PDA

View Full Version : Is it really harder to be good?



Dimers
2012-12-05, 08:26 PM
Comes out of a discussion in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262737).

Is it harder to be good than to be evil? I want to hear what you think about the real world (without involving religion or politics: good luck!), but also different games.

Most nWoD games make it really hard to stay good. That's a theme they explicitly try to evoke, and the mechanics suit it.

In D&D it depends a great deal on the gamemaster. Mechanics for alignment effects and alignment change are pretty thin.

There are no good guys in Shadowrun. :smalltongue:

I feel like there's a lot of social support for being decent in most real-world cultures. Being out-and-out heroic isn't very common, but evil definitely isn't the standard for humanity.

Thoughts?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-05, 09:25 PM
For RL, the question is essentially unanswerable. What constitutes "good" or "evil" depends on culture and, consequently, so does the difficulty in sticking to one or the other.

In D&D 3.5, a close reading of RAW puts it fairly close. Exalted is definitely harder than vanilla good, nevermind neutral and evil, but that's only a subset of good. If all you're shooting for is a guarantee that the G or E on your character sheet doesn't change into some other letter, it's about even. Since many, if not most, people have difficulty in seperating the moral axis of the alignment system from RL morality, I have very little doubt that I'm going to be called out as flat wrong on this one though. Nevertheless, the above is what I think about the matter.

Kitten Champion
2012-12-05, 09:29 PM
The only difficulty I've had in roleplaying is remaining neutral or unaligned -- although ironically I think that characterizes the vast majority of humans in the world. We don't encounter much in the way of dramatic ethical decisions in our lifetimes and we usually wander between the lines of self-interest and altruism at different points of our lives. I'd even have some difficulty applying moral labels to lawbreakers and deviants coming from a post-modern perspective.

I have a problem with any game or game master which pushes me into villainy, the whole role can feel so trite and childish. Like stomping on some kid's sandcastle at the playground. For it to work, I need to understand the motivations behind my Renegade status -- beyond "for the evulz" -- so I have some rationale in which to frame my decision making.

Ravens_cry
2012-12-05, 10:03 PM
Yeah, I considered Neutral to be the vast majority of people. We don't go out to hurt people, but we don't often risk much to help others either. It's similar on a law and chaos side.
As for in D&D, Evil has a lot of fun options that can make life so much easier, but then, good also has some fun toys, though from what I know Evil does tend to have a certain sheer power advantage.
In many World of Darkness worlds, being evil is easy, but it has a high cost.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-05, 10:06 PM
Goodness is easy as pie. Cooperation and trust form the basis for human social interaction. We value those quite highly, and for good reason; we need them for any community to function. Even wandering nomadic bands need to rely on members of their communities, perhaps more so than us "civilized" peoples.

We trust people (and those people make good on it) so often we don't even realize it. Every time you exchange a dollar (or any currency) for a good or service, the recipient is trusting that someone else will accept that currency in exchange for another good or service. Every time you drag your garbage out to the curb, you're trusting that someone will drive by in a large truck and haul it off somewhere else. Whenever you deposit money in a bank, you're trusting the bank and government to keep their promise to you (to keep your money safe and return a tiny amount of interest). The overwhelming majority of the time, these people keep their promises to you and earn your trust.

We literally don't even realize how much we cooperate with others. Countless people wake up, abide by the same rules of the road and pedestrian traffic (walk on the sidewalk, stop at red lights, go on green lights...), arrive in their workplace at the same place and time as countless other people (often strangers no less), and proceed to work together with them for mutual benefit. Some dissenters/traitors exist, but they're usually fired or otherwise removed, and violators who remain are a truly insignificant minority.

Those who consistently or intentionally violate our trust (even outside of formal or binding agreements!) are considered to be the lowest of scum. Freeloaders, traitors, scam-artists, liars, thieves, and cheaters are all heavily ostracized, penalized, and pushed to society's margins. Rare exceptions evade punishment completely, and those almost unfailingly produce public outcries, that they continue to go unpunished.

Opperhapsen
2012-12-05, 10:10 PM
Everyone, unless they're mentally ill (And that's an entirely new debacle), picks doing good or doing nothing over doing evil if they are equally profitable and carry equal risk.
Being evil doesn't mean you can't do good, and it's always easier to hinder than to help.
The evil guy is the person who has chosen a way to make profit (I do not necessarily mean profitable in the terms of monetary gain) despite the hurt it brings to others, and as he would have chosen a good path if it was equally profitable the only conclusion must be that he achieves more, more easily, than he would have had he stuck to good.

Emperor Tippy
2012-12-05, 10:48 PM
In the end, Good can't really be pragmatic in D&D and stay good. Evil can.

An evil individual or organization is perfectly fine with healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and protecting the sanctity of life if that is the most efficient means to achieve a desired goal.

A good individual or organization is not perfectly fine with torturing children, feeding the old to their dogs, and murdering every second person in the world even if it is the most efficient means to achieve a desired goal.

Evil beings can do good acts for selfish reasons and be just fine, good beings can't do evil acts for selfless reasons and stay good.

And quite frankly, very few adventurers actually meet the qualifications to remain good. Their career is best summed up as "Murder Hobo" and that is simply antithetical to being "good".

snoopy13a
2012-12-05, 11:26 PM
In real life, being neutral is rather easy--you just have to avoid doing evil things. Being good is a bit tougher--you actually have to donate to that charity or volunteer at that soup kitchen. Being evil is quite easy, at least from a certain point of view. Evil acts are simple to commit but can have harsh penalties.

In game, acts of goodness can be handwaved with no effort from the player. A player can say that his gruff, brooding, jerkish ranger who doesn't work well with others is chaotic good because every Monday he goes off hunting and gives his game to poor villagers (and the player would be right--as long as the ranger doesn't do evil things). For an actual person, that's a lot of work. For the player, it is no work.

All things being equal, it is likely easier for evil characters because, as was alreadly mentioned, they have more flexibility to be pragmatic. But the costs of being a good character in a role playing game aren't that difficult for a player. Worst-case scenario is that your character dies and you have to reroll. That isn't nearly as much work as volunteering in that soup kitchen.

Acanous
2012-12-05, 11:33 PM
Truly good people will tell you they try to be good, that good is not in one single act. It is a constant effort to do the right thing, even when it is not advantageous.

Neutral people will tell you they are good, and give you the justifications they use to placate themselves.

Evil people will ask you to define good, and tell you that "Good" and "Evil" are abstract concepts that couldn't possibly apply to them.

TuggyNE
2012-12-06, 12:00 AM
In real life, being neutral is rather easy--you just have to avoid doing evil things. Being good is a bit tougher--you actually have to donate to that charity or volunteer at that soup kitchen. Being evil is quite easy, at least from a certain point of view. Evil acts are simple to commit but can have harsh penalties.


Truly good people will tell you they try to be good, that good is not in one single act. It is a constant effort to do the right thing, even when it is not advantageous.

Neutral people will tell you they are good, and give you the justifications they use to placate themselves.

Evil people will ask you to define good, and tell you that "Good" and "Evil" are abstract concepts that couldn't possibly apply to them.

Soundly agree with both these posts, basically what I would have written had I not been late-coming. :smallwink:

awa
2012-12-06, 12:30 AM
Goodness is easy as pie. Cooperation and trust form the basis for human social interaction. We value those quite highly, and for good reason; we need them for any community to function. Even wandering nomadic bands need to rely on members of their communities, perhaps more so than us "civilized" peoples.

We trust people (and those people make good on it) so often we don't even realize it. Every time you exchange a dollar (or any currency) for a good or service, the recipient is trusting that someone else will accept that currency in exchange for another good or service. Every time you drag your garbage out to the curb, you're trusting that someone will drive by in a large truck and haul it off somewhere else. Whenever you deposit money in a bank, you're trusting the bank and government to keep their promise to you (to keep your money safe and return a tiny amount of interest). The overwhelming majority of the time, these people keep their promises to you and earn your trust.

We literally don't even realize how much we cooperate with others. Countless people wake up, abide by the same rules of the road and pedestrian traffic (walk on the sidewalk, stop at red lights, go on green lights...), arrive in their workplace at the same place and time as countless other people (often strangers no less), and proceed to work together with them for mutual benefit. Some dissenters/traitors exist, but they're usually fired or otherwise removed, and violators who remain are a truly insignificant minority.

Those who consistently or intentionally violate our trust (even outside of formal or binding agreements!) are considered to be the lowest of scum. Freeloaders, traitors, scam-artists, liars, thieves, and cheaters are all heavily ostracized, penalized, and pushed to society's margins. Rare exceptions evade punishment completely, and those almost unfailingly produce public outcries, that they continue to go unpunished.



cooperation is a neutral act unless it costs you something.
Even a donation to charity is an extremely minor act of good unless you donate enough to substantially affect your standard of living. (note im talking about good in terms of alignment not in terms of effectiveness a poor person giving every thing but their rent and food money to charity is preforming a more good act then a billionaire giving a million dollars but the billionaire will get more done)

also evil people can believe in good and evil they might just disagree with whose the evil one.

edit actually cooperation can be an evil act as well depending on what your cooperating on.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-06, 03:34 AM
Depends if your an optimist.

And I am.

I think good is stronger. It works better together. But evil is easier.

Evil people cooperate worse.

Mono Vertigo
2012-12-06, 04:45 AM
Everyone, unless they're mentally ill (And that's an entirely new debacle), picks doing good or doing nothing over doing evil if they are equally profitable and carry equal risk.
Mostly accurate, but, IMHO, not 100% true. An individual could still choose the evil option over the good one, even if their costs are identical, for the following reasons:
- genuine confusion over which is the good and which is the evil option (happens most frequently when, say, you're given a choice between killing goblins and not killing them)
- belief that one is irredeemable anyway (whether this is true doesn't matter) and that they may as well keep doing evil; admittedly, this might count as having mental issues
- habits and freudian excuses (for example, an adventurer with abusive parents could themselves abuse their friends because that's how their life has always been like but still be well-meaning); might also count as having mental issues

Man on Fire
2012-12-06, 08:36 AM
In the end, Good can't really be pragmatic in D&D and stay good. Evil can.

An evil individual or organization is perfectly fine with healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and protecting the sanctity of life if that is the most efficient means to achieve a desired goal.

A good individual or organization is not perfectly fine with torturing children, feeding the old to their dogs, and murdering every second person in the world even if it is the most efficient means to achieve a desired goal.

Evil beings can do good acts for selfish reasons and be just fine, good beings can't do evil acts for selfless reasons and stay good.

And quite frankly, very few adventurers actually meet the qualifications to remain good. Their career is best summed up as "Murder Hobo" and that is simply antithetical to being "good".

I'm starting to think that you hate D&D even mroe that I do.

But more in point - not every evil is on the same level. there are many evil characters who wouldn't be fine with torturing children, feeding the old to their dogs or murdering every second person i nthe world. We have it even in Order of the Stick - Xykon is above necrophilia, depsite that would be fairly effective in ensuring Tsukiko's loyalty, Redcloak rises above using his minions as cannon fodder, even through that was proven to be incredibly effective.

Also, you could as well be any form of neutral and still be what you describe. Hell, right now I'm in a game where I play neutral good kobold whose way of making enslaved icewolf obedient was threatenign to set him on fire.

Clistenes
2012-12-06, 10:02 AM
<snip>

I have always thought that, while humans as individuals tend to be Neutral (when we judge a creature as being "good", "bad", "chaotic" or "lawful" we are using ourselves as the measure with which we compare their behaviour; we are the medium point, the 0º point we use to locate everybody else in the goodness scale) but, on the other hand, I think that human society is lawful, and more lawful the more advanced it is.

I also think that our current society, and the other most advanced human societies in history tends to be good rather than evil, and try to care for the poor and the weak to some degree.

When playing a paladin, I think the easiest way to do it is to roleplay a person with modern sensibilities thrown in a medieval/iron age world. The paladin might look stupid to the other characters, but not to the players.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-06, 11:46 AM
I also think that our current society, and the other most advanced human societies in history tends to be good rather than evil, and try to care for the poor and the weak to some degree.

To be honest, societal advancement/human development is measured by how Lawful Good it is (mainly the government, but we highly value these traits in the populace as well).


I think the extent to which we idealize traits associated with Goodness (honesty, politeness, altruism, charity, communal service) is evidence that we at least try very hard to be Good, even if it doesn't always work out.

Dienekes
2012-12-06, 12:11 PM
To be honest, societal advancement/human development is measured by how Lawful Good it is (mainly the government, but we highly value these traits in the populace as well).

This seems a ridiculous oversimplification to me, but I may be misreading you. I more see societal advancement having to do with technological/organizational gains than any other factor.

In any case, I think petty evil is by far easier than about anything else. Joining with your friends to make fun of the misfit, chuckling at other folks misfortune, that sort of stuff just seems to come naturally to people. They're evil actions but they're relatively minor. But when confronted with an active choice between right and wrong it is just as natural to pick the good option when attention is drawn to it. So overall that just balances out to neutral is where everyone basically for the most part.

Beyond that, when you get to the real big actions. I think it depends on the individual, some people do spend their time with charities and many have committed murder. It all depends on the condition you live in as well as a bit of your own genetics to determine which side you'd take to when push comes to shove.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-06, 12:18 PM
Well from what I learned from animals most of the good traits comes from our humanity, whilst our problems comes from our genetic heritage.

Our very idea of defending the weak is almost purely human.

Dienekes
2012-12-06, 12:27 PM
Well from what I learned from animals most of the good traits comes from our humanity, whilst our problems comes from our genetic heritage.

Our very idea of defending the weak is almost purely human.

Depends, are children considered the weak? Cause many animals defend them. If it means the useless, yeah I can see that one.

But at the same time, only humans, chimps, and ants go to war (may not be the complete list here, going off memory). Which is just as much of our humanity as anything else.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-06, 12:30 PM
Well war is just our organizational skills + Our power. We sort of inherited war from monkeys.

And man your cynical. If for you those who cannot defend themselves are those who are useless then I don't want to talk to you.

Knaight
2012-12-06, 12:31 PM
Evil acts are simple to commit but can have harsh penalties.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Penalties aside, there are still mechanisms that prevent people from doing overtly "evil" things. Aversion to causing harm in others is a common human trait, empathy is a common human trait, respect for human dignity is a common human trait, etc. All of these inhibit doing "evil", and as a rule when it does get done it is after said traits have been circumvented. Dehumanization is the most obvious circumvention mechanism, where people won't deliberately harm those they consider people, but don't consider some people people and will harm them. Granted, dehumanizing attitudes are an extremely prevalent trait to some extent, but even then it is generally not to the extent necessary to do "evil" things.

Dienekes
2012-12-06, 12:37 PM
Well war is just our organizational skills + Our power. We sort of inherited war from monkeys.

And man your cynical. If for you those who cannot defend themselves are those who are useless then I don't want to talk to you.

And yet chimps are the only apes that go to war, which are the closest animals genetically to us. Doesn't seem very likely that it was inherited beyond the final rung on the evolutionary ladder. For instance gorillas also have physical power and decent organizational skills, no war for them.

Referring specifically to the animal world for the useless comment there boyo. If you're too weak to help with the group survival you pretty much are useless. The human of course is different. Of course, yeah, I can see I coulda been more specific there.


I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Penalties aside, there are still mechanisms that prevent people from doing overtly "evil" things. Aversion to causing harm in others is a common human trait, empathy is a common human trait, respect for human dignity is a common human trait, etc. All of these inhibit doing "evil", and as a rule when it does get done it is after said traits have been circumvented. Dehumanization is the most obvious circumvention mechanism, where people won't deliberately harm those they consider people, but don't consider some people people and will harm them. Granted, dehumanizing attitudes are an extremely prevalent trait to some extent, but even then it is generally not to the extent necessary to do "evil" things.

I'd argue that greed, self-rationalization, and apathy are also human traits that can very reliably allow for evil actions to take place.

Knaight
2012-12-06, 12:50 PM
I'd argue that greed, self-rationalization, and apathy are also human traits that can very reliably allow for evil actions to take place.
True, particularly self-rationalization. Nonetheless, I'd argue that the presence of the positive traits listed falsifies the idea that evil is somehow simple and easy by nature.

Dienekes
2012-12-06, 12:53 PM
True, particularly self-rationalization. Nonetheless, I'd argue that the presence of the positive traits listed falsifies the idea that evil is somehow simple and easy by nature.

The big evils, sure. I still think the petty cruelties come fairly easily. Though I will admit I may be letting my own experiences jade my perception of humanity on this point.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-06, 01:00 PM
Probably. Im always a believer in the good of woman/man I guess.

But I guess ive had my experiences colored as well. When you see the best of mankind, Its hard too see the worst.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-06, 07:33 PM
This seems a ridiculous oversimplification to me, but I may be misreading you. I more see societal advancement having to do with technological/organizational gains than any other factor.


I was going to mention technical progress, but it felt tangential at the time.


We also tend to have extreme trauma when we kill/abuse other humans, precisely because it's hard-wired into us that hurting our fellow man is wrong. We are able to get over the aversion to killing, but mostly when we feel like we're defending something important. Note how we no longer have Departments of War, we have Departments of Defense instead.

TypoNinja
2012-12-06, 07:34 PM
Its easier to be Evil than Good, because motive only counts against you. Consdier the following.

If you do Good and intended Good, you have done Good.

If you do Good and intend Evil, you are Evil.

If you do Evil, and intend Good, you have still done Evil.

If you do Evil, and intend Evil, you are still Evil.

One set of actions result in Good, three sets result in Evil.

Dimers
2012-12-06, 08:19 PM
Its easier to be Evil than Good, because motive only counts against you. Consdier the following.

If you do Good and intended Good, you have done Good.

If you do Good and intend Evil, you are Evil.

If you do Evil, and intend Good, you have still done Evil.

If you do Evil, and intend Evil, you are still Evil.

One set of actions result in Good, three sets result in Evil.

Many philosophies only count actions or results, not motive. If someone houses and feeds an orphan, even if it's for selfish or hateful reasons (e.g. as a status symbol or to deny someone else that child), it can be considered a good act. Kantian and utilitarian thought would both find that totally okay based on the action involved.

Is it harder to perform acts that benefit others compared to acts that hurt others?

Is there some other way to define 'good' and 'evil' besides what benefits or hurts other people?

Dienekes
2012-12-06, 08:46 PM
I was going to mention technical progress, but it felt tangential at the time.

You see, even then I'm not entirely sure. I think the morals => advanced society doesn't quite work. For example larger societies only really started to get the ball rolling through slavery and mass disenfranchisement. Or even the theory that society only really started when people realized that they needed to band together to grab resources from those around them.


We also tend to have extreme trauma when we kill/abuse other humans, precisely because it's hard-wired into us that hurting our fellow man is wrong. We are able to get over the aversion to killing, but mostly when we feel like we're defending something important. Note how we no longer have Departments of War, we have Departments of Defense instead.

I'm also how much of this is dependent upon modern separation from violence to only really occurring in fiction and the humanization of the enemy. While I do not doubt that some, even many, folks from olden times suffered many negative psychological repercussion from violence, I personally have only read about a handful of examples occurring in older warrior cultures such as the Greeks, Romans all the way up to the colonial period.

TypoNinja
2012-12-06, 08:50 PM
Many philosophies only count actions or results, not motive. If someone houses and feeds an orphan, even if it's for selfish or hateful reasons (e.g. as a status symbol or to deny someone else that child), it can be considered a good act. Kantian and utilitarian thought would both find that totally okay based on the action involved.

Is it harder to perform acts that benefit others compared to acts that hurt others?

Is there some other way to define 'good' and 'evil' besides what benefits or hurts other people?

The best in universe example is two demon lords who oppose each other. One thwarts the others plans, there by saving humanity from untold suffering. He didn't care about humanity though, his imperative was screwing over a rival. This demon lord may well have prevented what would amount to an apocalypse, but he is by no stretch of the imagination good. Your intent matters, or half the abyss would have turned Good by now from thwarting the other half.

The same is true for Good, else a paladin could never fall, the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is fairly well known, it sums up the problem easily. No matter what you intended to do, if you end up doing an act of evil its still an act of evil. Lots of overlap here with "Great Job Breaking It Hero" moments. You might look at a bad situation and decide to remedy it, but the results could be worse than the preexisting state, or you may have simply misunderstood circumstance, and joined the wrong side.

Lord Raziere
2012-12-06, 10:49 PM
Many philosophies only count actions or results, not motive. If someone houses and feeds an orphan, even if it's for selfish or hateful reasons (e.g. as a status symbol or to deny someone else that child), it can be considered a good act. Kantian and utilitarian thought would both find that totally okay based on the action involved.

Is it harder to perform acts that benefit others compared to acts that hurt others?

Is there some other way to define 'good' and 'evil' besides what benefits or hurts other people?

There is always virtue ethics.

Though I myself consider morality a situational thing. There is a default situation of where everything is normal and therefore the good thing to do is to follow traditional morality- namely, follow the law, don't be bad and all that.

Then there are situations where to get back to the default situation, you have to things that wouldn't be considered moral in the default situation, but are acceptable in these situations where clearly a default morality won't work.

Its just that everyone views morality from the default situation, which makes doing such things a problem.

Water_Bear
2012-12-07, 06:53 PM
And yet chimps are the only apes that go to war, which are the closest animals genetically to us. Doesn't seem very likely that it was inherited beyond the final rung on the evolutionary ladder. For instance gorillas also have physical power and decent organizational skills, no war for them.

Rhesus monkeys and some species of Ants also have wars too, and probably other species as well. If you've got two groups who want access to the same resources, they're going to fight in a semi-organized manner.

Emperor Tippy
2012-12-08, 01:36 AM
We also tend to have extreme trauma when we kill/abuse other humans, precisely because it's hard-wired into us that hurting our fellow man is wrong.
No it's really not, that is an artifact of the past fifty years in the west, and even then it isn't actually particularly widespread.

When the word had a grand total of four people on it, one of them was a murderer according to the most followed religion in human history.

Kill that dude so I can take his stuff is the default human state. Our society, our morality, our culture; they are all artifacts designed to alter that default state. And even then they simply try to channel killing your fellow man into killing men your society or culture doesn't like, and it's still one of the most broken rules in all of human history.

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-08, 02:38 AM
Then why do people suffer psychological damage if they kill others?

Sith_Happens
2012-12-08, 03:02 AM
I just really don't like the term "hard-wired" when discussing anything psychological, because pretty much everything is mutable to some extent and the line between nature and nurture is incredibly blurry in general.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-08, 03:04 AM
Then why do people suffer psychological damage if they kill others?

Not all people do.

But in answer to the question, it's usually a result of being mostly, if not completely, unprepared for processing the implications of the act.

If you've killed someone you may have been in a kill or be killed situation, meaning you now have to process the fact that you just looked the reaper in the eye. You're going to die someday. You could've died during the traumatic event. The suddeness with which a person is confronted with these undeniable ideas can be a tremendous shock.

Alternately, you may have been in a fit of rage as a result of some other recent trauma, in which case the kill may only be exacerbating an existing trauma, not necessarily creating one on its own. It nevertheless brings up anxiety that revolves around the consequences of the kill. How will I explain this to the authorities? How will I conceal this from the authorities? What will I do if someone seeks vengeance for this? Such stresses added to an already stressed mind can cause a psychological break.

Then there's the dissonance between the empathetic frame of mind that's encouraged in many, if not most, industrialized nations and the frame of mind that would lead to killing, or the sudden and dramatic change in self-image for someone who, until that point, never believed themselves to be capable of killing someone.

There's the cognitive strain of reconciling such an aggressive action with the instictive sympathy that some people feel more strongly than others to consider as well.

One might also consider the effect of guilt, which stems from the afformentioned societal conditioning. Most societies that could be considered even remotely modern generally drill the idea that killing humans is wrong, without exception, into your head from the time you're old enough to understand the concept of death, onward. Breaking this taboo results in crushing guilt in the majority of that society's members.

TL;DR: there are a number of psychological factors that -can- make killing another human being a traumatic event, but only one of them is almost definitely instinctual and its strenght varies between individuals. Most of the trauma from killing a person comes from social and societal factors.


*DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional in the field of psychology. These are observations that result from what education I have received in the field of psychology and half a lifetime of contemplating this question.

Gildedragon
2012-12-08, 04:13 AM
The problem is that there is no clear universal definition of 'good' and 'evil'. These terms are dependent on a context (social or ethical) to have meaning.
Outside of moral systems, high level definitions of 'good' and 'evil' are based on desirable and undesirable phenomena (intent, actions, outcomes, etc).
As such, without a particular ethical code, very few people are devoted to 'evil' as it is an embodiment of the undesirable. Wanting evil is an oxymoron.

However, the very nature of 'good' as the desirable ideal, and 'evil' as the deviation from that ideal, means that 'good' has to be a conscious constructed endeavor; 'evil' is easier because it is the lack of the performance of 'good'. This does not mean it is personally, emotionally, mentally, or even physically easier easier; it merely means it requires less performance.

TypoNinja
2012-12-09, 05:36 AM
The problem is that there is no clear universal definition of 'good' and 'evil'. These terms are dependent on a context (social or ethical) to have meaning.


Only if you subscribe to moral relativism. D&D has an absolutist morality system, there are some acts that are always Good, and some that are always Evil. Context, and even intent are subsumed by the extreme nature of the act.

You can apply this even in real life, while the vast majority of our actions could shift on the scale depending on context, things like rape, genocide, torture. These are always bad.

The opposite is true as well, we even have a turn of phrase for it "I wouldn't wish X on my worst enemy". Even to those we hate the most we can acknowledge there are some things which should never happen to anyone. We have laws against cruel and unusual punishment, even the the most most evil and hateful people still have the right to a fair trial.

Gildedragon
2012-12-09, 06:21 AM
Only if you subscribe to moral relativism. D&D has an absolutist morality system, there are some acts that are always Good, and some that are always Evil. Context, and even intent are subsumed by the extreme nature of the act.
In D&D the context that determines the meaning of good and evil is a ethically normative one.

When you say "the opposite is true as well" you might want to contrast the previous point; in this case, things which are universally good.

As to laws against cruel and unusual punishments, it bears remembering that legal codes are reflections of society-wide ethics, and that these laws against cruel and unusual punishments are the result of society deciding that certain acts that were once considered justified were no longer justifiable.

Finally, and regarding your examples of universal evils, I will not touch that with a 11' pole.

SuperPanda
2012-12-09, 06:51 AM
Not all people do.

But in answer to the question, it's usually a result of being mostly, if not completely, unprepared for processing the implications of the act.

If you've killed someone you may have been in a kill or be killed situation, meaning you now have to process the fact that you just looked the reaper in the eye. You're going to die someday. You could've died during the traumatic event. The suddeness with which a person is confronted with these undeniable ideas can be a tremendous shock.

Alternately, you may have been in a fit of rage as a result of some other recent trauma, in which case the kill may only be exacerbating an existing trauma, not necessarily creating one on its own. It nevertheless brings up anxiety that revolves around the consequences of the kill. How will I explain this to the authorities? How will I conceal this from the authorities? What will I do if someone seeks vengeance for this? Such stresses added to an already stressed mind can cause a psychological break.

Then there's the dissonance between the empathetic frame of mind that's encouraged in many, if not most, industrialized nations and the frame of mind that would lead to killing, or the sudden and dramatic change in self-image for someone who, until that point, never believed themselves to be capable of killing someone.

There's the cognitive strain of reconciling such an aggressive action with the instictive sympathy that some people feel more strongly than others to consider as well.

One might also consider the effect of guilt, which stems from the afformentioned societal conditioning. Most societies that could be considered even remotely modern generally drill the idea that killing humans is wrong, without exception, into your head from the time you're old enough to understand the concept of death, onward. Breaking this taboo results in crushing guilt in the majority of that society's members.

TL;DR: there are a number of psychological factors that -can- make killing another human being a traumatic event, but only one of them is almost definitely instinctual and its strenght varies between individuals. Most of the trauma from killing a person comes from social and societal factors.


*DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional in the field of psychology. These are observations that result from what education I have received in the field of psychology and half a lifetime of contemplating this question.


Pretty good break down of factors worth considering all the same.


Going back to the statements that started this though, there was a grand oversimplification which should be clarified.

It is not an observation found in the study of pyschology that among humans it is common to consider killing to be bad. It is an observation from anthropologists that there is a common taboo across all human cultures against the killing of a member of your group (Tribe, society, family). There are very different things.

Imagine a fantasy Viking society. They go off on merry murder-pillage (and other sorted affairs) on a yearly basis. They don't think Iggrath the Wroth is a bad guy, after all he's always got your back when them villagers come at you with a spear. Iggrath kills a member of the clan though, now he's crossed the line and has become evil!

Its not the act of killing pure and simple that humans (as social animals) are adverse to. It is killing members of our group (those we rely on to help keep us safe against the other murderous groups out there).

RPGuru1331
2012-12-09, 08:59 AM
Good in DnD is pretty darn easy, since it doesn't even directly impose costs.


No it's really not, that is an artifact of the past fifty years in the west, and even then it isn't actually particularly widespread.
That's a really, really, really short-sighted statement. Empathy didn't arise in the 20th century. You're really, really, REALLY not up on history if you think directly killing people has been easy, in general. Hobbes may have made logically consistent systems, but they weren't consistent to reality, so they were rather irrelevant.


Kill that dude so I can take his stuff is the default human state.
You have absolutely no idea about how pre-civilization humans had to conduct themselves, do you?

Tengu_temp
2012-12-09, 12:01 PM
And quite frankly, very few adventurers actually meet the qualifications to remain good. Their career is best summed up as "Murder Hobo" and that is simply antithetical to being "good".

I still have no idea where this idea comes from, other than a very cynical look at PCs. And, as often with very cynicals points of view, it's simply not right. It's very easy to qualify as good and still be an adventurer - all you need to do is to help those who need it, and don't barge into the homes of sentient being without reason. Which is very easy to do if your DM actually has plot in his game, instead of just a series of dungeon crawls motivated by treasure.

erikun
2012-12-09, 12:03 PM
Speaking for a RPG-system perspective, I prefer good to be difficult to maintain while evil is easy to acquire. This makes good something that needs to be worked at to achieve, neutral the passive option, and evil the quick way to achieve some means.

By contract, I prefer good to have strong, ongoing rewards while evil has few short, if any, rewards. If a character is doing something selfish/greedy/mean (evil), then they are immediately getting the reward for acting so. They don't really need any additional system rewards for doing it. On the other hand, if a character wishes to sacrifice their time/money towards helping others without intention for reward, then I like seeing them get something for doing so (in the form of other people more willing to assist them).


The best in universe example is two demon lords who oppose each other. One thwarts the others plans, there by saving humanity from untold suffering. He didn't care about humanity though, his imperative was screwing over a rival. This demon lord may well have prevented what would amount to an apocalypse, but he is by no stretch of the imagination good. Your intent matters, or half the abyss would have turned Good by now from thwarting the other half.
I would say the demon has been taking good actions in saving the world and keeping everyone safe. And indeed, if the demon is spending time encouraging the propogation/advancement of the people in the world (or not allowing it to be restricted) then it could be said that the demon is acting for the good of the people.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean the demon has good intentions. And the demon's intentions are really going to matter when questions like "Should I follow this person?" begin to arise. I am sure the people of this world would support the good-doing demon if they needed to choose sides, but they should still think twice about following its commands blindly because of its intentions.

Dienekes
2012-12-09, 12:46 PM
Good in DnD is pretty darn easy, since it doesn't even directly impose costs.


That's a really, really, really short-sighted statement. Empathy didn't arise in the 20th century. You're really, really, REALLY not up on history if you think directly killing people has been easy, in general. Hobbes may have made logically consistent systems, but they weren't consistent to reality, so they were rather irrelevant.


You have absolutely no idea about how pre-civilization humans had to conduct themselves, do you?

Actually the case can be made (and has), that no one really does. What we do understand about pre-civilization humans is based upon the observations of anthropologists of cultures that have somehow survived through thousands of years despite the rest of the world advancing past that point. The argument then has been made that because these societies live in a semi-utopian existence than others must have as well.

However this brings up a rather blatantly obvious logical fallacy, the societies that survived to the modern day by their very existence are not the norm for the world. Also having survived to this point in time without real social development while others have imply that there was in fact some problems other societies have had to face that they have not.

I believe the necessary requirements for the society to remain in such an idyllic state were listed as 1) having copious amounts of easy to gather resources. 2) have a stabilized environment that is not hit by heavy weather changes and famines. 3) naturally separate or hard to get to, to protect from other groups that do have problems with scarcity. And probably more, but that's all I can remember currently. In any case, it's so rare as to be largely ignorable when looking at the development of mankind.

As for Hobbes, he is actually still studied largely because there are groups of philosophers and historians that do agree with him, only realizing that he did not even dream of a pre-scarcity environment. In environments that do have scarcity of resources he seems much more accurate (not perfect of course, who is?). In any case the development of societies, walls, armies, ect. do demonstrate that there was some form of natural cause for human violence. In fact one theory that I have not seen an adequate rebuttal for has placed all of societal growth around the concept of needing protection from roaming bands searching for resources.

And I have studied history, quite a lot. And of the societies I have studied, I have found quite a few societies seem to have killed outsiders with relative ease. Hell the rapid direct physical attack upon opponents and the enslavement of the survivors have been the foundation of several societies.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-09, 01:21 PM
I still have no idea where this idea comes from, other than a very cynical look at PCs. And, as often with very cynicals points of view, it's simply not right. It's very easy to qualify as good and still be an adventurer - all you need to do is to help those who need it, and don't barge into the homes of sentient being without reason. Which is very easy to do if your DM actually has plot in his game, instead of just a series of dungeon crawls motivated by treasure.

It comes from personal experience, corroborated by numerous similar stories on the internet. In every dnd game I've played in with more than two players, there have been at least two PCs which assault innocents for their belongings, steal people's belongings right from under their noses (often without even attempting a Sleight of Hand check), or even sexually assault defeated enemies. The players even try to make the argument that their characters are still somehow NG after needlessly assaulting small business owners and looting their merchandise.


I would, however, like to see where we're getting the idea that violence only started inducing trauma in the past 100 years.

Tengu_temp
2012-12-09, 02:04 PM
It comes from personal experience, corroborated by numerous similar stories on the internet. In every dnd game I've played in with more than two players, there have been at least two PCs which assault innocents for their belongings, steal people's belongings right from under their noses (often without even attempting a Sleight of Hand check), or even sexually assault defeated enemies. The players even try to make the argument that their characters are still somehow NG after needlessly assaulting small business owners and looting their merchandise.

That's just bad roleplaying. I, on the other hand, played in groups where even the neutral characters hated the idea of leaving a comrade behind. And by a comrade I mean an NPC. You know, how a real neutral person would probably react in real life.

Water_Bear
2012-12-09, 02:32 PM
That's just bad roleplaying. I, on the other hand, played in groups where even the neutral characters hated the idea of leaving a comrade behind. And by a comrade I mean an NPC. You know, how a real neutral person would probably react in real life.

It's always funny (and informative) seeing how Players react to NPCs.

My Players tend to get incredibly protective of NPCs who are "theirs" like relatives employees or girlfriends (not too many women in my groups, so the reverse hasn't come up), and of NPCs who are "awesome" in some way. At the same time, they have absolutely no faith in them; they work really hard to keep NPCs out of critical positions, even when the NPCs are experts and the tasks are boring, out of fear they'll screw up anything they touch. They also see anyone without a name or unique description as cannon fodder, and will literally trust anyone who has gotten a full paragraph of description no matter how shady they act.

I think this is linked to the Good/Evil thing because it's about empathy for out-group members. It's easier to treat people close to you well, relatively speaking, than to give anything to strangers, and even that is child's play compared to just seeing your enemies as people. Violence against people who are seen as "other" is, and has been, a pretty consistent trait among humans. Research has backed up the idea that empathy has a pretty short range, and can be pretty easily blocked, so if empathy=Good than Good is only easy in carefully controlled circumstances.

Agrippa
2012-12-09, 02:40 PM
I still have no idea where this idea comes from, other than a very cynical look at PCs. And, as often with very cynicals points of view, it's simply not right. It's very easy to qualify as good and still be an adventurer - all you need to do is to help those who need it, and don't barge into the homes of sentient being without reason. Which is very easy to do if your DM actually has plot in his game, instead of just a series of dungeon crawls motivated by treasure.

While I generally agree with what you're saying here Tengu I have problems with your use of the word "plot". Plot implies to me a strict linear progression of events with no ability to alter the course of the game and its outcome. I'd prefer the terms verisimilitude, consequences and good NPC characterization. Make the world seem believable enough that the players care about the consequences of thier characters' actions and the NPCs they meet.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-09, 02:40 PM
That's just bad roleplaying.

Still happens a lot.


I, on the other hand, played in groups where even the neutral characters hated the idea of leaving a comrade behind. And by a comrade I mean an NPC. You know, how a real neutral person would probably react in real life.

Lucky you. If only we were all so fortunate...

TypoNinja
2012-12-09, 04:47 PM
And quite frankly, very few adventurers actually meet the qualifications to remain good. Their career is best summed up as "Murder Hobo" and that is simply antithetical to being "good".

I feel like murder hobo is a bit harsh, D&D is a setting where violence is a far more common and readily acceptable answer to a problem than it is in the real world, the moral connotations of the use of force are different.

Even the BoED acknowledges this.


Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. The deities of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champions in a brutal war against the forces of evil.

Granted if you have supposedly Good PC's robbing shops for the hell of it, you have somebody asking for an alignment change, and "smite then all and let my God sort them out" is a quick way for a paladin to fall, but just the adventuring profession and the violence inherent in that is not necessarily Evil.

hamishspence
2012-12-09, 04:51 PM
It also stresses that violence "in the name of good" must have just cause, good intentions, and be discriminatory.

With BoVD emphasising that murder is one of the "most horrible" acts. Fiendish Codex 2 also rates murder as an extremely corrupt act (with Cold Blooded Murder being worse, and Murder For Pleasure even worse than that).

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-09, 05:23 PM
It bears mentioning that murder has a specific definition in 3.5 RAW.
Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose; <examples> Nefarious doesn't have a RAW definition so mileages vary somewhat. Generally speaking, though, killing an intelligent creature is not evil just because the creature can't put up a decent fight. Neither is it necessarily murder to kill a helpless enemy. Both of the previous statements would be absurd by the colloquial definition of murder.

hamishspence
2012-12-09, 05:29 PM
I think there might have been something in the Geneva conventions about killing unconscious enemies being considered a war crime. One could easily see somebody being charged with murder in that case.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-09, 05:46 PM
I think there might have been something in the Geneva conventions about killing unconscious enemies being considered a war crime. One could easily see somebody being charged with murder in that case.

That's fits the RL legal definition and is definitely a fit for the colloquial definition. Illegal does not mean evil, however. In fact, it barely implies it anymore.

Genocide is a war-crime too, but good actually calls for genocide against evil outsiders, and it's more or less okay with it for creatures listed as "always evil."

hamishspence
2012-12-09, 05:53 PM
BoVD also calls out genocide as (in examples of how evil acts can actually warp the D&D landscape and beings on it) as right at the top of the scale.

So- just because a character might be permitted to kill an Always Evil prisoner and it not count as an Evil act- doesn't necessarily mean that the other rules about how violence must have "just cause" can be set aside.

RPGuru1331
2012-12-09, 06:32 PM
Actually the case can be made (and has), that no one really does.
People are free to flout the consensus of archeology, absent evidence, as they will.


What we do understand about pre-civilization humans is based upon the observations of anthropologists of cultures that have somehow survived through thousands of years despite the rest of the world advancing past that point.
That is not the sole way we have learned about pre-civilization societies.


The argument then has been made that because these societies live in a semi-utopian existence than others must have as well.
...
Right, that's kind of perfect. You really don't know anything about the more-or-less unchanged cultures that are studied, or the methods that are used to study pre-civilization cultures. Enjoy any further talking-to-yourself you do on it.


I think this is linked to the Good/Evil thing because it's about empathy for out-group members. It's easier to treat people close to you well, relatively speaking, than to give anything to strangers, and even that is child's play compared to just seeing your enemies as people.
That's fairly plausible, but it could also be a learned reaction to NPCs in past games, both with and without you. NPCs are generally sidelined for what are generally solid reasons. The other, slightly less pleasant alternative, is outgrouping the GM.

Dienekes
2012-12-09, 06:46 PM
People are free to flout the consensus of archeology, absent evidence, as they will.

That is not the sole way we have learned about pre-civilization societies.
...
Right, that's kind of perfect. You really don't know anything about the more-or-less unchanged cultures that are studied, or the methods that are used to study pre-civilization cultures. Enjoy any further talking-to-yourself you do on it.

You know, instead of adding some snark you could bring out an actual rebuttal. I'll admit I learned this stuff awhile ago, and if new information is out there, I'd like to learn.

Mind you, I admittedly did pass over some paintings and tools discovered, but we have discovered very early paintings of what looks like people attacking other people. Also, some of the most common tools discovered have been knives, and other early weapons, and of course what we guess to be some early defensive walls. None of which really point against the implication you made that the pre-civilized man did not kill each other.

Emmerask
2012-12-09, 07:13 PM
Comes out of a discussion in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262737).

Is it harder to be good than to be evil? I want to hear what you think about the real world (without involving religion or politics: good luck!), but also different games.

Most nWoD games make it really hard to stay good. That's a theme they explicitly try to evoke, and the mechanics suit it.

In D&D it depends a great deal on the gamemaster. Mechanics for alignment effects and alignment change are pretty thin.

There are no good guys in Shadowrun. :smalltongue:

I feel like there's a lot of social support for being decent in most real-world cultures. Being out-and-out heroic isn't very common, but evil definitely isn't the standard for humanity.

Thoughts?

well it depends on our definition of evil
but in general yes evil is much more easy then good
For example if you want to climb the company ladder the fastest way is not if you are a teamplayer helping out everyone but not taking the credit etc...
The fastest way is when you manipulate, backstab and be selfish.

While this is not EVIL with capital letters it certainly is not good

Being good requires you to stay back, to sacrifice, being evil pretty much only requires you to be selfish and selfishness is something every human is born with

Poison_Fish
2012-12-09, 07:36 PM
You know, instead of adding some snark you could bring out an actual rebuttal. I'll admit I learned this stuff awhile ago, and if new information is out there, I'd like to learn.

Mind you, I admittedly did pass over some paintings and tools discovered, but we have discovered very early paintings of what looks like people attacking other people. Also, some of the most common tools discovered have been knives, and other early weapons, and of course what we guess to be some early defensive walls. None of which really point against the implication you made that the pre-civilized man did not kill each other.

Knife ≠ weapon as it's primary purpose. Also many weapons were eventually adapted from tools for hunting. While walls serve primarily for defensive purposes, they hold civic significance as well (especially in culture formation and establishing a clear space), on top of some of the early sites in Peru being designed to hold together under earthquake and eruption conditions. Conflict in pre-large society eras was not so common of an occurrence as has been made out to be.

awa
2012-12-09, 07:46 PM
calling the few modern stone age group semi utopian is crazy. Now ive only got an anth minor so i'm far from an expert but virtually all the groups i studied were prone to vicious fighting between groups until a modern government stopped it.

Thats not even getting into the fact that women rights is often horrific.

Gildedragon
2012-12-09, 07:46 PM
snip

Allright how to tackle this beast.


To begin with Hunter-Gatherers are not relics, nor is their subsistence pattern any less 'advanced' than that of agriculturalists. It is a system that is well adapted to the culture and environment it is in.

However, you do raise a good point. Ethnographically recorded hunter gatherers exist in but a fraction of what was the range for hunter gatherers. It is problematic to generalize from such a small fraction; but it is far more effective a model than generalizing from state-level post/circa-industrial societies unreflexively. Additionally inference and analogy are not logical fallacies.

Second, H-G's and other non-industrial lifeways are not utopian nor "nasty brutish and short"; they are a mixed bag of good and bad. Viewing them as either the noble or garden-variety savage is not affording them full personhood.

Third, ethnographically recorded H-G groups exist in marginal environments that are not the most resource rich areas (with the exception of the North American Northwest Coast)

Fourth, Hobbes's theories of government are applicable to western modern and early-modern societies, but don't really work well in outiside that context. And they get significantly worse when dealing with non-state societies.

Fifth, here is a couple of theories for the rise of complex societies that does not rely on violence. These are only two of a ton of different models for that phenomenon

Certain people gather social power around themselves by holding feasts. By coopting labor towards this 'communal' event, these individuals push society towards sedentism and stratification.
or
People, having discovered an easy to ferment plant, begin to intensify its production. Over time this intensification of a wild crop leads to full-blown agriculture. The social costs associated with this lead towards religious specialization, and thus social stratification

TLDR: It's not that simple but you're mostly wrong on most-all counts.

Gildedragon
2012-12-09, 07:53 PM
calling the few modern stone age group semi utopian is crazy. Now ive only got an anth minor so i'm far from an expert but virtually all the groups i studied were prone to vicious fighting between groups until a modern government stopped it.

Thats not even getting into the fact that women rights is often horrific.

Modern stone age groups? There is an oxymoron there.
But I understand what you mean. I am curious as to which groups you "studied" because you got your facts wrong.

H-G groups are not utopian, but they are not god-forsaken wastes either;
they tend to have a relatively high amount of leisure time; they tend to exhibit less interpersonal violence than agricultural or pastoralist societies as the group configuration is more fluid, and troublemakers are more easily removed from the group.
Interpersonal violence in H-G groups has risen as their territories are constricted, removing the escape valve of group fluidity. "Modern" governments tend to be the cause of increased violence within autochthonous societies rather than the solution to it.

Women's rights in non-industrial (and industrial) societies is very spotty, depending on group particulars, and it is unfair and incorrect to place such blanket statements.

Dienekes
2012-12-09, 08:28 PM
Allright how to tackle this beast.


To begin with Hunter-Gatherers are not relics, nor is their subsistence pattern any less 'advanced' than that of agriculturalists. It is a system that is well adapted to the culture and environment it is in.

I admit, when I think of advanced societies my mind leaps straight to technology, it is a weakness of mine.


However, you do raise a good point. Ethnographically recorded hunter gatherers exist in but a fraction of what was the range for hunter gatherers. It is problematic to generalize from such a small fraction; but it is far more effective a model than generalizing from state-level post/circa-industrial societies unreflexively. Additionally inference and analogy are not logical fallacies.

Very true, but the model itself is inherently flawed, which is why making bold claims on the past and just how violent it was or wasn't can be problematic.


Second, H-G's and other non-industrial lifeways are not utopian nor "nasty brutish and short"; they are a mixed bag of good and bad. Viewing them as either the noble or garden-variety savage is not affording them full personhood.

I agree. I believe my point was that while yes, some survive in peace other have not.


Third, ethnographically recorded H-G groups exist in marginal environments that are not the most resource rich areas (with the exception of the North American Northwest Coast)

True but they need at least enough resources to sustain themselves, and that sustainability needs to be reliable. That doesn't necessary mean they have to be the most fertile areas in the world.


Fourth, Hobbes's theories of government are applicable to western modern and early-modern societies, but don't really work well in outiside that context. And they get significantly worse when dealing with non-state societies.

I'll bow to superior knowledge. My Hobbes is rusty, though I believe he was basing part of it upon the stories of the Americas. Which were undoubtedly exaggerated in one part, and suffering old world diseases for the first time that was wiping out their cultures making that way of life appear even worse.


Fifth, here is a couple of theories for the rise of complex societies that does not rely on violence. These are only two of a ton of different models for that phenomenon

Certain people gather social power around themselves by holding feasts. By coopting labor towards this 'communal' event, these individuals push society towards sedentism and stratification.
or
People, having discovered an easy to ferment plant, begin to intensify its production. Over time this intensification of a wild crop leads to full-blown agriculture. The social costs associated with this lead towards religious specialization, and thus social stratification

Of course, I never said that was the only theory. There are a multitude, it was just one theory that does point to the potential for human violence. And while I have seen several disagree with it, I haven't seen anything to really disprove it completely. For my personal belief, I think agriculture cropped up in numerous different places for numerous different reasons that depended upon the location of origin.

Also on the second one you listed, I was under the impression that agricultural based societies actually required more work all around. So the ease of crop growth leading to agriculture seems backwards to me.

Of course that would have to depend on the specific environment wouldn't it, for which would be easier just growing crops or gather.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-09, 09:52 PM
BoVD also calls out genocide as (in examples of how evil acts can actually warp the D&D landscape and beings on it) as right at the top of the scale.

So- just because a character might be permitted to kill an Always Evil prisoner and it not count as an Evil act- doesn't necessarily mean that the other rules about how violence must have "just cause" can be set aside.

The funny thing is, while genocide is called out as evil, it's also explicitly called out that killing a fiend is always a good act and that killing an "always evil" creature is generally regarded as neutral barring specific circumstances that make it evil.

I admit that my saying Good was okay with genocide against the larger "always evil" group is more than a little dodgy, but if killing a fiend is always good, how can killing all fiends, genocide against their kind, be evil?

Its a rules contradiction. That is, of course, unless the genocide rule was written with some other group in mind, say humanoids and monstrous humanoids? Even expanded to include all mortal creatures, how many of those are actually listed as "always evil"?

That's the thing about the BoED, BoVD combo; noone wants to think about how the rules may not have been exhaustive in their exceptions. They see the apparent contradiction above and write the whole book off as garbage, rather than supposing that the complexity of morality made it impossible to be exhaustive and that some rules that appear absolute may have exceptions. Not that you do this, Hamish, I've seen you discuss the RAW of alignment before and have great respect for your understanding of it.

Here's another example of an alignment rule that appears absolute but sometimes has exceptions: killing fiends is always good. That's hard to argue against since fiends are the raw stuff of evil made flesh and given purpose and their very presence on the material plane causes ill effects to befall the area they inhabit. Consider this for a moment though; RAW, fiends can, in spite of their very nature, be of a good alignment if they are somehow convinced that being good is the better way. Their alignment is not set in stone any more than any other sapient creature. The probability of this actually occuring is infinitessimally small, but the chance exists.

This means that it's possible to strike down a fiend that's dedicated its immortal life to feeding the hungry or sheltering the poor. Destroying such a creature, with full knowledge of its current alignment, creates a logical paradox. It's simultaneously a good and an evil act. Good because you're removing an embodiment of evil from the world, and evil because you're slaying a creature that is a force for good in the world. Strictly adhering to RAW means dealing with the consequences of committing both a good and an evil act simultaneously, but logic could either agree with this or assign one or the other of the reasons for the alignment of the act greater significance, making it an act of good or of evil.

Bah, I'm rambling.

My point is: while the RAW in the two alignment books of 3.5 is better thought out than it's generally given credit for; it's not, and cannot be, perfect. Some degree of critical thinking has to be put foward in certain, unusual corner cases.

awa
2012-12-09, 10:05 PM
I never specified hunter gatherers
ive mostly studied various groups in the high lands of papua new guinea and Yanomami (might be spelling that wrong)
i never said any thing about their leisure time or them being god forsaken or violence within their communities.

I said they were prone to some vicious fighting the same could be said about modern nation states.

all im saying is calling them utopias is not an accurate statement which you agreed with

hamishspence
2012-12-10, 06:56 AM
Strictly adhering to RAW means dealing with the consequences of committing both a good and an evil act simultaneously, but logic could either agree with this or assign one or the other of the reasons for the alignment of the act greater significance, making it an act of good or of evil.

Bah, I'm rambling.

My point is: while the RAW in the two alignment books of 3.5 is better thought out than it's generally given credit for; it's not, and cannot be, perfect. Some degree of critical thinking has to be put foward in certain, unusual corner cases.

Yup- tricky part is that different people will handle corner cases differently.

DigoDragon
2012-12-10, 07:40 AM
Personally I find evil a bit harder to portray. I have yet to complete any Mass Effect game on the Renegade path and the only evil characters I've RP'd as are NPCs when I'm running as the DM.

awa
2012-12-10, 08:15 AM
evils often harder to portray because people think either consciously or subconsciously that an evil person must be evil at all times and may have no "good" qualities.

Grimsage Matt
2012-12-10, 10:55 AM
K. I've skimmed part of the thread, but heres my 2cp.

Good is hypocritical, Evil is Honest.

If your a "good" hero? Your a raceist murder hobo that kills, steals and orphans entire populations for a handful of gold coins and half off at the pub. Example; Belkar Bitterleaf (As a Honest Adventuer)

If your a "evil" villian? You are the person in charge of a system that is generating most of the places income, are the greatest source of stabillity and tends to look after the regions intrest out of self-intrest.
Example; Tarquin (Elan and Nale's dad, Behind the scenes ruler)

awa
2012-12-10, 11:49 AM
that is very much campaign/ setting dependent statement

it many setting that's not the case. Ive never played in a game where a good party randomly attacked a group of intelligent humanoids. It was always these orcs are doing X stop them or orcs are ambushing you
In some it would be the case if not for suspension of disbelief unnecessary details are hand waved away.

by that i mean in most games where good pcs run around killing every orc they see orc non combatants are theoretical sure they must exists somewhere right but every orc the pcs meet or will ever hear about is a vicious raider with at least 1 level in warrior armed with a falchion or great axe.

I keep hearing people say this and it always strikes me as stupid very few prewritten adventure just have random orcs and goblins wandering around minding their own busyness who would happily turn the other cheek if they saw the pcs and not have killing them be a non good act.

yet people keep assuming that because they play this way every one else must as well. Or even worse their saying they don't play this way but every one else who is so less clever then them must be playing this way and frankly either option kinda bugs me.

Emmerask
2012-12-10, 02:51 PM
K. I've skimmed part of the thread, but heres my 2cp.

Good is hypocritical, Evil is Honest.

If your a "good" hero? Your a raceist murder hobo that kills, steals and orphans entire populations for a handful of gold coins and half off at the pub. Example; Belkar Bitterleaf (As a Honest Adventuer)

If your a "evil" villian? You are the person in charge of a system that is generating most of the places income, are the greatest source of stabillity and tends to look after the regions intrest out of self-intrest.
Example; Tarquin (Elan and Nale's dad, Behind the scenes ruler)

Depends on how you play your rpgs and on the system.
D&D yes it very much encourages the murdering hobo adventurer, other systems not so much ^^

Scowling Dragon
2012-12-10, 03:28 PM
D&D also takes place in a FANTASY where sometimes an evil Orc is an evil Orc. Not every villain needs a 60 page elaborate backstory.

Boom, kill the evil Orcs and save the good ones. People are saved, get cash, and use it to stimulate the economy.