PDA

View Full Version : Some alignment nerd(s) explain to me...



enq
2013-08-25, 12:14 AM
Yo. I hope this is the right subforum. Avid reader of the comic. Refreshing it 10 times per day.

Anyway, if someone were to ask me (they never ever do though) whom I consider the greatest fictional hero, my answer would be Ammon Jerro (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Ammon_Jerro) from Neverwinter Nights 2. Hence it bugs me that his alignment is NE, when I would consider him CG.

Now if you've never played the game let me try to explain it all briefly. The game's variety of a Dark Lord (King of Shadows) is threatening to wtfpwn the entire world. No really, the threat is global. He was once defeated, but not gone for good. The threat of his return becoming realer by the minute, Ammon - who was present for his first defeat - sets out to do whatever it takes to stop him.

Being a gifted warlock, his method of choice is making all kinds of dark pacts to enlist the aid he requires. Not that there really is a mathematical way to compare, but I can't think of any fictional character whose soul is more damned at the point of death than his. And he understands this.

Sounds extremely selfless, right? It is, there's no "but" to this part. However, can selflessness make up for ruthlessness? You see, whatever artifacts Ammon requires to complete his goal, Ammon takes. By force, and that's his first resort. Unleashing monsters upon Neverwinter? If that's what it takes...

I hope this description does him justice. The way I see it, he is far from devoid of a conscience, he merely has the clarity to not let it stop him. I cannot agree that someone, who knowingly damns himself a thousand times over to achieve a selfless goal, should be considered evil on the basis of lacking tact.

NecroRebel
2013-08-25, 01:56 AM
The fact that murder is his first resort in his pursuit of the Silver Sword marks him as Evil. He in no way behaves in a Good fashion - his first resort in most situations involve murder, even when murder is far from the most appropriate approach.

For instance, if he had just stopped and described his motivations to the player character at practically any point in the game, he would've at least had a chance of acquiring allies, but due to his arrogance he never considered that anyone else would help, and so went around killing people who might've been more useful in the war. Hell, the bastard killed one of the Neverwinter Nine, one of the most powerful fighters in the region, for basically no reason.

Furthermore, enslaving creatures is a very Evil act, and so is associating with Fiends, so by enslaving Fiends he's doing two Evil acts at once. No, those don't cancel out to Good - doing evil unto evil is doing Evil as surely as doing evil unto Good.

He also doesn't behave in a Chaotic fashion - while the Law/Chaos split is somewhat harder to pin down than Good/Evil (a character could plausibly have the traits of textbook Law and textbook Chaos simultaneously, for instance), he never shows any tendency to be particularly freewheeling nor particularly honorable. He also is very hard to convince to take any responsibility for his actions whatsoever (you need really, really high influence with Shandra and him to get him to admit that he might've been wrong), so he's almost certainly non-Lawful.



"Having the clarity not to let [his conscience] stop him" is a decidedly non-Good trait, because if he was Good his conscience would be too strong for him to ignore. All of his Evil acts and inclinations mean that he cannot be Neutral with regards to Good and Evil, either, and his lack of inclinations towards Law or Chaos strongly suggest Neutrality with regards to those traits. Ammon Jerro is Lawful or Neutral Evil, probably Neutral Evil, there is no question about that.

enq
2013-08-25, 02:18 AM
Thank you. That was interesting and insightful. Perhaps I've been mistaking arrogance for selflessness.

(I actually have no idea what chaotic means - I just think of it as being idealistic and uncompromising)

Lord Raziere
2013-08-25, 02:21 AM
no idealistic and uncompromising sounds lawful, chaotic is cynical and deceptive, at least to me.

TheCountAlucard
2013-08-25, 02:26 AM
Again, though, neither Lawful nor Chaotic are really meaningful per the RAW; literally any value you ascribe to either comes from your own head.

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-25, 02:47 AM
*sigh* No. If you speak English, the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) has pretty plain definition. Law stands for communality, dutifullness and obedience, while Chaos stands for invidualism, irresponsibility and anti-authoritarism. Most, if not all confusion on the subject is caused by people getting tripped by the specific words or flat-out ignoring what is actually said of them, and going "no, that isn't Law/Chaos, because..."

It also much easier to make sense of the subject when you realize Law and Chaos have a Yin-Yang relationship - neither is completely pure of and carries seeds of the other.

SiuiS
2013-08-25, 02:53 AM
Yo. I hope this is the right subforum. Avid reader of the comic. Refreshing it 10 times per day.

Anyway, if someone were to ask me (they never ever do though) whom I consider the greatest fictional hero, my answer would be Ammon Jerro (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Ammon_Jerro) from Neverwinter Nights 2. Hence it bugs me that his alignment is NE, when I would consider him CG.

Now if you've never played the game let me try to explain it all briefly. The game's variety of a Dark Lord (King of Shadows) is threatening to wtfpwn the entire world. No really, the threat is global. He was once defeated, but not gone for good. The threat of his return becoming realer by the minute, Ammon - who was present for his first defeat - sets out to do whatever it takes to stop him.

Being a gifted warlock, his method of choice is making all kinds of dark pacts to enlist the aid he requires. Not that there really is a mathematical way to compare, but I can't think of any fictional character whose soul is more damned at the point of death than his. And he understands this.

Sounds extremely selfless, right? It is, there's no "but" to this part. However, can selflessness make up for ruthlessness? You see, whatever artifacts Ammon requires to complete his goal, Ammon takes. By force, and that's his first resort. Unleashing monsters upon Neverwinter? If that's what it takes...

I hope this description does him justice. The way I see it, he is far from devoid of a conscience, he merely has the clarity to not let it stop him. I cannot agree that someone, who knowingly damns himself a thousand times over to achieve a selfless goal, should be considered evil on the basis of lacking tact.

There is always a better way. Not taking it is part of being evil.

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-25, 02:57 AM
In general, making deals with devils and murdering people are good signs someone is evil. *sagely nod*

enq
2013-08-25, 03:46 AM
Then does alignment not really say anything about what a character's motives and goals might be, only how they're willing to go about achieving them?

AuraTwilight
2013-08-25, 04:09 AM
Pretty much. In D&D-verse, the forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are objective cosmic forces. It doesn't matter why you helped that Demon out, even if it was to save the world. By allowing this monster to profit and get what he wants, you have committed Evil.

Douglas
2013-08-25, 04:25 AM
Then does alignment not really say anything about what a character's motives and goals might be, only how they're willing to go about achieving them?
Your goals are important, but how you go about achieving them is very often more important. Ammon Jerro's goals are good, yes, but his methods are extremely despicable, and any claim he might make to having no better alternative is laughable.

Also, your goals themselves are not particularly important - what really matters there is why you have the goals you do. It's been a long time since I played the game, but I don't recall anything that eliminated the possibility of Ammon Jerro simply recognizing that the King of Shadows is a threat to his own existence and power along with everyone else, and acting to protect himself with the benefit to everyone else being a happy coincidence. Self defense is a motivation fit for any alignment. For his goals to be indications of goodness, he'd have to be doing it specifically for the sake of everyone else.

SiuiS
2013-08-25, 04:33 AM
Then does alignment not really say anything about what a character's motives and goals might be, only how they're willing to go about achieving them?

Sort of.

Original alignment scale was Law, Chaos and neutrality. Law and Chaos were cosmic principles more closely related to an understandable, static reality of principles and laws versus an entropic and malleable universe without order or sense than "I like honor" and "I'm a free spirit". Over time that evolved to include good and evil as equal factions. But alignment isn't based on just ends or means, but both, via arcane rules established around the idea of objectively definable energy which resonates with certain moral states.

As we got different campaign settings over the years, each defined alignment somewhat differently. Instead of reading that as separate interpretations however, people take all sources together as equal for all things, and it makes for a very messy system. That's why 3.5 and such are very clear about what is, and is not, evil or good or chaotic or lawful; Because the only way to unite the disparate systems is to be both objective and vague.

So your actions and intentions don't quite matter, nor is alignment some sort of karmic bank system where eight points of good can counter out five points of evil, leaving you still mostly good. Individual actions - murder, rape, grand theft, torture and abuse - are evil Because They Are, as are spells and effects with the [Evil] tag. D&D is a crapsack world where murdering a baby so that a warlord won't kill millions is NOT a [Good] action on the alignment scale, even though it is probably morally good, because premeditated and willful murder of an innocent is [Evil] on your part where a madman killing millions is evil on his part.


This is also what sucks about being a paladin, you don't have to become evil to fall, you just have to knowingly commit an [Evil] act.

EDIT: Almost forgot! 2e didn't have the very same, quote as objective system and very clearly spelled out detect evil working on [Evil] creatures like fiends, but only picking up an evil fighter if he was thinking evil thoughts (rape, murder, etc.) at the time of detection. If this guy you like is evil in that setting, he might not be evil in a different setting, but he's still evil in his native one.

Aolbain
2013-08-25, 04:33 AM
New favorite word: wtfpwn.

JusticeZero
2013-08-25, 04:57 AM
His methods make him evil. Goals are irrelevant. If you do good deeds to pave the way for a great evil, you will still ping good.

Fallbot
2013-08-25, 04:58 AM
Now if you've never played the game let me try to explain it all briefly. The game's variety of a Dark Lord (King of Shadows) is threatening to wtfpwn the entire world. No really, the threat is global.


To be pointlessly nitpicky, that wasn't the case at all.

He only wanted to reclaim the Illefarn empire, and wasn't a threat to anything outside it's borders. Not that that's a good thing mind, but saying he was a threat to the entire world is vastly overstating it. You see as much in the 'You side with the King and become his evil flunky' ending where he wins but only takes back the lands of the empire he was created to protect.

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-25, 05:20 AM
Then does alignment not really say anything about what a character's motives and goals might be, only how they're willing to go about achieving them?


Sort of...

Long story sort: D&D alignment does not match to any real-life moral system. It has its own concepts of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. This is a feature, not a bug. It, for one, explains why there are Evil creatures in the first place: it is possible to disagree and reject morals inherent to the system.

Internalizing this will save you a lot of headache.

KillianHawkeye
2013-08-25, 06:16 AM
The way I see it, he is far from devoid of a conscience, he merely has the clarity to not let it stop him.

You've proven the case yourself right here. Has a conscience, but doesn't listen to it? That is textbook Evil, my friend.

Also possibly relevant is the old phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right."

AKA_Bait
2013-08-25, 06:30 AM
Just a friendly reminder that multiple evil characters can have completely opposite goals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html), one of which might even appear to be "good" when placed in that context.

SiuiS
2013-08-25, 07:06 AM
Long story sort: D&D alignment does not match to any real-life moral system. It has its own concepts of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. This is a feature, not a bug. It, for one, explains why there are Evil creatures in the first place: it is possible to disagree and reject morals inherent to the system.

Internalizing this will save you a lot of headache.

It's unfortunate that this doesn't become clearer, especially since D&D alignment is so flicking cool!

My favorite bit comes from the 1e dungeoneer's book. Apparently, back yonder in time, EVERY creature of good sided together and waged war on Evil, to wipe away evil once and for all. This is where alignment language comes from; They made a conlang that works for all creatures who have spiritual energy that resonates with Good. Evil did the same, in order to survive, and over time the factions fractured into the Chaotic, Neutral and Lawful camps. Good eventually won, so hard that evil things were nigh wiped out entirely! Some of their faction decided that continuing was genocide, and not worth doing and the universal alliance fell apart many thousands of years ago, and this falling out is why the drow still survive - They split from their high-elf brethren during this Good/Evil conflict, ostensibly because they believed morality should be subjective~

D&D's implied setting in yesteryears was pretty cool.

Deophaun
2013-08-25, 01:37 PM
Evil can be selfless:

Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-25, 01:53 PM
The moral alignment axis (the Good/Evil one) is mostly a question of "How low will you go?"

Jerro's answer is "deal with demons, make dark pacts, succumb to wickedness", so he's Evil.


New favorite word: wtfpwn.

I miss the days when people would say "pwn" and not get laughed at.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-08-25, 02:49 PM
Anyway, if someone were to ask me (they never ever do though) whom I consider the greatest fictional hero, my answer would be Ammon Jerro (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Ammon_Jerro) from Neverwinter Nights 2. Hence it bugs me that his alignment is NE, when I would consider him CG.

Now if you've never played the game let me try to explain it all briefly. The game's variety of a Dark Lord (King of Shadows) is threatening to wtfpwn the entire world. No really, the threat is global. He was once defeated, but not gone for good. The threat of his return becoming realer by the minute, Ammon - who was present for his first defeat - sets out to do whatever it takes to stop him.

Well, when I played the NWN2 OC, I had a different interpretation: Ammon Jerro was only ever interested in satisfying his own ego. His concern for his family and defeating the King of Shadows was, at best, a lie he told himself so he could feel better about his own (ultimately extremely selfish) agenda. At worst, he never even believed it and just spewed it out so the main character would spare him. (Not that it matters anyway because you're railroaded into working with Ammon no matter how you actually feel about him.) I think that's perfectly consistent with an NE alignment.

Why? Because otherwise his actions don't make a lick of sense. For all of his power his actions are usually either completely ineffectual or run directly counter to his supposed goals. Like, he just assumes the rest of his family were killed during the battle and never bothers looking for them, and claims not knowing Shandra existed when she was living at his own family farm, and we know he still cared about the place because he goes back there later to pick up a magic item he stashed there years ago. And furthermore when he ultimately murders his only remaining family and destroys everything he supposedly ever cared about, he just marches on as he did before without really caring about it. The only part of it that seems to phase him is that his stupid manse got blown up.


Then again, this could just be bad writing. Just about everyone in NWN2's OC acts directly counter to their supposed goals at all times (yes, even the player due to excessive railroading into stupid actions); Don't even get me started on all the stupidity Lord Nasher gets up to.

Big Fau
2013-08-25, 04:56 PM
*sigh* No. If you speak English, the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) has pretty plain definition. Law stands for communality, dutifullness and obedience, while Chaos stands for invidualism, irresponsibility and anti-authoritarism. Most, if not all confusion on the subject is caused by people getting tripped by the specific words or flat-out ignoring what is actually said of them, and going "no, that isn't Law/Chaos, because..."

It also much easier to make sense of the subject when you realize Law and Chaos have a Yin-Yang relationship - neither is completely pure of and carries seeds of the other.

To put it another way, Law and Chaos in D&D are similar to Functionalism and Post-Modernism in Sociology, although Chaos is highly deviant by sociological standards.

Lord Raziere
2013-08-25, 05:04 PM
The moral alignment axis (the Good/Evil one) is mostly a question of "How low will you go?"

Jerro's answer is "deal with demons, make dark pacts, succumb to wickedness", so he's Evil.


yea but what about a lawful good character whose goal is to conquer the world then? explain to me how a character like that can exist. I mean if you hold yourself to really high standards of morality, can you even have a selfish goal like that?

Douglas
2013-08-25, 06:14 PM
yea but what about a lawful good character whose goal is to conquer the world then? explain to me how a character like that can exist. I mean if you hold yourself to really high standards of morality, can you even have a selfish goal like that?
Depends. Are you conquering the world so you can rule, or are you conquering it in order to improve the lives of all humanity, and what methods are you willing to accept as reasonable without looking very hard for better options?

A character who plots his strategy and tactics to minimize casualties, focuses the damage on military targets as much as possible, and honestly believes his victory and eventual rule will make the world a better place for everyone else - and has that belief as his reason for embarking on conquest - could indeed be lawful good and also have the goal of conquering the world.

Deophaun
2013-08-25, 06:26 PM
A character who plots his strategy and tactics to minimize casualties, focuses the damage on military targets as much as possible...
No, no, no. You're thinking in D&D murder hobo terms here. Why does a plan to conquer the world even need violence? Just look at the number of strategy games that let you achieve a diplomatic victory. It's the perfect lawful good (and path-of-least-resistance lawful evil) method to get others to voluntarily give up their sovereignty to you.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-25, 06:26 PM
yea but what about a lawful good character whose goal is to conquer the world then? explain to me how a character like that can exist. I mean if you hold yourself to really high standards of morality, can you even have a selfish goal like that?

I think it's possible, but pretty unlikely.

One would need a clearer picture of why he's trying to dominate the globe. A good-aligned person wouldn't spill so much blood (and cripple so many economies, and cause so much starvation, terror, trauma, and all the other evils which follow on war's heels) lightly. A good person would exhaust all other avenues before embarking on such a terrible campaign.

I can, however, imagine a Good person who wants to control everything, but can't stomach the foulness which achieving that would surely entail (even "bloodless" strategies are usually full of wickedness and deceit). Everyone, even Good people, have fantasies like that now and then, things like punching your boss in the face or cheating at the lottery, but a Good person wouldn't go through with it if he thought it was wrong.

There's a huge difference between your desires and what actions you are morally prepared to do for them, hence my proposed question "How low will you go?"

MukkTB
2013-08-25, 07:11 PM
In real life morality is difficult to grapple with. In a game with vague rules its a mess. So you can:
#1 Pretty much ignore the morality system.
#2 Use it really lightly and with a great deal of wiggle room.
#3 Be strict on it and get into a bunch of stupid unresolvable arguments.
#4 Be strict and DM fiat what kind of morality you believe in, (preferably before the game starts.) For example, "I believe intentions are more important than consequences. If you accidentally kill the king when trying to save him, you're still good. If you accidentally save the king while trying to kill him, you're evil."

One thing about ethics not currently having a final provable solution is that multiple people can have different opinions. The C/E guy can really believe in what he's doing. He may even think he's C/G. This actually is more interesting than the C/E player who rapes every woman he sees and eats babies because "IM LOLEVIL!"

AuraTwilight
2013-08-25, 07:51 PM
yea but what about a lawful good character whose goal is to conquer the world then? explain to me how a character like that can exist. I mean if you hold yourself to really high standards of morality, can you even have a selfish goal like that?

"Are you trying to become a God?"

"I don't care what I become...I won't allow their suffering to continue. I will do whatever it takes to end their pain, and give them the happiness they deserve. If any laws of the universe get in the way of those smiles....then I'll rewrite those laws. I am Bodhisattva. I shall give my freedom, my joy, and my life to create the world that should exist. That compassion shall be Law...and if I must rule to ensure that comes to be....I will sacrifice myself for that."

Douglas
2013-08-25, 08:49 PM
No, no, no. You're thinking in D&D murder hobo terms here. Why does a plan to conquer the world even need violence? Just look at the number of strategy games that let you achieve a diplomatic victory. It's the perfect lawful good (and path-of-least-resistance lawful evil) method to get others to voluntarily give up their sovereignty to you.
"Strategy and tactics" can include diplomacy and negotiation, and indeed those options would usually be the ultimate in "minimizing casualties".

Deophaun
2013-08-25, 08:53 PM
"Strategy and tactics" can include diplomacy and negotiation, and indeed those options would usually be the ultimate in "minimizing casualties".
"Focuses the damage" not so much. :smalltongue:

Mnemnosyne
2013-08-25, 10:51 PM
There is always a better way. Not taking it is part of being evil.
This is nonsense; there isn't always a better way, sometimes the only way sucks.

However, being evil means not even looking for a better way. Ammon Jerro didn't, or at least, had not for a very long time. If we accept his story, the first time the King of Shadows arose he tried to warn people and get them to work with him, and he failed to do so because nobody would take him seriously. An argument can be made that he didn't try hard enough even back then. But even if we assume that back then, he did everything he could to find a better way and failed, he didn't even try during the course of the game.

If he had talked to the protagonist at any point during the game, if he had stolen the shards without murdering people for no reason - he clearly had the power to steal the shards rather than murder their current owners, after all - or explained his actions to anyone...then and only then, if all of those attempts failed, could one make a claim to him being good. When your first choice of action in any situation is 'murder everyone,' then it's hard to make a claim of being good. It's also notable that he never really claims to be good either. He knows he's evil and knows he's sacrificing himself for everyone else. He doesn't easily accept that his methods were wrong, or even tactically unsound, but he fully accepts that they were evil.

Not to say he's not a great character, but good he ain't.

TriForce
2013-08-25, 11:06 PM
good vs evil, as per the Players handbook 3.5


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

as you can see, this part alone makes jerro evil. even if you argue that he kills in order to protect MORE lives, the fact that he kills people who are no threath to him, and without even trying to find another way makes him evil


Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others
while you can say that he makes personal sacrifices for others, none of the other things apply, and he does not ONLY make personal sacrifices, he "sacrifices" anyone and everyone that is convenient for him, regardless of their opinions


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

as you can see, the first definition of evil fits jerro perfectly, he kills whenever its convenient, and doesnt even blink when he does.

Jay R
2013-08-25, 11:21 PM
Then does alignment not really say anything about what a character's motives and goals might be, only how they're willing to go about achieving them?

Nothing so simplistic. Both motives and methods matter.

Evil motives and goals make a character evil. Somebody who wants to poison the entire town is evil, even if he never gets around to doing it..

Willingness to do evil to achieve one's goals will also make a character evil. Somebody who poison the entire town because the evil wizard happens to be there and it's the only way past his defenses is also evil.

Good motives and goals don't make evil methods good.

But also, good methods don't make evil goals good either.

tzar1990
2013-08-26, 12:04 AM
This is nonsense; there isn't always a better way, sometimes the only way sucks.


I would actually argue against that. In D&D, Good is a literal cosmic force, a fundamental substrate of reality. It holds power over peasants and kings, priests and gods alike. Even the most powerful demon in reality will still feel the burn when he lays hands about a holy shield - the balance and conflict between good and evil is ingrained just that deeply into the universe.

As such, I would argue that there's always a way. You might not be smart enough to see it, it might be difficult, it may even require you to sacrifice everything - but there's always a good way out. On the other hand, no matter how much good you do and how well you teach people about love and empathy, there will always be a seed of evil in the world.

Note, however, that no one, not even a Paladin or an Angel, can achieve true purity of alignment. Alignments are not sane. Alignments are not reasonable. Good demands that you sacrifice yourself to help others. Not "do a good job", not "help out in the temple when you're free", but all the time. When you stop to play a game of chess or tennis, you're failing to live up to Goodness - You could be out working in a soup kitchen! When you sleep soundly through the night, you're failing to live up to Good - you could function on less sleep, so do so, and get up early to teach Orc Children how to share and be kind! When you buy a sword, you're probably failing to live up to Good - did you do your utmost to ensure the miner's who mined the iron ore were treated fairly and equitably?

Ravian
2013-08-26, 12:16 AM
I've often liked how Eberron handled alignment. In a world of shades of grey, it is predominantly your methods that determine your alignment, rather than your goal. Keith Baker (the creator of the setting) gave the example of two rulers in Eberron Queen Arula and King Kaius. Arula is Neutral Good but is looking to restart the Last War so she can become the queen of Galifer, even though so many died during the war. King Kaius in Lawful Evil but is trying to maintain the peace. The difference is the methods. Arula is crafty and conniving, but she doesn't try to be ruthless, she is very resistant to overly violent tactics and would most likely try to avoid civilian causalties in her operations. Kaius however will maintain the peace by any means necessary, even if that includes martial law, silencing dangerous nay-sayers or imprisoning and deceiving his own family. It doesn't even matter if he's doing it for a good reason, his ruthlessness is what defines his alignment while Arula's mercy defines hers.

SiuiS
2013-08-26, 12:30 AM
yea but what about a lawful good character whose goal is to conquer the world then? explain to me how a character like that can exist. I mean if you hold yourself to really high standards of morality, can you even have a selfish goal like that?

Conquer the world through integration. Give them science, culture, medicine, food, infrastructure and propaganda. Their children's children will consider themselves your people.

Eventually, everyone will be your subjects, or if you are unworthy, you will join them in beig subject of a worthy ruler. The trick is not to be selfish. If two civilizations, A and B, come together, and A is the center of power at first but it later shifts to B, let it. It is more important that their maintains a Lawful and Good governance of the total population, than it is that you specifically are ruler.


In real life morality is difficult to grapple with. In a game with vague rules its a mess. So you can:
#1 Pretty much ignore the morality system.
#2 Use it really lightly and with a great deal of wiggle room.
#3 Be strict on it and get into a bunch of stupid unresolvable arguments.
#4 Be strict and DM fiat what kind of morality you believe in, (preferably before the game starts.)
#5 recognize that it's not a system of morality as such, but a declaration of allegiance.


This is nonsense; there isn't always a better way, sometimes the only way sucks.

Not in D&D. There's always a way, regardless of if you are strong and smart enough to see it through. Especially in later editions where being a messianic superhero is built into the rules, assumptions and expectations.

Someone dangles a baby and a gold dragon over a gorge an says you can only save one, you go back in time and kill the warlord who conquered his village and raise him to be a man of mercy, faith and restraint instead of a petty villain.


good vs evil, as per the Players handbook 3.5

The game in question is pre 3.5 and this not entirely subject to 3.5 dictates of alignment.

NecroRebel
2013-08-26, 01:14 AM
The game in question is pre 3.5 and this not entirely subject to 3.5 dictates of alignment.

Neverwinter Nights 2 uses the 3.5 ruleset. It is entirely subject to the 3.5 dictates on all matters except inasmuch as the game makers altered the rules to better function as a CRPG. While NWN1 used 3.0, the sequel doesn't.

It further uses the Forgotten Realms setting, though as that setting doesn't have any special alignment rules AFAIK, that's not really relevant.

enq
2013-08-26, 01:29 AM
I'm so glad I posted this. It's not like it's the only case of alignments puzzling me. I think I'll have more peace of mind if I don't read what a character's alignment is. Thanks for all the replies :) though I have a feeling there's more coming. Alignments seem a controversial topic.

(Also, I still like Ammon!)

Lord Raziere
2013-08-26, 02:06 AM
Note, however, that no one, not even a Paladin or an Angel, can achieve true purity of alignment. Alignments are not sane. Alignments are not reasonable. Good demands that you sacrifice yourself to help others. Not "do a good job", not "help out in the temple when you're free", but all the time. When you stop to play a game of chess or tennis, you're failing to live up to Goodness - You could be out working in a soup kitchen! When you sleep soundly through the night, you're failing to live up to Good - you could function on less sleep, so do so, and get up early to teach Orc Children how to share and be kind! When you buy a sword, you're probably failing to live up to Good - did you do your utmost to ensure the miner's who mined the iron ore were treated fairly and equitably?

Yeah. I wouldn't call such any unreasonable or insane force "Good". I would call it "Unreasonable" and "Insane". because Good isn't insane or unreasonable. Because being reasonable and sane about things, is pretty much how you BE good, because if you don't, bad things happen because you weren't reasonable or sane enough, and thats isn't Good at all.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-26, 03:04 AM
I think I'll have more peace of mind if I don't read what a character's alignment is.

The less you worry about alignments, the better.

SiuiS
2013-08-26, 03:24 AM
Neverwinter Nights 2 uses the 3.5 ruleset. It is entirely subject to the 3.5 dictates on all matters except inasmuch as the game makers altered the rules to better function as a CRPG. While NWN1 used 3.0, the sequel doesn't.

It further uses the Forgotten Realms setting, though as that setting doesn't have any special alignment rules AFAIK, that's not really relevant.

I thought NWN as a whole used the later 2e aspects of the game, aside from the d20 engine for ease of math. My faux pas.


Yeah. I wouldn't call such any unreasonable or insane force "Good". I would call it "Unreasonable" and "Insane". because Good isn't insane or unreasonable. Because being reasonable and sane about things, is pretty much how you BE good, because if you don't, bad things happen because you weren't reasonable or sane enough, and thats isn't Good at all.

ON the one hand, I see what this guy is saying, that it's a matter of scale, and your limited human understanding of good cannot truly encompass Good as a cosmic force which is greater than anything else known in our reality.
On the other hand, you've got a very good point, and so long as you're sane and rational you'll pull through into good. Which circles back around; Forget quibbles and thought exercises and semantics, you want to be good?
Be good. You know what it is. As soon as you're justifying something as still good, you've probably strayed.

Hyena
2013-08-26, 05:39 AM
Ammon Jerro is obviously evil, and all the good he could possibly achieve with defeating King of Shadows is overshadowed by evil. Let me remind you what he has done.

1. Repeatedly murdering his former friends to take their silver shards. They would give him it, if he only asked and explained what the hell is happening, but instead he chose to murder them.
2. Butchering the West Harbour for no reason at all. It can't be so they wouldn't tell agents of King of Shadows about him, because it makes no sense - King of Shadows already knew someone is trying to claim the blessings of Illefarn Statues, so he sent his agents to destroy them. Killing harbourmen will not change anything.
3. Repeatedly trying to kill PC. Why? Because PC wanted shards too. Ammon could compute that the only reason PC would want the shards is to kill King of Shadows, but no.
4. Escaping from the Nine Hells, which he himself referred to as his deserved punishment. The moment he found an excuse to return to the mortal world, he did so, which raises an interesting question about how long will he stay dead next time.
5. Murdering one of Neverwinter's Nine to take away her shard, instead of bothering to tell an agent of Lord Nasher about a threat to his city, which he would believe, because at that point shadow priests are long known about.


"Good news, everyone! I will save you from the threat of King of Shadows! By the way, to save you I need to butcher this village, and this, and this one, and this too. Also, I'm not warning anyone about the threat, so if you all perish after a surprise invasion, it's really your own fault."

Haarkla
2013-08-26, 10:08 AM
In D&D, Good is a literal cosmic force, a fundamental substrate of reality. ...

As such, I would argue that there's always a way. You might not be smart enough to see it, it might be difficult, it may even require you to sacrifice everything - but there's always a good way out.
I disagree. On what page of the rulebook is this enormous alteration of reality?

Mnemnosyne is right, there isn't always a better way, sometimes the only way sucks.

To the original poster, AKA Bait has it, multiple evil characters can have completely opposite goals. Just defeating the greater evil does not make you good. In our world, Stalin set out to do whatever it took to stop Hitler, few would argue that he was of non-evil alignment.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-08-26, 10:19 AM
2. Butchering the West Harbour for no reason at all. It can't be so they wouldn't tell agents of King of Shadows about him, because it makes no sense - King of Shadows already knew someone is trying to claim the blessings of Illefarn Statues, so he sent his agents to destroy them. Killing harbourmen will not change anything.

Actually, this one's apparently a case of sloppy editing (http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Ammon_Jerro):


A scene removed from the final release indicated that Ammon did not actually destroy West Harbor. He and his demons only passed through the village. Deleted content indicated that everybody was still alive after Ammon appeared at the village. After the cutscene, the PC was suppose to be able to return to West Harbor where the people state that they all had a strange dream that night where they smelled 'fire and brimstone', and that Tarmas for some reason did not have any dreams at all that night but he had another dream several nights before.

So yeah, bad storytelling all around.

hamishspence
2013-08-26, 10:21 AM
I disagree. On what page of the rulebook is this enormous alteration of reality? page 103 PHB:

"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."

It doesn't say anything about this guaranteeing that "there's always a way" though.

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-26, 10:57 AM
I'd say occasionally Morton's Forks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_fork) and other no-win situations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lose-lose) do happen, but they can happen to the benefit of good as well as evil.

Hyena
2013-08-26, 02:12 PM
Actually, this one's apparently a case of sloppy editing:
Duh, not so suprising. Half of the game was cut, because it was just that rushed. Which reminds me...
WHY THE NEESHKA ROMANCE, WHY

Segev
2013-08-26, 02:28 PM
"Are you trying to become a God?"

"I don't care what I become...I won't allow their suffering to continue. I will do whatever it takes to end their pain, and give them the happiness they deserve. If any laws of the universe get in the way of those smiles....then I'll rewrite those laws. I am Bodhisattva. I shall give my freedom, my joy, and my life to create the world that should exist. That compassion shall be Law...and if I must rule to ensure that comes to be....I will sacrifice myself for that."

I didn't think 14-year-old girls were so eloquent in their responses to Incubators.

JFahy
2013-08-26, 03:02 PM
The less you worry about alignments, the better.

Started playing Basic D&D in about 1981, can't think of a single instance where a game was improved by the concept of alignment, and can think of quite a few cases where alignment has screwed things up or produced asinine arguments.

Wise chicken.

Jay R
2013-08-26, 03:48 PM
page 103 PHB:

"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."

It doesn't say anything about this guaranteeing that "there's always a way" though.

There are two sources of any D&D game - the rules and the DM.

What guarantees that there is always a way is the DM, not the rules. People don't do lots of hard work just to create misery for their friends.

The players may not find a way out, but the game was intended to be playable.

AuraTwilight
2013-08-26, 05:08 PM
I didn't think 14-year-old girls were so eloquent in their responses to Incubators.

They are when they're Exalted PCs. How else will they be able to utter half their Charmsets?

danatblair
2013-08-26, 05:52 PM
One of the things I like most about Order of the Stick is how nuanced evil and good can be at times. Even with actions are obviously good or evil, the exact side and loyalty of a person can be outside of the expected norm.



just in case you have not read them, using spoilers as I discuss the comic freely. if you have not read them all, do not click.

In particular, I think current events in the comic are going to shake up who is on who's team a bit.

Durkon is now evil, as a vampire. Yet he is working with the order. They still hope to bring him back to life, but he is working with them currently of his own free will. He seems to still consider the Order to be his friends, though this is a new development and could go in several directions.

Sabine witnesses the death of Nale at the hands of one of the Order's enemies. I would not be surprised if she aids the order out of devotion to Nale.

Really, what's left of the Linear Guild might have more cause to be upset with the other team evils running around than the order of the stick.

Belkar has spent a long time slightly working on meeting the expectations and needs of others. He even seemed to be genuinely upset when Durkon died saving him. At the start of the strip, any empathy was beyond him. While he will likely never be good, he does seem to be edging in the direction of a very bloodthirsty neutral. The audience knows that at some point in the future he is preordained to die. I wonder if he might actually go out with a heroic sacrifice after a long arc of edging to redemption. Or, he could get randomly punked like Malak and Nale.

And Malak's death being avenged because of friendship .... that was kinda awesome. Once again, competing evils having conflict.

enq
2013-08-26, 11:54 PM
WHY THE NEESHKA ROMANCE, WHY
There was one? I always knew she had the hots for the PC! I mean, she never showed any direct interest, but if you paid attention to any other woman, she got jealous.

I have to agree with your outrage.

NecroRebel
2013-08-27, 12:20 AM
There was one? I always knew she had the hots for the PC! I mean, she never showed any direct interest, but if you paid attention to any other woman, she got jealous.

I have to agree with your outrage.

Yeah, there's tons and tons of hints that suggest that she gets something of a crush on you if you're male, but it's totally impossible for anything to ever come of it. She's also a much more interesting and engaging character with a better backstory than Elanee, so a lot of people are annoyed that the bland, cliche nature-loving elf druid romance got kept while Neeshka's wasn't.

I wish they had A) put in a romance for Neeshka, since it would already be very believable with what is there, and B) made there be a different divine caster than Elanee earlier on than Zh... Zhja... Whatever the gith's name is. Elanee's kinda irritating.

Hyena
2013-08-27, 03:26 AM
Yeah, there's tons and tons of hints that suggest that she gets something of a crush on you if you're male, but it's totally impossible for anything to ever come of it. She's also a much more interesting and engaging character with a better backstory than Elanee, so a lot of people are annoyed that the bland, cliche nature-loving elf druid romance got kept while Neeshka's wasn't.

Well, there are mods to fix it. I'm playing with one right now.

enq
2013-08-27, 07:55 AM
How good are those mods? I actually didn't like the gameplay of NWN2 so I'm hesitant to pick it up just for mods, but if there's actual voice acting and stuff...

Hell, is there a mod that doesn't force aggro onto the PC after conversations that lead to battle? It was a major gripe with the game to me, hence the only character of mine who made it to the end was called Maene Tenkh. I guess it's obvious what his role in the party was.

Segev
2013-08-27, 02:17 PM
Since I'm asking a question about the spoiler'd stuff regarding the comic, I will spoiler my own question, too. Don't read if you're not caught up on the comic.


The audience knows that at some point in the future [Belkar] is preordained to die.


Somewhere, I've missed this foreshadowing. Where do we learn Belkar is preordained to die?

Wardog
2013-08-27, 05:21 PM
*sigh* No. If you speak English, the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) has pretty plain definition. Law stands for communality, dutifullness and obedience, while Chaos stands for invidualism, irresponsibility and anti-authoritarism. Most, if not all confusion on the subject is caused by people getting tripped by the specific words or flat-out ignoring what is actually said of them, and going "no, that isn't Law/Chaos, because..."

Well, it does go into a bit more detail:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

The problem, to my mind, is that although you can sum up Law and Chaos in broad general terms*, each encompass a lot of individual aspects that are not innately linked, nor are mutually exclusive aspects of the opposite alignment. It's entierly possible to be strongly and ideologically (even fanatically) anti-authoritarian and simultaneously an equally strong believer in the importance of honesty and truthfulness. Or to be individualistic but prejudiced. Or judgmental and reckless. Of course, that could just mean that such a person is Neutral, but that means being Neutral doesn't really tell you much about someone's actual beliefs or behaviour.



* My preferred way to look at is "Rules are a good thing. They make life better for everyone/society/me" vs. "Rules are a bad thing. They make life worse for everyone/society/me".

TuggyNE
2013-08-27, 05:43 PM
Since I'm asking a question about the spoiler'd stuff regarding the comic, I will spoiler my own question, too. Don't read if you're not caught up on the comic.


Somewhere, I've missed this foreshadowing. Where do we learn Belkar is preordained to die?

Strip 572 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html).