Effect of a Lack of Courage on "Alignment"?

[ChaoticDitz]

This question is most applicable to games with a strict alignment system, such as Dungeons and Dragons, but is also a game morality question in general. What kind of alignment is reflected by your reactions when afraid?

I mean, a character with a phobia who makes a wrong choice and feels bad about it later because of said phobia obviously shouldn't change alignments, but I mean for characters who are consistently... Gee, I guess the best word would be cowardly, but that feels wrong. Constantly incapable of overcoming their fears? The argument could be made that a character like that should be hardcore neutral at best, but I dunno.

I mean, a character who is an embodiment of Good in every other way still seems Good to me even with this applied. They heal people, they make personal sacrifices in significant ways and amounts for people they have no connection to or 'reason' to help (like is the forte of Good characters), they would forgive and spend years of their lives trying to help an Evil person find the light of good...

But when the orcs invade the town, they run away or even pass out from terror; when the evil god tells him to step into his altar to be sacrificed or the whole town would be slaughtered, he tries to get his body to move forward but ends up falling to the ground crying as everyone is then killed; he would gladly die for anyone and he doesn't value his life any more than other people's, but at the end of the day he still reacts as a child would, trying to force his body to move but being unable to because, no specific phobic excuses, he's just too scared to retain the physical ability to act.

Does this have an effect on the character's alignment, and if so what kind of moral effect does this debilitating fear, this childish cowardice, have on their cosmic standing?

[TheCountAlucard]

Line.

Breaks.

Seriously.

[ChaoticDitz]

Line.

Breaks.

Seriously.

Is that better? Thanks for staying on topic, by the way.

[theNater]

Different alignment systems may have different requirements, but 3e D&D does not require courage for any alignment.

Now, if this character's village is attacked by orcs every other week, and this character never makes any effort to find some way to help people in the face of such attacks, that reveals a lower level of interest in the well-being of others than would be expected in a Good character. But missing the events of a single attack due to fainting in terror isn't going to even make the alignmentometer twitch.

[TheOOB]

First thing to note is that there is no requirements for an alignment. Alignment is a measure of a characters typical actions, nothing more, nothing less. If a character if willing to take significant risks and make significant sacrifices to help an innocent, they are good aligned.

Part of being good aligned is taking risks. Helping people with no notable cost or risk to you is neutral. Neutral people would rather help people than hurt them, they just are not willing to put others over themselves.

A lack of courage isn't a trait of any alignment. An evil person can be brave, and a good person can be a coward, but if it gets to the point where they are no longer willing to put the needs of others over their own, they are likely neutral. Alignment is objective after all, so intent matters little, action does.

[theNater]

First thing to note is that there is no requirements for an alignment. Alignment is a measure of a characters typical actions, nothing more, nothing less. If a character if willing to take significant risks and make significant sacrifices to help an innocent, they are good aligned.

Part of being good aligned is taking risks. Helping people with no notable cost or risk to you is neutral. Neutral people would rather help people than hurt them, they just are not willing to put others over themselves.
It is not necessary to take risks, it is necessary to make sacrifices. Risks are merely one form of sacrifice; the sacrifice of one's own safety. A character who sacrifices their own comfort, wealth, and/or time does not have to also take risks in order to be Good.

[Jay R]

In every moral system I know of, courage is a virtue. It is therefore necessary to be Good.

Neutral or Evil people are quite capable of having one virtue and not having others, but a Good person cannot simply opt out of one of the virtues.

Totally apart from the Alignment system, 16th century Italian authors identified honor as arising from valor and justice. Without valor (courage in this context), one cannot be honorable.

[Joe the Rat]

It doesn't have to affect alignment. The earnest farmer working to provide food enough for his family, and to help feed the community, and willing to lend a hand to a neighbor or mysterious bunch of heavily armed wanderers that seem like they mean well, and generally lives an honest life is probably Good. Running away from the Orc Horde does not make him less Good, just less bold.

Now if you want it to influence alignment, a lack of Courage, or boldness, or a willingness to risk could be seen as a slide towards Neutral - from every direction. One flavor of Neutrality is about inaction with regard to advancing Good/Evil/Order/Chaos. If you think yourself a Good person, but fail to do the Good things, you may not be as Good. If you are all about Law and Order and how it benefits society, but tend to backslide on the whole keeping your word thing when it's inconvenient, you may be less Lawful. That sort of thing.

[Slipperychicken]

None. A person's morality is not determined by his performance under pressure.

[Rhynn]

NB: Talking about game mechanics and fictional universes that function based on those, no relation to real-world values intended except where explicitly expressed.


Moral cowardice could lead to neutrality.

Neutral characters may have good intentions and wishes - and usually do, finding Good rulers, neighbors, etc. preferrable, indeed beneficial and admirable, and probably wanting little to do with Evil people (if only because of the risk to themselves). But if they are incapable of ever standing up for their beliefs, they're going to be Neutral-aligned, if only because they probably won't perform any notable number of particularly Good acts.

A Good act with no real risk or cost attached is very mildly Good, at best. IMO, the Good alignment is defined by being willing to pay the price. Neutral characters are "Good" in small ways, and not necessarily excessively selfish or self-interested. But Good characters will perform Good actions even at a cost to themselves. If cowardice precludes that, then it leads to Neutrality.

Note that just "being a coward" doesn't lead to Neutrality; if, when push comes to shove, you still do the right thing and damn the cost, you're Good.

Also, single instances very rarely indicate alignment. Alignment is a process, sort of; it's a description of trends. Most people will perform Good and Evil acts, and may still be Good, Neutral, or Evil. But a trend of moral cowardice is Neutral.

Running away from some orcs is one thing; running away from some orcs and leaving someone weaker than you at their mercy is another. Taking insane risks and facing certain death is not necessary (unless you're a paladin), but the consequences of the cowardice do matter.

In fact, abject moral cowardice may even lead to Evil: taking the easy route because you're a coward, letting others be hurt in your stead when you could do something about it, putting your own safety and comfort ahead of those of others, at cost to them, is getting to be mild, everyday Evil.

Classically, in stories, such everyday moral cowardice frequently leads up to a greater betrayal or act of Evil, which can definitely qualify the character as Evil... but that's not automatic, by any means. It's just that moral cowardice can be a lead-up to Evil.

Also, fear effects that take away choice are pretty much a different thing: that's fear that literally takes control away from you and negates your moral choices.


But when the orcs invade the town, they run away or even pass out from terror; when the evil god tells him to step into his altar to be sacrificed or the whole town would be slaughtered, he tries to get his body to move forward but ends up falling to the ground crying as everyone is then killed; he would gladly die for anyone and he doesn't value his life any more than other people's, but at the end of the day he still reacts as a child would, trying to force his body to move but being unable to because, no specific phobic excuses, he's just too scared to retain the physical ability to act.

That all sounds like a Neutral character. The underlined portion is in total conflict with itself. Obviously he does value his life and wouldn't gladly die for others, when push comes to shove. He might think he does, when it's all theoretical, but he's not able to actualize those admirable desires to be Good and self-sacrificing and all that.

Plenty of real people are like this. Most, maybe. It's human nature: self-preservation is a strong instinct and hard to overcome absent strong motivation, strength of character, or conditioning.


Is that better? Thanks for staying on topic, by the way.

Being able to read the original post is always germane to the topic. Don't get whiny, now, just because you wrote badly.



In every moral system I know of, courage is a virtue. It is therefore necessary to be Good.

This is an interesting point, and I sort of agree, although I'd change that up a bit: "it is therefore part of being Good." Lacking any one virtue, including courage, does not make you not-Good (although it could make you not a paladin, for instance), it just makes you human. Virtues and ideals of good tend to be hard to live up to, partly by nature: if it was easy, it wouldn't be admirable.


Totally apart from the Alignment system, 16th century Italian authors identified honor as arising from valor and justice.

Real-world medieval and ancient concepts of honor are very interesting and almost entirely martial: honor was possessed by free men, and free men bore arms and fought. This is even noticeable today, as people in the military (especially career military) tend to have a very strong concern with "honor."

[Red Fel]

I agree with the "slide towards Neutral" theory, within limits. Here's why.

First, I believe that alignment measures how you're likely to act under pressure. Will you make sacrifices? Will you put yourself first? Will you put tradition first? Will you put freedom first? And so forth. In a crunch, how will you act?

A Good character is defined, in part, by selflessness. Acts of heroism, of virtue, and of nobility are often seen as acts taken on behalf of those who cannot. A character embracing cowardice is putting himself before others; he is not selfless enough to be truly Good. (Note that a character may become Good by trying to overcome his cowardice.)

An Evil character is defined by his antipathy. Not just a failure to care for others, but an active sense of superiority, which manifests at best as condescension and arrogance, and at worst as sadism. Evil characters don't just put themselves first; they actively and willingly subjugate, dehumanize or abuse others. Cowardice doesn't particularly come into play here; I suppose an Evil character could still remain Evil, even if he is a coward.

A Lawful character is defined by his limits. Personal code, religious philosophy, honor, respect, whatever you call it. He puts his principles before himself in all things. A coward, again, puts himself first; he abandons principle to save his hide. Cowardice is not a Lawful trait. (Note that "Me first" isn't enough of a principle to make one Lawful.)

A Chaotic character is defined by his freedom. Chaotics are expressive, and revel in their self-governance and autonomy. Technically, there's nothing un-Chaotic about running away. I could see a Chaotic character remaining a coward.

A Neutral character, on either spectrum, is known for being undistinctive. A Neutral on the G-E spectrum doesn't give much regard to morality, or balances Good and Evil consciously; as such, cowardice may or may not be a consideration for him, but won't influence his morality. A Neutral on the L-C spectrum understands the need for order, and appreciates self-expression, but doesn't have any profound feelings about one or the other. Again, cowardice doesn't really play into things. Neutrals are, in essence, mundane human beings - the average person you meet in real life is likely to be TN; not particularly Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. Just normal.

Normal people have a cowardly streak. That's fairly common. Extraordinary people - epic heroes and villains, pillars of order or freedom - overcome their fears. They stand for something and are willing to set aside fear to achieve it.

I would rule that a coward, therefore, is likely to slide towards Neutrality, and towards mundanity. (Yes, even a Chaotic or Evil coward, since they're unlikely to do anything truly Chaotic or Evil if they keep chickening out.)

Mind you, there's a difference between a coward, whose timidity regularly keeps him from acting, and a person with a specific and genuine fear. A person with a specific fear can fight against and struggle to overcome it, and in the absence of that fear may nonetheless achieve great things; a true coward will never achieve greatness until he ceases to be a coward, or at least subverts that part of his personality for a moment.

[Rift_Wolf]

The example about 'sacrifice yourself or the town dies' reminded me of Reaver from Fable 2.
He wasn't evil because he wiped out his hometown; he was an idiot who was afraid of growing old and didn't understand the costs. He was evil because after that, he gladly sacrificed others and dismissed any regrets or guilt as childish weaknesses.
Marked as spoiler because somewhere, maybe, there's still someone who gives a damn about the Fable storylines.

Simple version: Fear has nothing to do with alignment. Valor and boldness are for paladins and solars; the average villager may be counted as good even without any individual acts of bravery. It's their reaction to fear, and how guilty/non-guilty they feel about what they do when afraid, that changes alignment (and even then it'd have to be pretty major).

In game terms, however, if you tried to tell off a 1st level paladin because he succumbed to frightful presence, he would not be best pleased.

[Scow2]

In every moral system I know of, courage is a virtue. It is therefore necessary to be Good.

Neutral or Evil people are quite capable of having one virtue and not having others, but a Good person cannot simply opt out of one of the virtues.So, if a Good person requires all Virtues, than an Evil person likewise requires all Sins?

[Berenger]

I'd break "courage" into different categories.

Giving a speech in public requires a form of courage. Standing your ground in a shield wall during battle requires a form of courage. Helping a woman to deliver a baby requires a form of courage. Resisting peer pressure and acting on your own judgement requires a form of courage.

Obviously, very few people act courageously in every aspect.

Likewise, very few people act cowardly in every aspect. These are the ones that would slip to neutral because their insanity-like fear to face any aspect of life prevent them from committing any significant deeds.

[The_Werebear]

I would think you could be a good person, and also cowardly. No one is perfect in all respects. If a person is willing to risk their health healing the sick, spend their time and money on charitable causes, and perform humanitarian actions that are a detriment to themselves to benefit others, they are Good. I'm not going to hold it against them that they are not Action Heroes. So long as they're encouraging everyone to run away (and not trampling them in their haste to flee), they're still doing their best to help others.

Lack of "fighting spirit" isn't an automatic condemnation from being a good person, any more than some negative personality traits being grounds for neutrality on a Good Aligned hero. Not everyone is cut out to go slay dragons and defeat evil cults. Some people are only able to offer up things other than their very life. They may be willing, but simply not able to offer the same sort of service as the typical adventurer.


when the evil god tells him to step into his altar to be sacrificed or the whole town would be slaughtered, he tries to get his body to move forward but ends up falling to the ground crying as everyone is then killed; he would gladly die for anyone and he doesn't value his life any more than other people's, but at the end of the day he still reacts as a child would, trying to force his body to move but being unable to because, no specific phobic excuses, he's just too scared to retain the physical ability to act.

That sounds like more a failed will save than lack of heroic action. If that was a cause for going down in Alignment, a LG cleric would fall the first time they bomb a will save against fear and a party member dies because they weren't there to heal them.

[BrokenChord]

So, if a Good person requires all Virtues, than an Evil person likewise requires all Sins?

I wouldn't think so. Isn't one of the defining traits of evil the fact that it tends to be the "easy way"? Such harsh falling standards don't really coincide with the logic of alignment statistics (where for every ten common people you'd probably get three or four each of the Good-Evil spectrum). Remember, it might not make sense when you dig deeper, but the books tend to support the idea that humans especially but player races in general don't tend to slide one way or another on the spectrum most commonly; not even towards Neutrality. Just something to think about.

That said... The OP did explicitly mention that the character made those personal sacrifices in many ways, just not when it involved scary creatures like orcs, giant spiders, and freaking dark gods. I mean, outside those situations, the OP describes a character who would starve to death so a stranger's family could eat another day; one who, if already having received an injury (and therefore no longer had the pants scared off him by monsters, saw another person equally grievously wounded, he would give them the potion so they could live on. And even in the described situations, he was never really being selfish. It's not like he ran from the altar with the dark god; in fact, that sort of looked like a Frightful Presence with no mechanical basis, but maybe that's just me. Nonetheless though, whether his willpower was strong or not, he appears to have made every effort to power through and he quite simply failed. It really seems no more evil than failing a Will save.

But hey, my opinion is weird, take it with a grain of applied common sense.

Edit: swordsage'd, twice, and both posts were much better-worded than mine.

[Rhynn]

First, I believe that alignment measures how you're likely to act under pressure. Will you make sacrifices? Will you put yourself first? Will you put tradition first? Will you put freedom first? And so forth. In a crunch, how will you act?

This is pretty much what I think, too. The best iteration of the three-by-three D&D alignment, to me, was in Dark Sun, where the book explained how each alignment is likely to react when the party runs out of water in the wastelands. It's the ultimate crunch: slow, torturous death at the mercy of nature is at stake.


Normal people have a cowardly streak. That's fairly common. Extraordinary people - epic heroes and villains, pillars of order or freedom - overcome their fears. They stand for something and are willing to set aside fear to achieve it.

I would rule that a coward, therefore, is likely to slide towards Neutrality, and towards mundanity. (Yes, even a Chaotic or Evil coward, since they're unlikely to do anything truly Chaotic or Evil if they keep chickening out.)

Mind you, there's a difference between a coward, whose timidity regularly keeps him from acting, and a person with a specific and genuine fear. A person with a specific fear can fight against and struggle to overcome it, and in the absence of that fear may nonetheless achieve great things; a true coward will never achieve greatness until he ceases to be a coward, or at least subverts that part of his personality for a moment.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

[LibraryOgre]

None. A person's morality is not determined by his performance under pressure.

I'd partially argue with this. While I agree with the basic sentiment, I think your choices under pressure are a big part of defining your alignment, and part of why most humans trend neutral.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd partially argue with this. While I agree with the basic sentiment, I think your choices under pressure are a big part of defining your alignment, and part of why most humans trend neutral.

Agreed. It would be a different story if the kid made a choice to place his own life above the village.

Our example's kid fully intended to make the sacrifice, but stress overwhelmed him and he was (according to the OP) physically unable to do it. I find the situation analogous to a character failing a Will save against fear: The character usually has no control over whether the save succeeds or not, the save's result has nothing to do with alignment*.


*Actions which are not willingly taken (such as fleeing while under a fear effect, or committing evil while mentally dominated) do not impact one's alignment because they do not represent moral choice.

[FabulousFizban]

but I mean for characters who are consistently... Gee, I guess the best word would be cowardly, but that feels wrong. Constantly incapable of overcoming their fears? The argument could be made that a character like that should be hardcore neutral at best, but I dunno.

On a related note, what would the alignment of someone who IS a coward be? I mean hardcore yellow: danger appears, they run... or cower. Someone who will only fight if trapped, but is more likely to grovel and beg for their life first.

[Slipperychicken]

On a related note, what would the alignment of someone who IS a coward be? I mean hardcore yellow: danger appears, they run... or cower. Someone who will only fight if trapped, but is more likely to grovel and beg for their life first.

That's not enough to determine alignment. Even the most generous wonderful people around can be totally unaccustomed to combat situation.

[Rhynn]

Our example's kid fully intended to make the sacrifice, but stress overwhelmed him and he was (according to the OP) physically unable to do it. I find the situation analogous to a character failing a Will save against fear: The character usually has no control over whether the save succeeds or not, the save's result has nothing to do with alignment*.

Agreed. Passing out from sheer terror precludes moral agency and shouldn't really affect your alignment.

Of course, in some cases, it might violate stricter norms: for instance, a paladin-type with a strict code might be affected by consequences, and failure due to terror or magical compulsion might still be failure (although one you could redeem yourself from). There's a lot of room for variety there.


On a related note, what would the alignment of someone who IS a coward be? I mean hardcore yellow: danger appears, they run... or cower. Someone who will only fight if trapped, but is more likely to grovel and beg for their life first.

Probably Neutral, unless they're regularly cowed into doing or allowing Evil, in which case they'd be Evil (in a very pathetic way). The other axis is indeterminate from this.

Cowardice alone doesn't determine alignment, but we can extrapolate, and cowardice is IMO most likely to lead to being Neutral, maybe Evil.

[Jay R]

So, if a Good person requires all Virtues, than an Evil person likewise requires all Sins?

Of course not.

What's the point of pretending I said that immediately after quoting me saying the opposite: "Neutral or Evil people are quite capable of having one virtue and not having others"?


None. A person's morality is not determined by his performance under pressure.

It's easy to tell the truth when there is no pressure to lie.
It's easy to not steal when there is no financial pressure to do so.
It's easy to defend somebody when there is no social pressure to look down on them.

I'd be much closer to believing that a person's morality is not determined by his performance except under pressure.

I think either statement is incomplete and inaccurate, but actions under pressure are the ones that are most likely to put somebody to the test.

[Rhynn]

I'd be much closer to believing that a person's morality is not determined by his performance except under pressure.

I think either statement is incomplete and inaccurate, but actions under pressure are the ones that are most likely to put somebody to the test.

Same here. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but I think performance under pressure is critical. You can't say "I'd never steal" if you've never been under terrible pressure to do it. You can't say "I'd never take a life" if you've never been in a kill-or-be-killed situation. And so on.

I think pressure may be more relevant to Good alignment than to Evil, though, and Neutral is frequently (but not always or exclusively) "sort of Good but will back down from it."

But that's sort... reactive? There's also active or proactive alignment, if you will: leaving a comfortable life to live in awful places and help less fortunate people, for instance, isn't immediate pressure, and may not involve pressure, but it's a Good decision and way of life, and involves sacrifice. It's just not as... in extremis a display of alignment.

[Slipperychicken]

It's easy to tell the truth when there is no pressure to lie.
It's easy to not steal when there is no financial pressure to do so.
It's easy to defend somebody when there is no social pressure to look down on them.


Those are choices, not performance.

[hamishspence]

I'd partially argue with this. While I agree with the basic sentiment, I think your choices under pressure are a big part of defining your alignment, and part of why most humans trend neutral.

I don't know -

a case could be made that since according to PHB "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" and, since it's beings that are "usually Neutral" that have more than 50% of their population be Neutral-

then humans might have a somewhat lower proportion be Neutral, in the D&D-verse.

[Rhynn]

Those are choices, not performance.

So you'd agree that your choices under pressure determine alignment?

I think there's two sorts of cowardice being discussed, which is why I talked about moral cowardice.

If you just plain pass out from terror, you're not being a "moral coward," you're just literally overcome by fear.

But if fear of consequences causes you to choose the way that is not Good, you're being a "moral coward" and it definitely is telling of your alignment.

[Slipperychicken]

So you'd agree that your choices under pressure determine alignment?

I think there's two sorts of cowardice being discussed, which is why I talked about moral cowardice.

If you just plain pass out from terror, you're not being a "moral coward," you're just literally overcome by fear.

But if fear of consequences causes you to choose the way that is not Good, you're being a "moral coward" and it definitely is telling of your alignment.

Yes, this is essentially what I meant.

[LibraryOgre]

Agreed. It would be a different story if the kid made a choice to place his own life above the village.

Our example's kid fully intended to make the sacrifice, but stress overwhelmed him and he was (according to the OP) physically unable to do it. I find the situation analogous to a character failing a Will save against fear: The character usually has no control over whether the save succeeds or not, the save's result has nothing to do with alignment*.


Very good way of putting it; Palladium tried assigning Horror Factors for relatively mundane events, and the idea of someone making a Will save v. Fear to do something suicidally stupid is a good one.

[Rhynn]

Now, since the OP did say...


also a game morality question in general

In non-D&D systems of virtue, morals, and ethics, exceptions might not be made for physical fear. If a game is set in a viking-inspired society, or Roman-inspired, or whatever, a coward will be accounted a coward even if - or especially if - it's an overwhelmingly physical reaction. In such societies, actually passing out from fear would probably the worst kind of cowardice and lack of virtue and honor, because you can't very well hide it.

Those are specific value systems, though, which vary between and within games and settings. D&D is really rather rare in this way, since it judges alignment on a sort of cosmic scale independent of society.

Edit: Pendragon springs to mind: Valor is a Chivalric Virtue, and being a "good knight" does require Valor. Now, technically, you could qualify for the ("cosmically" bestowed) Chivalry bonus if you had the other four Chivalric virtues at 20 (on a scale of 0-20) and Valor at 0, but you'd probably be considered a pretty terrible knight, constantly running from battle and avoiding danger...

[Knaight]

Part of being good aligned is taking risks. Helping people with no notable cost or risk to you is neutral. Neutral people would rather help people than hurt them, they just are not willing to put others over themselves.

Time is a cost. Work is a cost. Money is a cost. Someone who spends as much time as they can working to help others and who puts as much money as they can into helping others is doing something with a notable cost. I'd call them a good person, even if they aren't brave - provided that they aren't also doing something bad enough to undermine this.

[veti]

That's not enough to determine alignment. Even the most generous wonderful people around can be totally unaccustomed to combat situation.

Yes, this. But... there is still an influence. I think "cowardice" can reasonably be described as a character flaw, like "greed" or "arrogance", which unless checked will tend to make a character less-good than they would otherwise be.

In our world, it's - unusual, to say the least, to find yourself in a situation where you need to risk life and limb to help others. (Unless you consciously take a job, like soldier or firefighter, where that's not true.) So in our world, the relation between physical courage and virtue is tenuous.

But a D&D world is a far more dangerous place, and physical danger is much more likely to come up. So the cowardly character there needs to have a strategy for dealing with such situations.

I'd handle it by making the character alert to the point of jumpy, maxing out perception and stealth skills, and generally maximising his chances of being the first to know when the village was about to be attacked. Then he can raise the alarm and escort non-combatants to safety, thus incidentally keeping himself as far as possible from the danger.

One of my favourite fictional characters, Harry Flashman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Flashman), is a very nasty character - definitely chaotic evil - and inspired to this alignment mostly by cowardice. (He has plenty of other vices, but cowardice is always the main driving force behind his character.) In his case this is important because he's a soldier, and always getting dragged into adventures that are more suited to rugged heroic types (which everyone thinks he is), thus giving him lots of opportunities to throw compatriots and innocents to the wolves (at least once, literally) to save his own skin.

[Knaight]

Yes, this. But... there is still an influence. I think "cowardice" can reasonably be described as a character flaw, like "greed" or "arrogance", which unless checked will tend to make a character less-good than they would otherwise be.

I'd agree with this, though greed is the sort of thing that is much more likely to cause an issue and be dangerous. That said, I'd very much say that a good person could be arrogant. They'd be a better person if they weren't, all else equal, but provided they do enough good they are still a good person despite the arrogance. Cowardice is the same way, and while the catastrophic failure* rate is probably higher the routine failure* rate is lower.

*To be good.

[hamishspence]

Champions of Valor had a big list of flaws that a Valorous Hero might have.

Don't think "fearful" was on that list - but then, it's more appropriate for non-heroic Good characters.

I'd agree with this, though greed is the sort of thing that is much more likely to cause an issue and be dangerous.
The PHB actually does use "Greedy" as an example of how characters aren't always perfect- because alignment isn't a straitjacket:

"Tordek is good, but also greedy - he may be tempted to steal if he can justify it to himself."

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, this. But... there is still an influence. I think "cowardice" can reasonably be described as a character flaw, like "greed" or "arrogance", which unless checked will tend to make a character less-good than they would otherwise be.


Cowardice might be a character flaw (much like gluttony or addiction), and it may tempt a character in one direction or the other, but it should not impact alignment on its own. An obnoxious slob might be unpleasant company, but is not a worse person for it unless he/she uses those flaws as a basis for immoral choices.

[Knaight]

Champions of Valor had a big list of flaws that a Valorous Hero might have.

Don't think "fearful" was on that list - but then, it's more appropriate for non-heroic Good characters.

The PHB actually does use "Greedy" as an example of how characters aren't always perfect- because alignment isn't a straitjacket:

"Tordek is good, but also greedy - he may be tempted to steal if he can justify it to himself."

Hence the more likely. It's far from guaranteed to make an otherwise good person stop being good, but it has a better shot than cowardice does.

[hamishspence]

Makes sense.

"Bigoted" according to Eberron: The Forge of War - was specified as something that "it cannot be stressed enough is not an appropriate attitude for a Good character"

What other Flaws would you say are severe enough to almost guarantee a Neutral alignment at best?

[Slipperychicken]

Makes sense.

"Bigoted" according to Eberron: The Forge of War - was specified as something that "it cannot be stressed enough is not an appropriate attitude for a Good character"

What other Flaws would you say are severe enough to almost guarantee a Neutral alignment at best?

Let's look at the first definition of "Bigot" I can find.


having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

I wouldn't say that precludes a Good alignment. Indeed, Paladins tend to be the spitting image of bigotry, and this has even created the ubiquitous "lawful jerk" stereotype.

[hamishspence]

The full description from The Forge of War:


Eberron: The Forge of War p 108:

Bigotry/Prejudice

"You don't like, and don't trust, members of your hated group. At best, you ignore them when possible. More likely, you are actively rude and off-putting, perhaps even prone to violent outbursts. You have no interest in dealing with these people, negotiating with them, or cooperating with them; you'd rather see them all go away, or even all dead.

It cannot be stressed enough that in a game of heroism, as Dungeons and Dragons is normally played, this is not an appropriate attitude for a good-aligned character."

[Knaight]

What other Flaws would you say are severe enough to almost guarantee a Neutral alignment at best?

Casually violent comes to mind. Selfishness does as well, provided it's more than a minor selfish streak. Enjoying hurting others (including non-physical harm) would do the job as well. Granted, the first and third of these are likely to drop a character well below neutral, but they fit the job.

[hamishspence]

Being overtly sadistic (to the point of taking a PRC built around it) is compatible with a LN alignment going by Shining South.

However - I could see such a character being restricted to only harming the "non-innocent" if they wish to keep their LN alignment.

And even then, it might be more "enjoying the pain they inflict on their enemies in battle".

[Rhynn]

Being overtly sadistic (to the point of taking a PRC built around it) is compatible with a LN alignment going by Shining South.

Sadism/sadomasochism as a fetish is compatible with any alignment, IMO; it's a matter of whether consent is involved. Sadistic personality disorder, though, is getting pretty Evil: aggression, cruelty, violence, manipulation, inflicting pain and fear, humiliating others, etc. I guess, even then, it could go with Neutrality, if you're able to keep a handle on it and, for instance, stick to humiliating and intimidating people. You may be a nasty piece of work, but petty evil without real malice - beyond getting a kick out of bullying others - may or may not qualify people for any particular alignment.

If you hold to 33% of humans being Evil-aligned, though, then all of that should definitely make you Evil, just to pad out the numbers. Personally, I think that's a silly ratio to go for, though.

[hamishspence]

Sadistic personality disorder, though, is getting pretty Evil: aggression, cruelty, violence, manipulation, inflicting pain and fear, humiliating others, etc. I guess, even then, it could go with Neutrality, if you're able to keep a handle on it and, for instance, stick to humiliating and intimidating people. You may be a nasty piece of work, but petty evil without real malice - beyond getting a kick out of bullying others - may or may not qualify people for any particular alignment.

If you hold to 33% of humans being Evil-aligned, though, then all of that should definitely make you Evil, just to pad out the numbers. Personally, I think that's a silly ratio to go for, though.

The question is - if the person is A: only doing horrible things to the "not innocent" and B: behaving in a genuinely altruistic, self-sacrificing way toward ordinary people - at what point do they cross the line from "should be Evil" into "should be Neutral"?

Think of the sort of character who takes up the adventuring career in order to feed their delight in pain and death - but has also, after some time grown a compassionate streak as well- without losing their disturbingly cruel tendencies.

[Rhynn]

The question is - if the person is A: only doing horrible things to the "not innocent" and B: behaving in a genuinely altruistic, self-sacrificing way toward ordinary people - at what point do they cross the line from "should be Evil" into "should be Neutral"?

I generally hold that doing horrible things to people is Evil whether or not they're innocent. (For fantasy worlds, I don't apply my real-world standards, but e.g. torture is still Evil in my book.) But if you do those horrible things, for instance, as a part of legally-mandated punishment, or under cover of authority and on orders, and not that frequently, and balance it out with general Goodness, and aren't supporting an Evil regime by your actions, then you're probably Neutral. Not Good, though.


Think of the sort of character who takes up the adventuring career in order to feed their delight in pain and death - but has also, after some time grown a compassionate streak as well- without losing their disturbingly cruel tendencies.

I'm not convinced that's a realistic character. Cruelty, sadism, but a compassionate streak? People are contradictory, but once you've entered personality disorder territory (sadistic, antisocial, etc.), we're talking about comprehensive patterns of behavior.

Obviously, though, characters may be unrealistic. Consequences and specifics matter a lot; that sort of character could be Neutral, for sure.

[Jay R]

For the purposes of RPGs, I think it's much more crucial to consider the effects of a lack of courage on the ability to be an adventurer at all.

[Rhynn]

For the purposes of RPGs, I think it's much more crucial to consider the effects of a lack of courage on the ability to be an adventurer at all.

It very much depends on the system, setting, and base assumptions. I can definitely see room for cowardly Tricksters (as well as pacifistic Healers) in RuneQuest in Glorantha, for instance. Similarly, in large old-school D&D parties, a cowardly thief can still pull his weight: sure, he's not much use in combat, but he's indispensable dealing with traps and locks. You can be cowardly enough to run from danger, but still go into dangerous places if you're reasonable confident in your ability to stay alive given the circumstances (an experienced party, etc.).

[hamishspence]

I generally hold that doing horrible things to people is Evil whether or not they're innocent. (For fantasy worlds, I don't apply my real-world standards, but e.g. torture is still Evil in my book.)
Seconded.

However- it may qualify as the kind of Evil that is "balance-able" by Good behaviour in other respects.



I'm not convinced that's a realistic character. Cruelty, sadism, but a compassionate streak? People are contradictory, but once you've entered personality disorder territory (sadistic, antisocial, etc.), we're talking about comprehensive patterns of behaviour.

Such a character would certainly be something of an oddball.

Combat might bring out the worst in them - with them being kind to strangers - but in a fight, delighting in the pain they deal their opponent.

[Rhynn]

Combat might bring out the worst in them - with them being kind to strangers - but in a fight, delighting in the pain they deal their opponent.

Yeah, I can actually see this. Not a berserker, necessarily, but... someone who, although not a bully or a troublemaker, is not afraid to get into a fight, and won't back down from them, because he enjoys the actual fighting - either the thrill and rush, or even just the act of hurting someone.

[hamishspence]

he enjoys the actual fighting - either the thrill and rush, or even just the act of hurting someone.

Might be a good reason to get into adventuring in the first place- in order to get what they most enjoy out of life, without alienating their neighbours in the process.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html

Ensures they get, as Belkar puts it, "presents instead of prison time".

[Frozen_Feet]

A person is never going to be virtuous because they're a coward, but they may be virtuous despite it.

A person might be easily cowed to doing bad decision, yet at the same time feel guilty and actively try to mend those decisions every time an opportunity presents itself.

While I do agree with Rhynn and Jay R in that actions under pressure are especially revealing of a person's conduct, it's good to remember many people are not actively benign even in absence of pressure. Being a coward is not always the same as being passive - someone who is afraid might go to lenghts to pre-empt things they are afraid of. Said lenghts can be good just as well as neutral or evil.

[Jay R]

Similarly, in large old-school D&D parties, a cowardly thief can still pull his weight: sure, he's not much use in combat, but he's indispensable dealing with traps and locks.

Not in my experience. In old-school D&D, dealing with traps and locks is at least as dangerous as combat. No, a cowardly thief couldn't work well in the game as I remember it.


You can be cowardly enough to run from danger, but still go into dangerous places if you're reasonable confident in your ability to stay alive given the circumstances (an experienced party, etc.).

An experienced party is good enough for somebody with some courage to go in with shaky knees, but not enough for a coward.

And given that TPKs can happen, no coward would go down in the dungeon with a party, even if he was planning to stay out of the melees.

[Avilan the Grey]

Of course not.

What's the point of pretending I said that immediately after quoting me saying the opposite: "Neutral or Evil people are quite capable of having one virtue and not having others"?.

yes, but your argument that a Good person must have all virtues is a faulty one. If a Good person must have all virtues then an Evil person MUST have all sins. By your own logic. Or your argument is just irrational and hypocritical.

No, courage is a virtue, but it's not the only virtue. A person can be a shining beacon of Good and still be a coward. If he takes care of stray pets, give money or food to the poor and the elderly, teaches reading to the uneducated for free etc he is still a VERY Good person.

It's simple, really:

(Sum of Virtues) > (Sum of Sins) = Good Alignment
...and the opposite is true too, of course.

[TuggyNE]

yes, but your argument that a Good person must have all virtues is a faulty one. If a Good person must have all virtues then an Evil person MUST have all sins. By your own logic. Or your argument is just irrational and hypocritical.

It's inconsistent, yes, but a mere asymmetry like that is not inherently illogical, irrational, or hypocritical. A good person is one that has all virtues; a neutral person is one that would be good except that they lack a virtue; an evil person is one that has more sins than virtues. Or whatever.

I disagree with the breakdown, but it is not itself inherently unworkable.

[Avilan the Grey]

It's inconsistent, yes, but a mere asymmetry like that is not inherently illogical, irrational, or hypocritical. A good person is one that has all virtues; a neutral person is one that would be good except that they lack a virtue; an evil person is one that has more sins than virtues. Or whatever.

I disagree with the breakdown, but it is not itself inherently unworkable.

But that is faulty as well. A Neutral person would be a person who's Good and Evil sum is Null. A person very close to it would be a Jerk With A Heart Of Gold, for example.

[TuggyNE]

But that is faulty as well. A Neutral person would be a person who's Good and Evil sum is Null. A person very close to it would be a Jerk With A Heart Of Gold, for example.

Faulty as in you disagree with it? I do too.

Faulty as in it is self-evidently wrong by virtue of its own logic? No; so far that just hasn't been shown. You're welcome to expand your argument to indicate why that would be, though.

[Avilan the Grey]

Faulty as in you disagree with it? I do too.

Faulty as in it is self-evidently wrong by virtue of its own logic? No; so far that just hasn't been shown. You're welcome to expand your argument to indicate why that would be, though.

A character who's actions and intents are more towards Good than Evil becomes Good. Do I really need to expand my argument further?

[Rhynn]

But that is faulty as well. A Neutral person would be a person who's Good and Evil sum is Null. A person very close to it would be a Jerk With A Heart Of Gold, for example.

I generally disagree with that definition of Neutral. It seems to make Neutral this bizarre see-saw or a weird "middle-roader" who lives a very strange life full of nonsensical decisions. ("I'll help you, then I'll help your enemy...")

As I've said, I think Neutrals are half-heartedly Good, because Good is better for them - it's in their self-interest. They're all for nobody being tortured, killed, robbed, etc. - in general, anyway. They'll probably condone (and possibly perform) torture if they think it's necessary, they'll steal and rob if they are desperate (whereas Evil characters will probably steal and rob if they can get away with it, or even just if they feel like it), and most of all, they won't go to great lengths or pay great costs to be Good. They'll be most likely to stand up for people they know or care for, and much less likely to stand up for or take risks to help people they don't know.

Under non-exceptional circumstances, a Neutral person leads a relatively "Good" life, but not one of any distinguishing self-sacrifice or nobility of spirit.

Further, I think Evil deeds can easily outweigh Goods ones, generally speaking: saving someone's life doesn't make up for murdering someone for selfish or vile reasons (although a life of explicit penitence and Good deeds would at least knock your alignment back up), and so on. Saving one life for everyone you murder is pretty much going to leave you Evil, especially if your motives are evil (e.g. Dexter Morgan is Evil - at least early series, before they wrote out his sadism and sexual gratification from the act of killing).

Edit: At the very least, Neutrality would have to be a wider range; say, between 25 (Good) and -15 (Evil), where 26+ is Good and -16 or lower is Evil...

[Red Fel]

I generally disagree with that definition of Neutral. It seems to make Neutral this bizarre see-saw or a weird "middle-roader" who lives a very strange life full of nonsensical decisions. ("I'll help you, then I'll help your enemy...")

As I've said, I think Neutrals are half-heartedly Good, because Good is better for them - it's in their self-interest. They're all for nobody being tortured, killed, robbed, etc. - in general, anyway. They'll probably condone (and possibly perform) torture if they think it's necessary, they'll steal and rob if they are desperate (whereas Evil characters will probably steal and rob if they can get away with it, or even just if they feel like it), and most of all, they won't go to great lengths or pay great costs to be Good. They'll be most likely to stand up for people they know or care for, and much less likely to stand up for or take risks to help people they don't know.

Under non-exceptional circumstances, a Neutral person leads a relatively "Good" life, but not one of any distinguishing self-sacrifice or nobility of spirit.

Further, I think Evil deeds can easily outweigh Goods ones, generally speaking: saving someone's life doesn't make up for murdering someone for selfish or vile reasons (although a life of explicit penitence and Good deeds would at least knock your alignment back up), and so on. Saving one life for everyone you murder is pretty much going to leave you Evil, especially if your motives are evil (e.g. Dexter Morgan is Evil - at least early series, before they wrote out his sadism and sexual gratification from the act of killing).

While I think that Neutral on the G-E spectrum has many interpretations, I find for me that the easiest explanation of this particular interpretation (a little bit Good, a little bit Evil) is as follows:

Good is defined by actions - what you will and will not do. There are some acts that are explicitly Evil, such as slavery, human sacrifice, and similar atrocities, and doing them is the shortcut to an alignment penalty.

Evil is defined by intents - what you do is less important than why. An Evil character can do Good things - such as opening a school, providing healthcare to the populace, or feeding the hungry - if it's in pursuit of an Evil goal - such as indoctrinating children in the ways of Vecna, ensuring that or your Armies of Terror are healthy and fit. As long as you have an Evil goal in mind, the actions are less important than the outcomes.

So where do they meet? Suppose you have a character who does Evil acts for Good reasons. For example, someone who, against his better judgment and despite his deepest regrets, sacrifices a child every year on an altar in order to prevent an Elder Evil from entering the world. Human sacrifice, of a child no less, is capital-E Evil, but if he knows for a fact that his actions are preventing an Elder Evil - a truly destructive and malevolent being - from wreaking havoc across the world, his motives are nothing but Good. So he's not Good, because of the act, but he's not Evil, because of the motivation. He's Neutral.

This doesn't work like a balancing act - okay, I did Good today, I'll do Evil tomorrow, la-dee-da. It works by embracing both metrics. A character is willing to do Evil acts, but only for the noblest of reasons - he cannot be Good, but he is clearly not Evil as long as he holds on to his moral compass in terms of his goals.

To bring this back on point, however, a character who is a "coward" - that is, one whose sense of self-preservation would override all other concerns - would find this path untenable. Inevitably, the pressure would break him; most likely, he would flee from his duties, ironically avoiding the human sacrifice and becoming Good (although the Elder Evil would then destroy the world, so nice job breaking it, hero). As mentioned, one of the defining traits of cowardice is the fact that it takes precedence even over one's moral compass; given that a character like this must walk a very precarious moral path, cowardice would easily tip it in one direction or the other.

[Avilan the Grey]

But this is why Neutral is the hardest alignment.
Or rather depending on how you choose to play it, Neutral is either the most common alignment (basically everyone but certain priests and Paladins are Neutral), or almost nobody is, because as you say most people lean towards Good.

[Jay R]

yes, but your argument that a Good person must have all virtues is a faulty one. If a Good person must have all virtues then an Evil person MUST have all sins. By your own logic. Or your argument is just irrational and hypocritical.

This is simply untrue, and disagrees with most moral codes in the history of the world.

But to avoid talking about moral codes, let's apply the same logic to some things that are less controversial.

A law-abiding citizen is somebody who obeys all the laws. All of them. If I break only one law, then I am a law-breaker. If I steal, but don't murder, extort, break into houses or cheat on your income taxes, I am still not a law-abiding citizen.

A fair gamer is one who follows all the rules. All of them. If you cheat on only one rule, you are a cheater. If you read dice correctly, don't use loaded dice, don't change your stats, track you hit dice correctly but keep using spells even if you've run out, you are a cheater.

He is in the dark only if he turns off every light source. If he puts out the candle, turns off the lamp, extinguishes the lamp, but the fireplace is still lit, then he is not in the dark.

A safe driver is one who follows all the safety rules. If she signals all his turns, stops at every stop sign, obeys the speed limits, but doesn't look behind the car before backing up, then she is not a safe driver.

This is not being hypocritical. It just isn't.



It's simple, really:

(Sum of Virtues) > (Sum of Sins) = Good Alignment
...and the opposite is true too, of course.

It's not that simple, really. If he loves puppies, helps the orphanage, gives money to the church, feeds the hungry, and murders his enemies, then he is not a Good person.

[Scow2]

It's easy to possess both Virtues and Sins. There are evil acts that are much smaller than murder/rape/betrayal. Sloth, Greed, Lust, Wrath, Pride, Envy, and Gluttony are the "Sins" (As opposed to a similar list of virtues), and point someone to Evil. Most people have an assortment of Sins and Virtues, balancing out around Neutral. And the "One in three people are evil" has people possessing a number of Sins, but very few (Or no) virtues.

A person who is courageous, but also resents people who are better than them/have stuff they want can be Neutral instead of Good.

[hamishspence]

There are a lot of virtues that go well with Evil characters, though.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilVirtues

The "Noble Demon" is a villain with a great many virtues - perhaps not enough to lift them out of Evil alignment - but enough that the heroes reluctantly respect them.

[Sebastrd]

In every moral system I know of, courage is a virtue. It is therefore necessary to be Good.

Neutral or Evil people are quite capable of having one virtue and not having others, but a Good person cannot simply opt out of one of the virtues. Are you saying that one must possess all virtues in order to be considered good?


Totally apart from the Alignment system, 16th century Italian authors identified honor as arising from valor and justice. Without valor (courage in this context), one cannot be honorable. Even were we to assume that 16th Century Italian authors were the authority on the subject, "honor" in alignment terms equates to "lawfulness" not "goodness". In fact, based on your comments in this thread you seem to be conflating lawfulness with goodness.

Lawfulness is belief in a code, whether internal or external. It is the belief that adherence to the code is the best way.

Goodness is putting the welfare of others - of the community - above the welfare of the individual.

[Rhynn]

16th century Italian authors identified honor as arising from valor and justice

Also Lord British (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091020200755/u5lazarus/images/7/79/Honor.jpg). :smallbiggrin:

Edit:

Lawfulness is belief in a code, whether internal or external. It is the belief that adherence to the code is the best way.

Goodness is putting the welfare of others - of the community - above the welfare of the individual.

Actually, IMO and based on AD&D 2E and D&D 3E alignments, Lawfulness is placing community above the individual, Chaotic is placing individual freedom above community. Good and Evil describe what you're willing to do for that priority, among other things. A Lawful Evil character may be selfish, or may be completely unselfish and group-oriented but just completely brutal and willing to commit murder, torture, and desecration if it serves their aims (whether selfish or not).

Certainly, Evil characters are more likely to be self-serving, IMO: a Lawful Evil character trying to create a strong, orderly society will probably also want to be on top of that society, with power, authority, wealth, and comfort. A Lawful Good character would be more concerned with the result for others and more likely to be willing to sacrifice themselves for it. (More likely; LE characters could be self-sacrificing, just for Evil causes or reasons...)

[hamishspence]

LE characters could be self-sacrificing, just for Evil causes or reasons...)

The Operative from Firefly seems like such a character.

So do the hobgoblins of Redcloak's army, for that matter:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html

[Rhynn]

The Operative from Firefly seems like such a character.

So do the hobgoblins of Redcloak's army, for that matter:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html

Or, indeed, Imperial Stormtroopers! :smallbiggrin:

[qwertyu63]

Does this have an effect on the character's alignment, and if so what kind of moral effect does this debilitating fear, this childish cowardice, have on their cosmic standing?

As far as I'm concerned, no, it has no effect on alignment.

[Sebastrd]

Also Lord British (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091020200755/u5lazarus/images/7/79/Honor.jpg). :smallbiggrin:

Edit:


Actually, IMO and based on AD&D 2E and D&D 3E alignments, Lawfulness is placing community above the individual, Chaotic is placing individual freedom above community. Good and Evil describe what you're willing to do for that priority, among other things. A Lawful Evil character may be selfish, or may be completely unselfish and group-oriented but just completely brutal and willing to commit murder, torture, and desecration if it serves their aims (whether selfish or not).

Certainly, Evil characters are more likely to be self-serving, IMO: a Lawful Evil character trying to create a strong, orderly society will probably also want to be on top of that society, with power, authority, wealth, and comfort. A Lawful Good character would be more concerned with the result for others and more likely to be willing to sacrifice themselves for it. (More likely; LE characters could be self-sacrificing, just for Evil causes or reasons...)

I was referring mostly to these: alignments (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html) and alignments thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341). On that alignment scale, which I fully agree with, NG is most associated with benevolence and universalism while LN is focused on conformity/tradition and security.

[Knaight]

For the purposes of RPGs, I think it's much more crucial to consider the effects of a lack of courage on the ability to be an adventurer at all.

Serious cowardice would be a major problem for an adventurer in the RPG sense. Fortunately, there are plenty of games that are not about adventurers in the D&D sense, where cowardly characters make a lot more sense. Take an economic strategist for a merchant guild who serves in a role that mostly involves organizing merchants, trying to bring new ones into the guild, managing trade routes, and sniffing out smugglers and brigands so that somebody else can go deal with them. If the game is structured so that the players are all guild operatives (perhaps with troupe play) this is a perfectly valid RPG character. It's also a character that could easily be a coward - they can handle their job well enough, though they need to psyche themselves up for the more dangerous bits. If smugglers send a bunch of hired thugs after them personally though, odds are good their strategy will look more like begging and pleading than fighting - and that's if running away and calling for the guards isn't an option.

They could also easily be a good person, tirelessly trying to use the wealth and influence of the guild to enrich their communities, using their personal stipend and their personal free time to more directly help those around them, etc.

[KoboldMasteRace]

It's not that simple, really. If he loves puppies, helps the orphanage, gives money to the church, feeds the hungry, and murders his enemies, then he is not a Good person.

Depends on your definition of murder, I guess, since there is much killing of sentient Evil creatures in the life of the Good adventurer, even the super-Paladins who spend weeks on each bandit converting them to Good. It's just inevitable, and usually justified.

Granted, "murder" is usually defined as an unlawful killing, but if that's the difference between murder and regular killing then it has no bearing on Good/Evil.

[Scow2]

This is simply untrue, and disagrees with most moral codes in the history of the world.

But to avoid talking about moral codes, let's apply the same logic to some things that are less controversial.

A law-abiding citizen is somebody who obeys all the laws. All of them. If I break only one law, then I am a law-breaker. If I steal, but don't murder, extort, break into houses or cheat on your income taxes, I am still not a law-abiding citizen.

A fair gamer is one who follows all the rules. All of them. If you cheat on only one rule, you are a cheater. If you read dice correctly, don't use loaded dice, don't change your stats, track you hit dice correctly but keep using spells even if you've run out, you are a cheater.

He is in the dark only if he turns off every light source. If he puts out the candle, turns off the lamp, extinguishes the lamp, but the fireplace is still lit, then he is not in the dark.

A safe driver is one who follows all the safety rules. If she signals all his turns, stops at every stop sign, obeys the speed limits, but doesn't look behind the car before backing up, then she is not a safe driver.

This is not being hypocritical. It just isn't.Good and Evil aren't held to absolutist standards like that. They're held to "Do you swing the cosmic balance towards Good or towards Evil?"

And it's possible to be a Safe Driver without stopping at every stop sign ("Rolling" a stop sign after confirming right-of-way has been yielded does not detract from safety), signalling all turns (Not signalling when nobody's around doesn't make one unsafe), or obeying all speed limits (Obeying the speed limit when everyone around you is speeding is unsafe). You singled out the one trait where awareness (The primary factor in determining a Safe Driver) is compromised. But there are ways to be a safe driver even with slightly-compromised awareness.

A law-abiding citizen doesn't even exist in fiction. Everyone breaks laws, many of which they aren't even aware of.


It's not that simple, really. If he loves puppies, helps the orphanage, gives money to the church, feeds the hungry, and murders his enemies, then he is not a Good person.You'd almost have a point IF the alignment system operated on absolutes instead of a continuum.

Also, there are lots of Good people that murder their enemies, which is a matter of Law, not Good, and "He Needed Killing" is a perfect moral justification. Of course, how he defines his enemies is the bigger question that needs to be answered.

[hamishspence]

Good and Evil aren't held to absolutist standards like that. They're held to "Do you swing the cosmic balance towards Good or towards Evil?"

Sometimes, the DM may simply not have enough info about the character's life as a whole (players don't necessarily tell the DM all that much about their characters) - and so, may simply have to judge from pattern of deeds - and moral outlook.

A person who has been Evil nearly all their life, and turned Good toward the end, may not have "swung the cosmic balance toward good" when taken as a whole - yet their change of outlook, makes them good aligned.

Going by DMG, at least.

[Avilan the Grey]

It's not that simple, really. If he loves puppies, helps the orphanage, gives money to the church, feeds the hungry, and murders his enemies, then he is not a Good person.

By the DnD Karma Meter he is. He might be Neutral, but he's not evil. And as an Adventurer, I murder my enemies 9 times before breakfast. It's called Dungeon Crawling.

[hamishspence]

By the DnD Karma Meter he is.
Not every DM interprets alignment solely as a Karma meter. What matters may be Outlook, as much as Deeds- which is why a character can be evil despite never having done anything - due to magic.


as an Adventurer, I murder my enemies 9 times before breakfast. It's called Dungeon Crawling.
DMs are way too lenient toward Dungeon Crawler players, when it comes to their alignments, I'd say.

Not all killing is Murder. Some is Justifiable homicide. But there generally needs to be factors justifying it, in the first place.

A "Dungeon" from which there has been numerous raids - is fair game for invasion by PCs- but even then - they should be cautious about attacking first - lest they find themselves attacking beings that didn't deserve it.

And the onus is on the players to convince the DM that the creatures they attack, should have been attacked in the first place.