PDA

View Full Version : Quick alignment question



Kaeso
2013-11-29, 09:42 AM
Yes, the ever infamous alignment issue rears its ugly head once again. :smalltongue:

I'm planning to introduce a DMPC in one of my campaigns, but I'm not sure what alignment she should be. If we assume that this character is an elf who heavily looks down on the 'lesser' races, treats them like the lowest of the low and doesn't care whether they live or die, but does not actively do anything to harm them nor wishes to actively do anything to harm them, would she be neutral or evil? In other words, what alignment would an indifferent racial supremacist be?

dethkruzer
2013-11-29, 09:45 AM
Sounds strongly neutral with tendencies toward evil. I imagine either true neutral or lawful neutral would fit best.

KillianHawkeye
2013-11-29, 10:07 AM
I would say Neutral as well.

Being Evil isn't about failing (or not even trying) to save people, it's about doing people harm. If all this NPC is is indifferent rather than antagonistic, then she is Neutral, not Evil.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-29, 10:11 AM
So, if he sees members of lower races in danger, and is in a position to help them, what does he do?

Rhynn
2013-11-29, 10:29 AM
So, if he sees members of lower races in danger, and is in a position to help them, what does he do?

Better yet, if he's in a position to easily help with no personal loss, cost, or risk, does he?

Apathy to the immediate suffering or death of others is pretty much Evil. Good is to help someone despite personal risk, cost, or danger; Neutral is to at least help when it doesn't cost you anything.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-29, 11:32 AM
Instead of trying to figure out "what alignment fits this personality/set of ideals", pick an alignment and juxtapose it with their actions and beliefs. That makes the character more three-dimensional. Tweak the alignment if it's absolutely incompatible. Otherwise, I find alignments to be broad enough to include a wide swath of actions and character types.

Scow2
2013-11-29, 11:38 AM
Better yet, if he's in a position to easily help with no personal loss, cost, or risk, does he?

Apathy to the immediate suffering or death of others is pretty much Evil. Good is to help someone despite personal risk, cost, or danger; Neutral is to at least help when it doesn't cost you anything.You're ascribing Evil to what is still Neutral. "Not giving a damn about the situation" is neutral, not Evil.

Scumbag =/= Evil.

Rhynn
2013-11-29, 12:13 PM
You're ascribing Evil to what is still Neutral. "Not giving a damn about the situation" is neutral, not Evil.

You would have to have one messed-up ethical system to think that watching someone die when you could help them without any cost to yourself is not wrong/evil. Even most legal systems acknowledge this ("duty to rescue"), and laws aren't exactly the pinnacle of ethics.

In the case of helping someone in trouble, in D&D terms, Good is helping even at a cost; Neutral is helping at no cost; Evil is not helping at all.

Good is selfless and self-sacrificing; Neutral is selfish and self-preserving; Evil is malicious and harmful.

Ghost Nappa
2013-11-29, 12:17 PM
Yes, the ever infamous alignment issue rears its ugly head once again. :smalltongue:

I'm planning to introduce a DMPC in one of my campaigns, but I'm not sure what alignment she should be. If we assume that this character is an elf who heavily looks down on the 'lesser' races, treats them like the lowest of the low and doesn't care whether they live or die, but does not actively do anything to harm them nor wishes to actively do anything to harm them, would she be neutral or evil? In other words, what alignment would an indifferent racial supremacist be?

The short version:
Good is helping people despite risk to yourself.
Neutral is helping people only when there's no risk to yourself.
Evil is hurting people.

Your elf sound neutral going on evil. You've given little indication of how the elf acts in regard to Law Vs. Chaos; so that question cannot be answered.

Jay R
2013-11-29, 01:01 PM
A. As the thread is proving once again, there is no such thing as a "Quick alignment question".

b. You have given us no information about the character's actions. We therefore have no information to base alignment on.

A human rancher raises cows to butcher them. That doesn't make him evil or neutral; it's just an opinion about the relative worth of cows. People who share that belief will consider growing cows for steaks perfectly OK.

There is no clear difference between your character and the rancher, except that we don't share her view of other races. But if she follows her beliefs consistently, she can be Lawful, and until it's proven that she has committed evil acts, she can be Good.

Consider the character as a Lawful Good. She travels with her pet humans, protects them against monsters because monsters are dangerous to the elves who might be coming later, and uses the abilities of her pets to help her do it. Is there any real difference between her and a knight errant riding a war horse?

If the character were a PC, I'd allow any alignment, but I'd also expect the DM to put her in difficult situations to test her alignment. But a DMPC can always pass a DM-planned moral question, so I'd make her neutral shading to chaotic.

(And if I were a player, the first time the DMPC refused to help the party, I would kick her out of the party permanently. A party is a group of people depending on each other to stay alive. She can sneer at me all she likes, as long as she plays her part in the party's defenses.)

Gavran
2013-11-29, 01:43 PM
As an aside, even as a fan of Elf Supremacy, I'd be wary about DMPCing one. A DMPC should be unobtrusive, and a character that is offensive to any of the PCs shouldn't be forced into their party. Put in a position where they have to swallow their pride or fail an objective? Absolutely. Put in a position where they can't react appropriately to the behavior because it's a character that your encounters require for any reason? Absolutely not.

KillianHawkeye
2013-11-29, 08:35 PM
In the case of helping someone in trouble, in D&D terms, Good is helping even at a cost; Neutral is helping at no cost; Evil is not helping at all.

Good is selfless and self-sacrificing; Neutral is selfish and self-preserving; Evil is malicious and harmful.

You're contradicting yourself here. There is a vast difference between simply not helping, and being malicious and harmful. Not helping is Neutral. Helping when there is no cost to you is purely optional. Some people do it, others don't, but they're still Neutral either way.

In other words, "there's nothing in it for me" is just as Neutral as "it doesn't cost me anything."

Nerd-o-rama
2013-11-29, 08:36 PM
Yes, the ever infamous alignment issue rears its ugly head once again. :smalltongue:

I'm planning to introduce a DMPC in one of my campaigns, but I'm not sure what alignment she should be. If we assume that this character is an elf who heavily looks down on the 'lesser' races, treats them like the lowest of the low and doesn't care whether they live or die, but does not actively do anything to harm them nor wishes to actively do anything to harm them, would she be neutral or evil? In other words, what alignment would an indifferent racial supremacist be?

Well, you just described all fictional elves, and elves are described as "usually Chaotic Good", so...

Tengu_temp
2013-11-29, 09:06 PM
Well, you just described all fictional elves, and elves are described as "usually Chaotic Good", so...

And people wonder why in the eternal elf vs dwarf debate I always side with the bearded alcoholics.

Scow2
2013-11-29, 09:25 PM
Well, you just described all fictional elves, and elves are described as "usually Chaotic Good", so...

That is NOT the common description of elves, who are extremely open-minded, and with justifiable preference toward their own kind because the guy with 200 years of experience and insight is more valuable than the guy with two years of experience at even fewer tasks.

TriForce
2013-11-29, 09:57 PM
racism is a character trait, not a alignment indicator. someone who activly seeks out those he considers to be less then him and tries to kill or harm them is obviously evil, those that still have those kind of opinions but dont activly act on them however, can be anything, even good.

nobody is perfect, you can be someone who helps those in need, and sacrifises their own well-being for the sake of others, but still racist towards a certain group of people who you view as less/evil/lazywhatever, simply because you never experienced anything else.

the difference is usually made when a person like that experiences something that does not fall in his/her preconcieved notions. in the case of your elf, if he sees other races that are just as noble/smart/whatever as he considers elves to be.

a good character will be quick to adjust his racist worldview
a neutral character will be harder to convince, and will keep some distrust no matter what
a evil character will never change, and try to twist whatever he sees into something that comply's to his racist worldview

Rhynn
2013-11-30, 04:04 AM
You're contradicting yourself here. There is a vast difference between simply not helping, and being malicious and harmful.

Refusing to help someone who is e.g. in mortal danger when you easily could is malicious.

Seriously, who actually thinks that watching someone die when I could easily and without risk/cost help them wouldn't be terribly wrong?

KillianHawkeye
2013-11-30, 08:18 AM
Refusing to help someone who is e.g. in mortal danger when you easily could is malicious.

No. Cheering and watching eagerly for their death MIGHT be malicious, but minding your own business never is.


Seriously, who actually thinks that watching someone die when I could easily and without risk/cost help them wouldn't be terribly wrong?

This situation never actually exists, so I am just going to ignore it. Intervening in a life threatening situation will never carry zero risk or zero cost.

Rhynn
2013-11-30, 09:12 AM
This situation never actually exists, so I am just going to ignore it. Intervening in a life threatening situation will never carry zero risk or zero cost.

Seriously?

Somebody's in a pit and will die there. (Snakes, starvation, whatever.) There's a rope next to the pit, and a tree. You can tie the rope around the tree and lower it into the pit to get the person out.

Somebody's locked in a room and will die in there. You're on the other side and can let them out.

And so on and so on.

Killing or harming people through flagrant apathy or negligence absolutely is wrong and malicious.

Edit: Somebody's going to be executed for a crime they didn't commit, and you know it. You can go "hey, that dude is innocent, that other one done it."

How can you not think these up yourself?

Edit: On the road / in a street / on a battlefield well after the armies have moved on, you find a badly wounded person who will die without treatment. You have the means / skills for treatment (bandages, water & rags, whatever).

Negligible/trivial cost absolutely counts, too.

Edit: Not calling an ambulance/cleric/whatever for someone who's badly hurt.

I can keep coming up with these. It's surprisingly easy!

Edit: Actually, even from a self-interested Neutrality POV, helping others because you'd like to be helped when you need it is the Neutral thing to do, while leaving them to die etc. on their own when it wouldn't cost you to help them (i.e. do what you'd like to be done for you) is wrong (Evil). Not helping at cost can be justified by not expecting others to e.g. risk their lives for you if they have no connection or obligation to you.

The funny thing about Neutral is that, most of the time, even Neutral characters will consider Good things good, and would enjoy being recipients of them, and will consider Evil things negative and would not like to be subjected to them. (This is actually made explicit at least in the AD&D 2E treatment of alignments, IIRC.)

Axiomatic
2013-11-30, 11:34 AM
Your racial supremacist, who usually doesn't really care, sees a way to significantly benefit himself or those he cares about, and the only people who will be hurt will be those of lesser races.

Does he go for it? Yes? Bam, neutral evil.

Scow2
2013-11-30, 12:37 PM
Your racial supremacist, who usually doesn't really care, sees a way to significantly benefit himself or those he cares about, and the only people who will be hurt will be those of lesser races.

Does he go for it? Yes? Bam, neutral evil.Not to Elves. Bigotry is hard to place on the alignment chart because if the double-standard of treatment it uses. Sucks to be a member of the type he's bigotted against, but the Good he does for his preferred (Non-immediate-family group) does counteract that.. but people like to accentuate the negative and overlook the Good someone does.

Axiomatic
2013-11-30, 12:58 PM
Not to Elves. Bigotry is hard to place on the alignment chart because if the double-standard of treatment it uses. Sucks to be a member of the type he's bigotted against, but the Good he does for his preferred (Non-immediate-family group) does counteract that.. but people like to accentuate the negative and overlook the Good someone does.

I'm saying this on the internet, but...Hitler. You just made a Hitler-is-not-evil argument.

Scow2
2013-11-30, 01:34 PM
I'm saying this on the internet, but...Hitler. You just made a Hitler-is-not-evil argument.Let's not go into real-world historical figures (As the alternative is "Great Man X is evil" - ranging from Washington to Ghandi, because of bigotry)

Anxe
2013-11-30, 01:59 PM
Yeah, steer clear of real world examples. That way leads politics and the banhammer. Voldemort is an acceptable racist villain, lets use him.

As for inaction = evil, I agree, but i'm not sure the d&d alignment system does. That might indeed be a neutral action as it is inaction. Preserving bqlance and all that. "That person got into that situation, who am I to try and change it?"

Axiomatic
2013-11-30, 03:28 PM
Fine, Voldemort.

Voldemort is a racist wizard-supremacist, and he is willing to damage mud-bloods if it benefits pure-blooded wizards.

This is somehow NOT evil?

Now, if Voldemort were a racist wizard-supremacist who would never harm an innocent mud-blood for the benefit of his friends, but who also would never lift a finger to help a mud-blood if there wasn't something in it for him, I could accept that as neutral. But because he's a racist wizard supremacist, he WOULD do it, and he is instead evil.

Rhynn
2013-11-30, 03:33 PM
Yeah, "benefitting a group" basically has nothing to do with Good/Evil. It may mean you're Lawful, since Lawful = group first, Chaotic = individual(s) first. If you're benefitting that group while doing evil things, you're Evil.

Gavran
2013-11-30, 06:15 PM
Some thoughts: there are very few situations where you can save a life at no risk/cost to yourself. There is always the possibility that by saving that life you are making an enemy. Helping someone is Good. The absence of a Good action is not Evil.

Now, to the meat of the issue: real life humans largely strive for Good. We are conditioned to help the tribe. It is easy to assume that the average RPG human is just like us - and maybe they are, but if they are, then they aren't Neutral. They likely make very little individual gains for the cause of Good, but they would strive for it, and they would do more Good than Evil.

Good is giving help, Evil is giving harm. Neutral is giving neither (or giving both in some cases). You cannot call "allowing harm through inaction" Evil because everyone who isn't at the very highest extreme of Good is constantly doing that.

Regarding bigotry, someone said earlier that it depends on their commitment to it, and there's some truth there. It's hard to blame a racist who was brought up that way and never had his misconceptions challenged. It is unfair to call that person Evil, even when those beliefs lead them to Evil actions. Now let's recognize that unlike in real life, in RPGs "Race" means "Species". An Elf that believes he is better than Humans is closer to a real life Human that believes he is better than say... chimpanzees than it is to real life racism. If he runs around murdering Humans on sight for no other reason? That's Evil. If he chooses the life of an Elf over the life of a Human? That's not.

Edit: Re: Voldemort, he harbors an almost completely unrealistic hatred for muggles and by extension mudbloods. Voldemort would kill and torture them for fun and that is what makes him Evil.

Honest Tiefling
2013-11-30, 07:33 PM
I think the elf would be evil if they refused to help a so-called lesser race even when there was little danger or downside to themselves. Not helping in all situations doesn't make someone evil, but when there is an extreme need for such (say, someone freezing to death) and they don't have to do much (build a fire out of nearby twigs) then I would lean to say that is evil.

I think a better question is, does anyone in the party even have detect evil? If not, well, who cares!

KillianHawkeye
2013-11-30, 07:40 PM
Some thoughts: there are very few situations where you can save a life at no risk/cost to yourself. There is always the possibility that by saving that life you are making an enemy. Helping someone is Good. The absence of a Good action is not Evil.

Now, to the meat of the issue: real life humans largely strive for Good. We are conditioned to help the tribe. It is easy to assume that the average RPG human is just like us - and maybe they are, but if they are, then they aren't Neutral. They likely make very little individual gains for the cause of Good, but they would strive for it, and they would do more Good than Evil.

Good is giving help, Evil is giving harm. Neutral is giving neither (or giving both in some cases). You cannot call "allowing harm through inaction" Evil because everyone who isn't at the very highest extreme of Good is constantly doing that.

Yes, exactly what I was trying to say.

Jay R
2013-11-30, 08:29 PM
Fine, Voldemort.

Voldemort is a racist wizard-supremacist, and he is willing to damage mud-bloods if it benefits pure-blooded wizards.

This is somehow NOT evil?

Now, if Voldemort were a racist wizard-supremacist who would never harm an innocent mud-blood for the benefit of his friends, but who also would never lift a finger to help a mud-blood if there wasn't something in it for him, I could accept that as neutral. But because he's a racist wizard supremacist, he WOULD do it, and he is instead evil.

And if he is a racist wizard-supremacist who guards and protects mudbloods because he believes they are an inferior race who need his help, he is Good (and misinformed).

Bigotry isn't evil; hurting people is evil. If a character looks down on a certain group and never does anything to hurt any member, then he is not evil; he is merely wrong.

Acting on your wrong beliefs to hurt people is evil.

(Acting on your correct beliefs to hurt people is also evil. So his decision to kill them would be evil even if he were correct and they actually are inferior.)

Grytorm
2013-11-30, 08:37 PM
The point where people argue that inaction is evil is when inaction leaves the neutral character in nearly the same state as action.

KillianHawkeye
2013-11-30, 08:42 PM
The point where people argue that inaction is evil is when inaction leaves the neutral character in nearly the same state as action.

I think the question here is whether or not random passersby should be held responsible for the evil deeds of another. I believe, regardless of the person's alignment, that they should not be.

So you say that inaction is Evil? I say it cannot be, because actions (not inaction) are what determines your alignment.

Refraining from doing good does not make you Evil. This is not a Good/Evil system where anything that is not Good is automatically Evil. There is a middle ground, called Neutrality.

Grytorm
2013-11-30, 10:23 PM
It depends on the inaction. Definitely it can be evil in a situation where the inactive neutral party has authority and power over what is committing or letting commit an evil deed. Yes there is a middle ground, but this is alignments. These are murky waters.

KillianHawkeye
2013-11-30, 10:35 PM
These are murky waters.

Indeed. :smallamused:

Grytorm
2013-12-01, 12:55 AM
Inaction can be evil a number of scenarios, when it acts to condone evil deeds, when the evil action when you the person who is choosing how to act is in control of what happens. These are the basic types of scenarios where I would argue that inaction can be evil.

Just putting this up here for what I have decided to use as a reference point for Neutrality. Not for an actual description but just for an idea about Neutrality.

I haven't done evil to mankind.
I have not oppressed the members of my family
I have not brought forward my name for exaltation to honors
I have not ill treated servants
I have not belittled a god
I have not defrauded the oppressed of their property
I have not done which is an abomination to the gods
I have made no man to suffer hunger
I have made n one to weep
I have done no murder
I have not given an order for murder to be done for me
I have not inflicted pain
I have not committed fornication
I have not encroached on the fields of others
I have not cut into a canal of running water
I have not obstructed a god in his procession

Scow2
2013-12-01, 01:37 AM
Fine, Voldemort.

Voldemort is a racist wizard-supremacist, and he is willing to damage mud-bloods if it benefits pure-blooded wizards.

This is somehow NOT evil?

Now, if Voldemort were a racist wizard-supremacist who would never harm an innocent mud-blood for the benefit of his friends, but who also would never lift a finger to help a mud-blood if there wasn't something in it for him, I could accept that as neutral. But because he's a racist wizard supremacist, he WOULD do it, and he is instead evil.The thing is Voldemort never did anything to benefit other Purebloods (And, he was a halfblood himself). Where's his support to poor Purebloods like the Weasely family, ensuring that they are free from bullying by muggle-borns and are well-off enough to . Where's his support to Squibs, and funding research, experiments, and other things ensuring that those of pure wizard blood can be rid of the curse that prevents them from enjoying the full benefits of the birthright they're entitled to? Voldemort was also Evil because he also murdered other Purebloods like James Potter, among others. There was no compassion or empathy for others to offset his bigotry against muggles.

Now... if he were a Wizard Supremecist (Instead of merely Pureblood supremecists) who believed that muggles were mere 'chaff' of humanity... what if instead of creating a Death Cult, he created a team and political party that wanted to end the masquerade, so that Wizards no longer had to hide from and fear Muggles. Someone who, after Lilly and James Potter were killed in a tragic car crash or magical mishap, ensured their half-blood, but arcanely-gifted son wasn't abused by his parents. And a man who, where budding wizards were discovered and bullied by their muggle communities, would fly in on a broom with his Death Eater Murderhobo party, rescue the bullied wizard, probably leave a lot of collateral damage and dead/traumatized bullies, and fly off, with the magical equivalent of the A-Team fanfare magically conjured?

Axiomatic
2013-12-01, 11:03 AM
So it's humans and elves now.

Okay, I am an elf. Me and my elf buddies live in the woods, and spying from our place of concealment, we spot a human farmer and his family, herding a pack of goats. Suddenly, it strikes me that us elves could really enjoy some goat meat.

So I pick up my bow and kill the human family with my archery expertise, and take all the goats with me to the forest, where I hand them out to my elven friends and compatriots.

I am, apparently, not evil, because at least SOMEONE benefits from my murder of an entirely innocent family of strangers.

Scow2, are you arguing that Voldemort was only evil because he was hypocritical about his beliefs, and sometimes striking out at Purebloods as well? If he'd limited himself to only murdering mudbloods and muggles, he'd have been morally grey?

Jay R
2013-12-01, 11:27 AM
So it's humans and elves now.

Okay, I am an elf. Me and my elf buddies live in the woods, and spying from our place of concealment, we spot a human farmer and his family, herding a pack of goats. Suddenly, it strikes me that us elves could really enjoy some goat meat.

So I pick up my bow and kill the human family with my archery expertise, and take all the goats with me to the forest, where I hand them out to my elven friends and compatriots.[/I]

If you shoot him because you think he's inferior, you are committing an evil act.
If you shoot him, knowing he is your equal, because you want his goats, you are committing an evil act.
If you shoot him, you are committing an evil act.

If you think he's inferior, but you don't shoot him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you think he is as good as you, and you don't shoot him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you don't shoot him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.

But inaction can also be evil. suppose the goatherder is trapped in quicksand, and you have a rope.

If you don't save him because you think he's inferior, you are committing an evil act.
If you don't save him so you can get some unowned goats in five minutes, you are committing an evil act.
If you don't save him, you are committing an evil act.

If you save him while thinking him inferior, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you save him so you can buy his goats, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you save him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.

And (just to muddy the waters), if you think he is inferior, and save him because the inferior races need your help, then you are committing a good act.

KillianHawkeye
2013-12-01, 11:49 AM
If you shoot him because you think he's inferior, you are committing an evil act.
If you shoot him, knowing he is your equal, because you want his goats, you are committing an evil act.
If you shoot him, you are committing an evil act.

If you think he's inferior, but you don't shoot him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you think he is as good as you, and you don't shoot him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you don't shoot him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.

But inaction can also be evil. suppose the goatherder is trapped in quicksand, and you have a rope.

If you don't save him because you think he's inferior, you are committing an evil act.
If you don't save him so you can get some unowned goats in five minutes, you are committing an evil act.
If you don't save him, you are committing an evil act.

If you save him while thinking him inferior, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you save him so you can buy his goats, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.
If you save him, you are not (at least at present) committing an evil act.

And (just to muddy the waters), if you think he is inferior, and save him because the inferior races need your help, then you are committing a good act.

Not saving is neither Good nor Evil, just kinda sour. It's not black and white, it's black white and gray. And there are a range of possibilities within each color.

It's not that not-saving is Evil and saving is non-Evil. It's that saving is Good and not-saving is non-Good. Your final statement regarding the quicksand situation is the only correct one.

Mastikator
2013-12-01, 12:28 PM
Judging people based on their race, gender, economic or religious background is clearly defined as "Lawful Evil" in the Player Handbook. If you perfectly fit the description of an alignment then you are that alignment.

This DMPC is lawful evil.

I'd avoid using this DMPC if the other players aren't all elves with non-good non-chaotic alignments, otherwise they will rightfully react negatively to the DMPC, and if a PC and a DMPC can't be in the same room the DMPC is always the one that has to go.

veti
2013-12-01, 03:22 PM
So it's humans and elves now.

Okay, I am an elf. Me and my elf buddies live in the woods, and spying from our place of concealment, we spot a human farmer and his family, herding a pack of goats. Suddenly, it strikes me that us elves could really enjoy some goat meat.

So I pick up my bow and kill the human family with my archery expertise, and take all the goats with me to the forest, where I hand them out to my elven friends and compatriots.

Most of us would call that evil, or even Evil.

It gets more interesting when you make it just a little bit more plausible. Let's say, instead of shooting the humans, you simply walk out and take one of their goats. They just watch you, rather sullenly and stupidly - they don't protest, because as humans they know they're inferior and you have every right to take it. It honestly never even occurs to you that you're armed and they're not, and if they did protest too hard you absolutely would, with some reluctance, shoot one of them.

Or how about: you put up a fence around the human family's land and claim it's yours. The elven law will back you up, because elves. You're perfectly happy for the humans to go on using it, provided they pay you rent - one goat per quarter, plus a regular supply of milk.

Real evil isn't, usually, about killing people. Injustice and oppression is a daily business.

hamishspence
2013-12-01, 03:28 PM
Real evil isn't, usually, about killing people. Injustice and oppression is a daily business.

Seconded. Indeed, there are probably Evil characters who have massive compunctions against killing anyone- but have consistent pattern of unjust, oppressive behaviour.

As per Eberron's portrayal of Evil alignment- it's fairly common, but the level of evilness ranges all the way down to "pretty minor" so to speak.

Honest Tiefling
2013-12-01, 06:31 PM
Besides, it's incredibly poor business sense to keep slaughtering your serfs and slaves on a daily basis. Those things don't grow on trees, you know! And good heavens, the amount of time it takes to brand each and every one and then to wear down their pride and crush their hopes and dreams? Yeesh!

Through now I have to wonder what 'lowest of the low' means. Does he think they're all stupid babies who needs the Elves to come in to rule them properly? Does he treat them like slaves? Are they misguided in need of Elven council to nudge them to the proper, civilized path?

Scow2
2013-12-01, 06:52 PM
So it's humans and elves now.

Okay, I am an elf. Me and my elf buddies live in the woods, and spying from our place of concealment, we spot a human farmer and his family, herding a pack of goats. Suddenly, it strikes me that us elves could really enjoy some goat meat.

So I pick up my bow and kill the human family with my archery expertise, and take all the goats with me to the forest, where I hand them out to my elven friends and compatriots.

I am, apparently, not evil, because at least SOMEONE benefits from my murder of an entirely innocent family of strangers.By what right do those short-lived, nearsighted apes have to tear up the land as they do, cutting down trees, gouging the earth, enslaving animals (And raising them in tight, cramped confines), in tight concentrations that allow disease to spread and ravage the populations? They also butcher animals in wasteful, barbaric ways that emphasize expediency, after raising them on unhealthy, single-note diets that lead to poor health and unnatural development.

By killing those low-life, self-important beasts, the Elves can take the animals, put them out of their domesticated misery, and use them to feed the entire elf encampment in a responsible and moral way. And, because they euthanized human-corrupt animals, they don't have to concern themselves as much with their own hunger when weighing the balance of nature.


Scow2, are you arguing that Voldemort was only evil because he was hypocritical about his beliefs, and sometimes striking out at Purebloods as well? If he'd limited himself to only murdering mudbloods and muggles, he'd have been morally grey?You're only saying he's wouldn't be because you're a dirty worthless muggle yourself :smalltongue:



...ultimately, though, Bigotry may be a motivation for evil, but it's not a sin in itself.

Tengu_temp
2013-12-01, 10:06 PM
So it's humans and elves now.

Okay, I am an elf. Me and my elf buddies live in the woods, and spying from our place of concealment, we spot a human farmer and his family, herding a pack of goats. Suddenly, it strikes me that us elves could really enjoy some goat meat.

So I pick up my bow and kill the human family with my archery expertise, and take all the goats with me to the forest, where I hand them out to my elven friends and compatriots.

I am, apparently, not evil, because at least SOMEONE benefits from my murder of an entirely innocent family of strangers.


The funny thing is that Dragon Age would agree with this logic.

Anyway, yeah, racism is an evil trait. It doesn't necessarily make you evil on its own, because neutral and even good people can have some evil traits, just like evil people can have some good traits. People are complex, not black and white cardboard cutouts!

Honest Tiefling
2013-12-01, 10:21 PM
I think Dragonage was going for Grimdark, so I am not sure it counts. I mean, you ally with a woman who regards murder as others might regard a cigarette after a particularly enjoyable romp.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-01, 10:40 PM
Anyway, yeah, racism is an evil trait. It doesn't necessarily make you evil on its own, because neutral and even good people can have some evil traits, just like evil people can have some good traits. People are complex, not black and white cardboard cutouts!

Pretty much. This is also a good basis from which to argue that most people are neutral on the moral axis.


In Pathfinder, the detect [alignment] spells don't even work on most creatures until they have 5 HD (i.e. 5th level)l, so it's not like it matters for the overwhelming majority of people.

Axiomatic
2013-12-02, 05:51 AM
People are complex, not black and white cardboard cutouts!

If that were true, we wouldn't have alignments.:smallsmile:

TuggyNE
2013-12-02, 07:14 AM
If that were true, we wouldn't have alignments.:smallsmile:

Uh, what? So far as I know, no official guidance (at least of anything resembling current publications) says to make your characters cardboard cutouts representing the various alignments, and indeed most warn against that. Alignments != enforced extreme pigeonholing.

Instead, alignments give an extremely abbreviated Cliff's Notes of a few of a character's most significant character traits, and tie those to various cosmic principles that have real effects and natures. But the way in which any seventeen LN characters react to a situation is going to depend to a large extent on their personalities and experiences beyond merely the fact of being Lawful Neutral.

Drachasor
2013-12-02, 08:20 AM
The elf sounds like someone that's REALLY going to annoy the players. A DMPC that constantly is insulting to other players usually isn't a lot of fun.


Anyhow, the elf can have whatever views it wants. He could view that humans are little more than advanced pigs wallowing in the filth of their existence. He could view that humans enslaving each other is just what humans deserve. He could view it as perfectly fine if some elves went and killed some humans in another country because those humans got in the way or cut down a tree.

None of that has any bearing on his alignment. It just has bearing on whether he's a jerk or not.

What really matters is how he acts. He can say humans and other races are the lowest of the low all he wants. He can insult them, be snide, and be petty about trivial things. But if he sees a starving human orphan and then gives him some food and shelter (all the while muttering about how humans are worse than dogs and the world shouldn't put up with their filth), then he's Good. He's an a**hole, but he's Good.

Good is not nice.

That said, if he shows a complete disregard for the suffering of humans and other non-elves, then that's Evil. Neutrals "have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." So if he doesn't lift a finger in no-cost situations to help others, then he'd at least be lightly evil (certainly it is an evil act). He'd certainly be evil if he doesn't care how doing what he wants hurts non-elves.

If he's wishy-washy as far as actions are concerned and changes behavior when people point out the horrible consequences (which he hadn't considered), then that's more neutral. Also, potentially neutral would be taking in some orphan out of a whim, training said orphan to follow him and do work, and every night saying "Good night, Human. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning." But never actually killing him.

Scow2
2013-12-02, 09:06 AM
I'm going to have to say it again:
Frankly... Alignment is NOT personality, and the two have about as much in common as a lobster and yodeling.

hamishspence
2013-12-02, 12:02 PM
Some personality traits are, however, somewhat correlated to some alignments, or incompatible with others.

The Big List of Alignment-Related D&D Sourcebook References (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241789)

Tengu_temp
2013-12-02, 07:50 PM
Some personality traits are aligned. For example: honesty is lawful, rebellious tendencies are chaotic, being charitable is good, prejudice is evil.


If that were true, we wouldn't have alignments.:smallsmile:

There's a reason the simplistic view on morality some DND players show is much less common among players of other RPGs that don't use an alignment system.

Nerd-o-rama
2013-12-02, 10:15 PM
And people wonder why in the eternal elf vs dwarf debate I always side with the bearded alcoholics.

Because you're Eastern European?

I'll leave now.

Graustein
2013-12-03, 06:13 AM
I don't think there's enough information given about this elf to really decide. Just how racist is he, anyway? That question's been asked, like, eight times in this thread but that's because it's really pertinent. And as has been pointed out, racism may be an evil trait, sure, but one evil trait doesn't make you Evil. If that were the case, most of us would probably be Evil.

I mean, if you wanted this elf's racism to be their defining characteristic, I'd probably read that as Evil (the Lawful/Chaotic axis could swing either way), but that's an awfully shallow read. A Good-aligned elf who is also very racist, perhaps in a callous, arrogant, unthinking way is a much more interesting character.

And, sidenote, alignment change is implied to be a thing that doesn't happen every day but, in my experience at least, we are constantly learning and changing and growing as our perceptions and perspectives are challenged. So that kinda makes me want to challenge the underlying premise here, that an evil trait is, on its own and devoid of context, enough to completely define you into one of the Nine Cosmic Categories.

Grytorm
2013-12-04, 11:26 AM
I had a point that was based on something that I thought was said somewhere but I don't remember where. Something about evil being about disregarding the value of life.

The idea I had for evil inaction was someone who every day passes a man trapped under a fallen log slowly letting that man starve to death. He does nothing about this. After that man expires and the corpse starts to smell the previously inactive man moves the log and carries the man away from the road so he won't have to smell the decay. I would consider that set of actions to be evil.