:

Alejandro
2012-08-28, 04:55 PM
If you show the evil tyrant how to run a more effective and efficient empire through improving some of the ways its citizens are treated, you're not really doing a 'good' thing in the grand scheme.

Basically, you're enabling that evil tyrant to have more resources to spend on evil deeds.

Morithias
2012-08-28, 05:04 PM
Never considered a lot of what you guys are saying, guess I'm just more idealistic, that if shown that "Good pays better" or something like that, then a tyrant might be talked into switching sides....

Oh well.

Remmirath
2012-08-28, 05:43 PM
Depends on the tyrant and how evil they are, I'd say. Some of them - particularly those who started out with noble or even neutral intentions to begin with - I could see being talked into a more good-aligned way of doing things like that. Certainly I would not expect the sort who is in any way setting out to do evil or make people miserable to go along with it, or one who is more about personal power than power of the empire.

Also, as others have said, I'd be careful about the whole 'accidentally enabling an evil empire' thing. There's always the chance that they'll thank you for making their empire more efficient, and then promptly dispose of you and go about their evil deeds as before. It might end up making things better for the people of the evil empire, but worse for everyone else.

I mainly judge alignment based on intent and motivation, so I would not judge the tyrant's alignment any differently even if it did work. If the tyrant decided to change and start doing other good things for better motives, then yes; but if the reason was just that it is more efficient, no. I could see it perhaps being a first step on a longer road to a more good alignment, if you're really convincing and/or lucky.

As for the head-lopping, that probably depends more on the temperment of the tyrant in question. I'd expect the head to roll unless the tyrant was actively looking for a way to increase revenue, particularly if they dislike being challenged or questioned.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-29, 10:24 AM
Never considered a lot of what you guys are saying, guess I'm just more idealistic, that if shown that "Good pays better" or something like that, then a tyrant might be talked into switching sides....

Oh well.

If this mother****er was willing to torture people and oppress for cash? He's Evil, nuff sed, and his alignment isn't changing until this is.

If the only reason he's switching is cash? Evil.

If he appreciates goodness and human decency as the morally right thing to do, and is doing his utmost to ensure it? And none of this "Oh, well I can be good as soon as I'm done baking these innocent babies into a pie!" crap, either. I mean actually going out and doing Good and fighting Evil because he knows it's the right thing to do. Sure, then it's alignment switch time.

But if he's going right back to torture, oppression, and genocide the moment Goodness stops turning a profit? Evil.

QuidEst
2012-08-29, 12:08 PM
At best, he'll get himself over the line onto the evil side of neutral. Donating money to orphanages because you've worked out a tax deduction that will save you money overall isn't a good act- that's neutral. Running your kingdom more efficiently with calculated efficiency so you have more resources to crush peaceful neighboring kingdoms isn't a neutral act- that's evil. Running your kingdom more efficiently purely for personal gain is a neutral act, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's not still evil.

Asheram
2012-08-30, 04:39 AM
Let's say you have some kind of tyrant like Elan's father (I forget how to spell his name), and a travelling neutral good healer merchant wanders into town, and makes him a deal that she can increase his empire's efficiency and revenue with some minor changes.

However in order to do this it involves making the subjects a bit happier, healthier, and more well fed. "The strong make many, the weak make few, the dead make none."

If she managed to talk him into changing like this, would you consider this a form of redemption? If she basically managed to go "Yeah making 10k a year is good, but I can boost that up to 25k if you act a bit more on the good side of things, plus your afterlife will be much more enjoyable, and your people won't be rebelling."

Would you consider that enough to change his alignment, or would it still fall into the evil or neutral area since he's motivated by pragmatism and not the joy of being nice to people.

I just want the forum's opinion on this before my healer/merchant starts trying to explain economics and days off to dragons and blackguards. I don't need her getting her head lopped off.

Efficiency isn't redemption. If this efficiency could be reached without compromising his own security, power or hold of the people, it would be done in a heartbeat.
I believe that Elans Father (As Lawful Evil) would be a bad comparison because that is exactly how he would run his country.

In my mind, if any tyrant (Evil) would would encounter this situation the only axis they'd potentially move on would be the Lawful <-> Chaotic one.

Edit.
Of course, this would be an obvious improvement to the people serving beneath the tyrant and I'm sure that the tyrants themselves would be grateful.

Arbane
2012-08-30, 11:00 AM
"Any sufficiently pragmatic Evil is indistinguishable from Neutrality"?

kyoryu
2012-08-30, 12:15 PM
Would you consider that enough to change his alignment, or would it still fall into the evil or neutral area since he's motivated by pragmatism and not the joy of being nice to people.

That act is neutral. If he's still torturing people, he's Evil. *Most* people act in a selfish-but-not-harmful (read: Neutral) way most of the time. Evil people are willing to cross that "harmful to others" line. Neutral people do so rarely if at all.


If the only reason he's switching is cash? Evil.

Yeah, *he's* still Evil, but the act of allowing the healer to set up shop is Neutral. Note that the healer's intentions may actually be Good...


At best, he'll get himself over the line onto the evil side of neutral.

Exactly. To me, any character that is still willing to torture/kill/whatever without provocation and without remorse is Evil, regardless of the number of Neutral, or even Good, acts that they perform.


"Any sufficiently pragmatic Evil is indistinguishable from Neutrality"?

Disagree. Evil is marked by willingness to harm (though I'd prefer the term "infringe on the rights of") others. Your statement is only true if there is not a pragmatic decision that involves that kind of rights infringement. Killing off old people because they're a resource drain is Evil. Doing it in a way that can't be traced back to you to avoid the popular anger is pragmatic.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-30, 12:20 PM
Convincing the evil guy to do LESS evil is probably a good thing. It doesn't necessarily matter a lot how you talk him out of killing those puppies and torturing those orphans, you can justify it as a good deed.

The evil dude is still evil, though. Being good is more than just "well, I'll only murder/torture when it's clearly profitable".

hamishspence
2012-08-30, 12:35 PM
Not really.

In D&D, Evil and Good are primarily about intentions. Killing a Metallic Dragon to take it's hoard is Neutral, killing it to protect nearby townsfolk is Good, killing it for pleasure is Evil.
[/LIST]

Metallic? The ones that are "Always Good"? "Killing innocent beings for profit" seems almost as evil as you can get.

Even BoVD only uses the "it's neutral to kill it for profit" for "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil".

Water_Bear
2012-08-30, 12:39 PM
Metallic? The ones that are "Always Good"? "Killing innocent beings for profit" seems almost as evil as you can get.

Whoops, I always get those confused. I meant Chromatic.

hamishspence
2012-08-30, 12:49 PM
And even then, they're not exactly irredeemable (but then, in D&D even fiends have been redeemed).

Maybe in that respect BoVD is out-of-date.

To move a tyrant all the way to Neutral- he'd need to gain an aversion to Evil deeds, and maybe a desire to atone for past ones.

Instilling in him altruistic tendencies might be a start, too- if he starts consistantly acting Good, he might gain that aversion to Evil.

VanBuren
2012-08-30, 03:47 PM
Here's one: He never has an aversion to evil deeds, and would be willing to commit them if profitable.... but never has because thus far the most profitable action was to not do them.

Neutral, or Evil?

hymer
2012-08-30, 03:55 PM
I'd like to point out that oftentimes in stories, when you want to get people to behave nicely, you point out why it would be good for them to do so. And sometimes, they get into the habit of doing it. And sometimes, they eventually realize they like being good. And suddenly, they're redeemed.
So I think there's something to be said for OP's scheme, but it just takes a while longer than you might think.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-30, 05:01 PM
Here's one: He never has an aversion to evil deeds, and would be willing to commit them if profitable.... but never has because thus far the most profitable action was to not do them.

Neutral, or Evil?

How low will he go?


If you're willing to sell your relatives to make a buck, you're Evil. If you're willing to kill innocents for cash, you're Evil. If you're willing to risk innocent lives for cash, that's Evil too.

VanBuren
2012-08-30, 05:03 PM
How low will he go?


If you're willing to sell your relatives to make a buck, you're Evil. If you're willing to kill innocents for cash, you're Evil. If you're willing to risk innocent lives for cash, that's Evil too.

He's perfectly willing to, at least in theory. But he hasn't ever done any of those things, or anything even close to because that would be vastly less profitable. His evil is all theoretical.

Water_Bear
2012-08-30, 05:06 PM
Here's one: He never has an aversion to evil deeds, and would be willing to commit them if profitable.... but never has because thus far the most profitable action was to not do them.

Neutral, or Evil?

Evil and fairly incompetent. There's a lot of really low-risk Evil that pays off pretty well, mostly on the LE side of preying on and exploiting people without societal protections.

Slavery, regardless of era or nation, is a fairly profitable enterprise and is usually either legal or unofficially tolerated. Loan Sharking is another classic "eat the poor" business model, and is even less likely to get your door kicked in by Paladins than slavery. Setting up a monopoly of something which people are compelled to buy (food, water, land, addictive substances) and gouging people for it is pretty good money anywhere but a Tippyverse post-scarcity economy.

Morithias
2012-08-30, 05:27 PM
Okay so what everyone is saying is that I need to talk him into making me the head of economics and use the diplomacy rules in BOED to slowly change his mind via sweet words.

Thanks for the insight.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-30, 05:40 PM
He's perfectly willing to, at least in theory. But he hasn't ever done any of those things, or anything even close to because that would be vastly less profitable. His evil is all theoretical.


So if I tell him to kick a sleeping hobo for 20$, he'll do it? He's Evil. Also a moron, because there are all kinds of profitable Evil.

And I'll go further: If he's so stupid that he's literally never thought an Evil act would benefit him (even "smaller" things like lying, cheating, or stealing), and goes through his entire life without realizing this, he can't make moral decisions at all. He's True Neutral, like an animal, because he's too stupid to have an alignment.


Okay so what everyone is saying is that I need to talk him into making me the head of economics and use the diplomacy rules in BOED to slowly change his mind via sweet words.

Thanks for the insight.

By RAW, that only works on prisoners. If you can get the leader of a country to listen to you preach at him for a full hour every day for a whole week (without throwing you out, either. Dictators are very busy, self-absorbed, closed-minded men who often can't stand to have their beliefs challenged), and have a high enough Diplomacy check to blow his Will save+Level out of the water every time, go for it. It's also a conversation: you need him to talk too each time, which I think is... unlikely for a brutal dictator.

jseah
2012-08-30, 08:03 PM
By RAW, that only works on prisoners. If you can get the leader of a country to listen to you preach at him for a full hour every day for a whole week (without throwing you out, either. Dictators are very busy, self-absorbed, closed-minded men who often can't stand to have their beliefs challenged), and have a high enough Diplomacy check to blow his Will save+Level out of the water every time, go for it. It's also a conversation: you need him to talk too each time, which I think is... unlikely for a brutal dictator.

He's going to be the chairman of the deparment of economics and health. Presumably part of a powerful adventuring party. One would think that said tyrant would be at least cautious around them and would listen, especially when he probably has another softie scheme and a very convincing argument for making more money.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-30, 08:29 PM
He's going to be the chairman of the deparment of economics and health. Presumably part of a powerful adventuring party. One would think that said tyrant would be at least cautious around them and would listen, especially when he probably has another softie scheme and a very convincing argument for making more money.

That depends on how the DM is playing the tyrant. The tyrant is the one appointing the healer to a pretty major position; agreement with the leader's philosophy is practically a prerequisite to employment in oppressive governments, and only the most loyal can get into the top positions. Merely questioning the leader causes suppression (exile, imprisonment, possibly murder, work camps, etc.) in the more brutal ones.

Of course, his behavior depends less on how actual tyranny works, and more on how your DM thinks it works. A ruler that receptive to an outsider's input wouldn't have gotten that oppressive IMO.

VanBuren
2012-08-30, 08:36 PM
So if I tell him to kick a sleeping hobo for 20$, he'll do it? He's Evil. Also a moron, because there are all kinds of profitable Evil.

And I'll go further: If he's so stupid that he's literally never thought an Evil act would benefit him (even "smaller" things like lying, cheating, or stealing), and goes through his entire life without realizing this, he can't make moral decisions at all. He's True Neutral, like an animal, because he's too stupid to have an alignment.



By RAW, that only works on prisoners. If you can get the leader of a country to listen to you preach at him for a full hour every day for a whole week (without throwing you out, either. Dictators are very busy, self-absorbed, closed-minded men who often can't stand to have their beliefs challenged), and have a high enough Diplomacy check to blow his Will save+Level out of the water every time, go for it. It's also a conversation: you need him to talk too each time, which I think is... unlikely for a brutal dictator.


Evil and fairly incompetent. There's a lot of really low-risk Evil that pays off pretty well, mostly on the LE side of preying on and exploiting people without societal protections.

Slavery, regardless of era or nation, is a fairly profitable enterprise and is usually either legal or unofficially tolerated. Loan Sharking is another classic "eat the poor" business model, and is even less likely to get your door kicked in by Paladins than slavery. Setting up a monopoly of something which people are compelled to buy (food, water, land, addictive substances) and gouging people for it is pretty good money anywhere but a Tippyverse post-scarcity economy.

You're both very much missing the point on this one. We can nitpick and conjure up all sorts of details to try and make this hypothetical more plausible, but the point I'm getting at is to what degree someone's willingness to do evil is a factor versus the actual amount of evil they have done.

Slipperychicken
2012-08-30, 10:07 PM
You're both very much missing the point on this one. We can nitpick and conjure up all sorts of details to try and make this hypothetical more plausible, but the point I'm getting at is to what degree someone's willingness to do evil is a factor versus the actual amount of evil they have done.




SRD; Alignment
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.


Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.


Alignment represents "moral and personal attitudes".

Our hypothetical person is Evil because he "will kill without qualms if doing so is convenient". He is not Neutral because he does not "have compunctions against killing the innocent".