What alignment are you?

[hamishspence]

On a WotC forum alignment thread, someone said something that I think both of you can agree with.

Alignment is descriptive of how your ideal self. Given the choice, most of your actions will play to the ideals and values that you hold.

Well put, I think.

[veti]

HOWEVER, it does not apply in real-life, where perceptions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are so varied and subjective. Especially because a lot of modern cultures focus on rights of individuals to believe what they want. Alignment is only valid in a scenario in which we assume that the default assumption of D&D (that is, objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos) is the case.

The problem with that formulation is that in practice, we routinely apply alignment judgments outside the context of a D&D setting. TVTropes, for instance, uses the language and concepts of alignment all the time. Just saying"it only works in this specific context" is flying in the face of real usage.

And a lot, possibly even a majority, of people earnestly believe that Objective Good and Evil are things in the real world. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of that, the very existence of the belief means this answer won't actually settle debate.



Alignment is descriptive of how your ideal self. Given the choice, most of your actions will play to the ideals and values that you hold.

"Given the choice", ah, there's the rub. In practice every choice is not only constrained, but also appears different to every person who observes it. The one making the choice may not even realise there is a choice until it's too late.

[erikun]

The problem with that formulation is that in practice, we routinely apply alignment judgments outside the context of a D&D setting. TVTropes, for instance, uses the language and concepts of alignment all the time. Just saying"it only works in this specific context" is flying in the face of real usage.
I haven't seen TVTropes phrasing for anything outside TVTropes conversations, so I wouldn't use that as judgements in general.

I have never seen anyone referred to as "lawful" in any sort of conversation. I've only seen "chaotic" to refer to people who act randomly or have a disorganized state, as opposed to a term to refer to people like Robin Hood. "Evil" tends to be limited to Godwin conversations and similar ones, while "good" is a term that a lot of people like throwing around for people they agree with (or as a sort of emotive blackmail).

[Zrak]

Lawful is used to refer to people, though rarely as a reflection of their character, and even then not as the same reflection of their character that the alignment signifies. "Lawful citizens" are law-abiding, but not necessarily disciplined, traditional, organized, or otherwise of a "lawful" alignment; "lawful owners" are even less related to the alignment.

[SiuiS]

"Given the choice", ah, there's the rub. In practice every choice is not only constrained, but also appears different to every person who observes it. The one making the choice may not even realise there is a choice until it's too late.

Yes. Moral choices occur all the time. We often don't even realize them. This is why we think and train and make being the person we want to be, reflexive. When a moment hinges on moral action we will act, not think. Not miss the opportunity.

[Eldest]

Depending on how much you're listening to and how you interpret parts of the BoVDs, CN with Good tendencies down to CE. The more evil the more you pay attention to it. Overall, I'd say I'm a good person. I'm just not Good.

[SiuiS]

Is it the bondage? It's the bondage.

Guess I should shuck that LG label >__>

[Melville's Book]

Is it the bondage? It's the bondage.

Guess I should shuck that LG label >__>

Normally I wouldn't comment on this debate, but I must point out that that type of... Preference... Is not inherently Evil as long as both parties fully respect one another and their wishes. You know, using a safe signal, actually reacting to it, not intentionally pushing known boundaries, that sort of thing.

Says so in BoED (not F, D), hilariously, though without that specific example. Want a page number?

(Not that BoEF doesn't probably mention it as well, but... Yeah)

[SiuiS]

Normally I wouldn't comment on this debate, but I must point out that that type of... Preference... Is not inherently Evil as long as both parties fully respect one another and their wishes. You know, using a safe signal, actually reacting to it, not intentionally pushing known boundaries, that sort of thing.

Says so in BoED (not F, D), hilariously, though without that specific example. Want a page number?

(Not that BoEF doesn't probably mention it as well, but... Yeah)

But masochism is evil! Irony.

[Melville's Book]

But masochism is evil! Irony.

Masochism (I assume you were making a joke about the spell) is Evil for the same reason Sanctify the Wicked is Good. Because this game is internally inconsistent. :smalltongue:

More seriously, I think there's a huge difference between masochism for its own sake and legitimately hurting yourself to gain more power, though your mileage may vary.

[Philemonite]

Long time ago I used to be Lawful Neutral (Helm sees all, know that and be judged).
Then my alignment shifted to Neutral Good, I became Dawnbringer and I couldn't be happier.
Then the Points of Light setting came out, and I wanted to burn it, so I guess I do have a slight Chaotic Evil tendencies.:smalltongue:

Plus, I have a party of nine that are the main focus of my novel, and they cover the entire alignment chart. I guess it depends on which one of my personalities you ask.:smallamused:

[SiuiS]

Masochism (I assume you were making a joke about the spell) is Evil for the same reason Sanctify the Wicked is Good. Because this game is internally inconsistent. :smalltongue:

More seriously, I think there's a huge difference between masochism for its own sake and legitimately hurting yourself to gain more power, though your mileage may vary.

No, book of vile darkness makes it clear. Masochism and sadism is evil! Such evlulz. Teh bads.

So you can get tied up, but enjoying it? Wickedness!



We all mostly discard these books as moral, and just cherry pick.

[Eldest]

No, book of vile darkness makes it clear. Masochism and sadism is evil! Such evlulz. Teh bads.

So you can get tied up, but enjoying it? Wickedness!



We all mostly discard these books as moral, and just cherry pick.

Not Evil. Vile. :smalltongue: IIRC

[Wardog]

Doing [good] things because you're supposed to by law and custom is indeed performing [good] acts but doesn't make you good.


What if it is something you would do anyway even if it wasn't mandatory?



BoED also has a line saying "Execution for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil."

So it's pretty consistent about killing being sometimes nonevil.

A paladin who carries out such an Execution will not Fall.

Doesn't that conflict with the (seemingly universally agreed) notion that it is both evil and [Evil] to kill someone who had surrendered / was a prisoner / unable to defend themselves?

[hamishspence]

I figure that's covered by the fact that adventurers are not normally "The Law" - thus - killing a prisoner would usually be Murder for them.

[RedMage125]

Doesn't that conflict with the (seemingly universally agreed) notion that it is both evil and [Evil] to kill someone who had surrendered / was a prisoner / unable to defend themselves?

If the person has been fairly tried and convicted of a capital crime? No.

Furthermore, more detailed RAW regarding Good and Evil specify what is and is not "murder" as opposed to any "killing".

And finally, if the person has been processed by whatever judicial system is in place, I find it highly unlikely that a Paladin (a noble knight and/or champion of a given faith) would be the person called upon to enact the execution. I'd expect it would be a lay person. If, for some reason, a Paladin was asked to do it (let's say the convicted was a Fallen former member of the Order and it was his last request to be executed by one of his former brothers), I would think that the Paladin would strive to do it as humanely as possible. Such as use a sword instead of an axe, make sure to sharpen the blade a little more beforehand, etc. Enacting the will of your Order is not a violation of your Code of Conduct (pretty much by definition), and humane execution of a person who committed a capital offense is not murder.

[Wardog]

I figure that's covered by the fact that adventurers are not normally "The Law" - thus - killing a prisoner would usually be Murder for them.

But isn't that an issue of Law vs Chaos, rather than Good vs Evil?

[Eldest]

But isn't that an issue of Law vs Chaos, rather than Good vs Evil?

Murder is, IIRC, Evil explicitly.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Murder is, IIRC, Evil explicitly.

It's important to remember that D&D redefines murder for the sake of rationalizing this ruling. Oh, where is that quote...

[hamishspence]

BoVD's was "Murder is killing sentient beings for a nefarious purpose" (and lists several, including "personal gain").

It also says that killing "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil" just for profit, is not an evil act, though it's not a good act - which suggests that, for the sake of the game, some creatures fall outside the definition of personhood.

[Amphetryon]

BoVD's was "Murder is killing sentient beings for a nefarious purpose" (and lists several, including "personal gain").

It also says that killing "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil" just for profit, is not an evil act, though it's not a good act - which suggests that, for the sake of the game, some creatures fall outside the definition of personhood.

Given the often-cited Succubus Paladin in canon, what qualifies as 'irredeemable evil"?

[SiuiS]

What if it is something you would do anyway even if it wasn't mandatory?


You'll note a 'because' in there. If you do a thing for a different reason then the explanation for why the original reason matters doesn't apply.


Given the often-cited Succubus Paladin in canon, what qualifies as 'irredeemable evil"?

First, define "pronography".

[hamishspence]

Given the often-cited Succubus Paladin in canon, what qualifies as 'irredeemable evil"?

No idea. That author - Monte Cook - thought fiends and chromatic dragons qualified.

Maybe he hadn't done the research into older editions?

[Amphetryon]

No idea. That author - Monte Cook - thought fiends and chromatic dragons qualified.

Maybe he hadn't done the research into older editions?

The inability to define 'irredeemable Evil' would seem to be a major sticking point in categorically allowing a Good Character to kill, since doing so is apparently only not Evil under that narrow circumstance.

[RedMage125]

Given the often-cited Succubus Paladin in canon, what qualifies as 'irredeemable evil"?

Demons usually do.

Evil is a part of their very bodies. In VERY RARE circumstances, a demon can become non-evil, even Good.

But a Succubus Paladin is still an outsider with the evil subtype, until she goes through the rituals in Savage Species to change those subtypes.

[Lord Raziere]

First, define "pornography".

technically what a succubus does, doesn't count as BDSM or anything like that, but instead counts as rape and/or sexual assault, since they're using mind-magic and life drain to kill you.

therefore what a succubus technically is an evil action by the alignment rules.

yes, yes I know your spiel, something about pornography and BDSM not being evil and how you can't judge them by yadda yadda yadda. sounds solidly Neutral to me.

my point is that what a succubus regularly does is not comparable to pornography. ones harmless (this includes BDSM and whatever other strange kink that you happen to list, add in "relatively harmless" wherever you deem appropriate.) the other is both rape and murder.

[hamishspence]

The inability to define 'irredeemable Evil' would seem to be a major sticking point in categorically allowing a Good Character to kill, since doing so is apparently only not Evil under that narrow circumstance.

Doing so "for profit" is only not Evil in this narrow circumstance.

Doing so "in defense of self or others" however, is different.

[Aedilred]

First, define "pronography".
Pictures of people being careful?

[Amphetryon]

First, define "pronography".
Is it the opposite of "antinography"?

[RedMage125]

Is it the opposite of "antinography"?

Oooh, I know!

The opposite of "con-nography"