Chaos, Law, Good, and...? Replacing "Evil" with a less unappealing alignment.

[Flickerdart]

Alignments suck. This thread is not about that.

Chaos and Law are poorly defined. This thread is not about that.

This thread is about all the alignments except Evil sounding kind of nice. Good - who wouldn't want to be Good? People like you, your afterlife is a well-deserved vacation, and you have the moral high ground whenever you're in an argument. Law - law is pretty good too. I mean, civilization is built on law. Samurai and knights epitomize lawfulness - honourable and devoted service to a higher authority or cause - and we know how badass those guys were. If service is not for you, then what about Chaos? Go around, think for yourself, save who needs to be saved, kill who needs to be killed, and do the thing you want to do regardless of what "the man" wants you to think.

There are not a lot of compelling reasons why devotees of Good, Law, and Chaos can't adventure in the same party.

And then there's Evil.

Evil is nasty. Evil is the bad guy. When you become evil, you "fall." Your gods want you to do all sorts of awful things, you get demons trying to boss you around (when was the last time a solar went out into the world to convince mortals to become Good, anyway?) and instead of getting hooked up with a sweet afterlife, you tumble into the Hells or Abyss and get punched in the **** for eternity. Being Evil isn't an ideal you strive for, it's a byproduct of being a huge jerk and carries 100% drawbacks and no benefits at all.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Slytherins might be jerks, but they get ambition, resourcefulness, and cunning as attributes, and when they finish school, they graduate instead of being fed to the basilisk. Black mana in Magic the Gathering is kind of insidious, but it's just more extreme than other colours in its goals. Self-sacrifice in the name of something you believe in is a Black trait, and so are individual freedoms.

Can we come up with a similar sort of thing to replace evil? Something that still serves as an opposite of Good, but isn't all downsides?

[Divide by Zero]

Fettered and unfettered, or something similar that's more catchy? Make it less about being a paragon of virtue versus card-carrying villain, and more about how far you're willing to go to achieve your goals.

[JusticeZero]

So basically you're looking for a neutral and inoffensive term to describe behaving like a powerhungry psychopath?

[Zanos]

Ambitious?
Pragmatic?
..Individualism?

I guess those are more character traits than fitting catch all descriptors, and characters of other alignments could have those to. I agree with the premise, but I'm hard pressed to find a good term.

Amoral, perhaps.


So basically you're looking for a neutral and inoffensive term to describe behaving like a powerhungry psychopath?
Or your average businessman? Seriously, if PR and mass media weren't a thing, I know most of the companies I've worked for would throw anyone under the bus for a buck. People are just numbers to a lot of people who aren't cartoonish caricatures. And they're not necessarily bad friends outside of that environment.

[Arkhaic]

"Good". Really, that might be the best way to do it. Everyone calls their alignment is good. Detect Evil? Blackguard has the same thing. Detects evil relative to them. Same for all the alignment effects!

[Jeff the Green]

So basically you're looking for a neutral and inoffensive term to describe behaving like a powerhungry psychopath?

Yeah. The problem is that you're trying to set up a dichotomy of Good/X. The only thing dichotomous with Good is Evil.

You could go prosocial/antisocial, collectivist/individualist, fettered/unfettered, etc. but you're not going to find a neutral term for the opposite of a non-neutral one.

[Flickerdart]

So basically you're looking for a neutral and inoffensive term to describe behaving like a powerhungry psychopath?
Not!Evil needs not be any more power-hungry than Good seeks to get rid of power. Which, given how many Good adventurers there are, isn't very much at all.

[JusticeZero]

Or your average businessman?
My statement stands, verbatim. A large number of business leaders are verifiably psychopaths.

[Nilehus]

Evil works fine. Doesn't stop a lot of people, really, and there's not really another word for people that, as a quote I read somewhere said, "Look out for number one while crushing number two."

Besides, then you have someone like Redcloak. Definitely very Evil, but he isn't completely amoral, ambitious for personal reasons, or unfettered. Evil works as a good catch-all descriptor for people in the deep end of the alignment pool.

[Forrestfire]

You don't have to be a power-hungry psychopath to be evil. You could be power-hungry, a psychopath, a non-psychopath, non-power-hungry... There are a ton of varieties of "evil" that aren't random murderers, just look at many of the anti-heroes (or various "nice" villains) in fiction if you want examples.

[RadagastTheBrow]

Hi, my forum name's "RadagastTheBrow," and I'd like to be evil. There is malevolence inside of me. I see people and, frankly, I'm disgusted. It bothers me, at night, trying to sleep, knowing that any ambitions I try to live out will just be ruined by people. But I can't do anything about it. I hold it in. I play nice. My heart tells me to set people on fire. Thankfully, I know damn good and well that my heart's a dumbass, so I follow my head instead. My head's pretty nice. Well, it's not "nice," but it points out that I get a lot more fire over the long term by working for these sorry sods and just buying a butane lighter and keeping the flames to myself.

Evil in roleplaying games is a comforting notion that this inner malevolence does indeed have a place in the world, and if you're very, very careful, you can see it through. You don't have to be nice. You don't have to let those holier-than-thous beat you over the head with the stick they've lodged in their collective rears. Life and death are inherently built into sapient construction, the bright potential of one and the cold inevitability of the other. Ideally, I'd serve that bright potential in my quest for personal peace and prosperity. But there's still that little urging, not even a voice, just an urge to beat people over the head when they forget their passwords for the fifth time.

[Curmudgeon]

"Selfish" is probably what you're going for generally. Specific classes might use other terms; maybe "egoist" for arcane spellcasters, "fanatic" for divine spellcasters, and "greedy" for Rogue-type characters.

[Slipperychicken]

Objectivist

But seriously, perhaps Self-Interested?

But more seriously, I don't think naming is the issue here. A douchebag by any other name would be just as unpleasant.

[Raven777]

Or just rewrite your own paradigms. Stop thinking as Good as what must be and Evil as what mustn't be. See them as opposite objective forces in balance. One's well worth the other. Then, Evil becomes a worthy cause to embrace. Take pride in Evil as the Paladin takes pride in Good. After all, be it aligned further with Law or Chaos, in the end any alignment still works towards the survival of the species.

[JusticeZero]

You don't have to be a power-hungry psychopath to be evil. You could be power-hungry, a psychopath, a non-psychopath, non-power-hungry... There are a ton of varieties of "evil" that aren't random murderers, just look at many of the anti-heroes (or various "nice" villains) in fiction if you want examples.
Psychopaths aren't random murderers. Almost never have been. They just don't have a meter to tell them to be moral or happy, and they don't really recognize other people as existing, so life is like playing in a single-player sandbox game with no immediately apparent victory condition to them, so they let other people tell them what's important and start doing that. If people tell them "Money is important", they start making money; after most people get their first million, they say "Ah, life is good, i'm going to retire", but a psychopath keeps going "Money is important. I've got a dozen personal jets so far, and twenty mansions. Ooh, I can make more money by doing X.."

[Zanos]

My statement stands, verbatim. A large number of business leaders are verifiably psychopaths.
Perhaps, but that doesn't actually make them horrible people. And Evil people in D&D are more varied. It takes fairly little to get put into the deep-end. Simply thinking that your goal is important enough to justify any means puts you there, but that doesn't make you a baby killing lunatic. The word Evil, as Flickerdart pointed out, carries a connotation that people associated with it must be bad, or vile, and I don't think D&D's Evil really makes that true.

EDIT:

Psychopaths aren't random murderers. Almost never have been. They just don't have a meter to tell them to be moral or happy, and they don't really recognize other people as existing, so life is like playing in a single-player sandbox game with no immediately apparent victory condition to them, so they let other people tell them what's important and start doing that. If people tell them "Money is important", they start making money; after most people get their first million, they say "Ah, life is good, i'm going to retire", but a psychopath keeps going "Money is important. I've got a dozen personal jets so far, and twenty mansions. Ooh, I can make more money by doing X.."
Describing people with a real world mental condition as programmable machines is pretty insensitive.

[JusticeZero]

I have a friend who's been diagnosed as a psychopath, and that was the description that they used. It seemed to play out, because they had a couple of things that they were always trying to do, and they offhandedly endured without comment, pleasure, displeasure, or surprise some horrendous interpersonal abuse on a regular basis just to be able to check that box.

[AuraTwilight]

So....what, the Hells are Outer Planes of Pragmatism or Antisocialness, populated by the dangerous Devils and Demons of the Self-Interested?

Evil is Evil. Relabeling things doesn't get at the root of the problem, which is that D&D has objective morality and thus there are people who are Evil, know they are Evil, don't care that they are Evil, and are proud to be Evil.

[Zanos]

I have a friend who's been diagnosed as a psychopath, and that was the description that they used. It seemed to play out, because they had a couple of things that they were always trying to do, and they offhandedly endured without comment, pleasure, displeasure, or surprise some horrendous interpersonal abuse on a regular basis just to be able to check that box.
But you wouldn't use the term evil to label him, right? Maybe D&D Evil, but not evil.

[georgie_leech]

So....what, the Hells are Outer Planes of Pragmatism or Antisocialness, populated by the dangerous Devils and Demons of the Self-Interested?

Evil is Evil. Relabeling things doesn't get at the root of the problem, which is that D&D has objective morality and thus there are people who are Evil, know they are Evil, don't care that they are Evil, and are proud to be Evil.



I think that's the fundamental problem really. I'm not sure there is a connation-neutral term for what D&D Evil is, because it originated from a place that can be summed up as "the Alignment of the Bad Guys." I'm not sure it's possible to rename the Alignment into something less blatant without redefining what it actually means, or at least without giving the same treatment to Good; if Evil shouldn't have negative connotations, Good shouldn't have positive ones.

[Larkas]

Can we come up with a similar sort of thing to replace evil? Something that still serves as an opposite of Good, but isn't all downsides?

Ehm... Neutral? There are plenty of good reasons to be Neutral on the moral axis, and I can see a non-psycopath very self-interested character as Neutral rather than evil. Purge real Evil from the game and you end up with a rather "gray" morality. Of course, there may be a Villain you would label Evil every now and again, but they would not be the norm by a long shot (they would be like Hitler: they exist, but thankfully are not very common); most conflicts would come from a clash of interests and points of view rather than simple Manichaeism. I don't know if D&D would work properly with that change, though.

Failing that, replace D&D's alignment with something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass).

[Spore]

Altruist/Egoist?

[Twilightwyrm]

I'd say I find Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade dichotomy fairly non-judgmental as moral dichotomies in games go. Sure, being a paragon of humanity is a desirable thing, but being a renegade is not generally viewed as the same as being "evil". Sure, it can encompass that, but it can say "anti-hero" as much as it can say "villain". Granted, Paragon has a slight implication of law and Renegade has a slight implication of chaos (though this wouldn't be out of line with 1e's alignment system), but assuming you slightly adjusted your definitions of the two, Chaotic Paragons (Garrus Varkarian might come to mind) and Lawful Renegades (Warden Kuril from ME 2 comes to mind) make basically as much sense as chaotic good people and lawful evil people.

[Phelix-Mu]

Wait. Our premise is that evil is all downsides? I don't think that holds much water.

Good has principles.

Law has rules.

Chaos has freedom.

And evil gets to laugh at all those self-deluded idiots.

Seriously, while it may seem cartoonish in some contexts, the whole point of evil is that nothing else matters besides what you think matters. The self above everything, the triumph of excess over moderation, the undoing of reason and sanity. Those are all rules/principles/fetters that hold everyone else back. An evil person sees what needs to be done, and does it. In fact, the evil person does lots of stuff that doesn't need to be done, realizing their inner landscape externally, a true visionary.

If this seems sucky, that's because there is downside. But that is true of all alignments. Good people suffer inside when they fail to meet their aspiration to be the best they can be. Lawful people isolate themselves inside a castle of self-justifying rules that separate them from the broad possibilities of tomorrow, of the unexpected, of the spontaneous. Chaotic people are victims of their individuality as much as beneficiaries of it, never quite fitting in, always on the move, unable to find stability.

Not all of these downsides are as extreme in case-by-case bases, but there is always downside to extremes of behavior (as well as to the enduring moderation of those that walk the middle path).

So, while it may appear that evil is "unappealing," maybe that is because our out-of-game sensibilities tell us that extreme manifestations of selfishness or amorality have undesirable long-term consequences (and, mechanically, you do probably end up in literal Hell/Abyss for being in-game evil). But, remember, evil people don't care. Or they think they can avoid it through scheming. Or they simply think themselves beyond the rules that govern everyone else (even in the afterlife). This is the nature of evil; it operates unfettered of anything, except for itself. In the end, the thing that undoes a villain is their belief that, somehow, those heroes won't succeed, that their evil plan is flawless, that they are beyond such feeble opposition by those that hobble themselves with their "alignments."

Intelligence and logic can mitigate the downsides of evil, but such moderation simply pushes one back towards neutral. A smart evil person actually probably ends up being less evil, knowing that there are times to make friends, the importance of allies, the importance of not monologuing your entire plan before the heroes before offing them. Evil is fundamentally corruptive and erosive, even of self, so true evil is rarely embodied in an actual person; they tend to self-destruct rather fabulously at some point, consuming themselves in their schemes and ambitions unfettered by principles or reality.

tl/dr: Anyway, I just don't see the issue. Evil is evil. Good is good. It can't be stated enough that a big portion pcs are largely neutral; being good is way harder than evil, and the degree of "for the greater good" that often goes on makes virtue something to aspire to, rather than something that typifies adventure modus operandi.

[Anlashok]

the whole point of evil is that nothing else matters besides what you think matters. The self above everything, the triumph of excess over moderation, the undoing of reason and sanity. Those are all rules/principles/fetters that hold everyone else back. An evil person sees what needs to be done, and does it. In fact, the evil person does lots of stuff that doesn't need to be done, realizing their inner landscape externally, a true visionary.

"The whole point of evil" is CN?

Because seriously you're describing chaos.

[Phelix-Mu]

"The whole point of evil" is CN?

Because seriously you're describing chaos.

Evil is actually not totally unlike CN on a bad day. Yes, evil prefers death, destruction, corruption, etc, but it doesn't need to be non-stop that all the time for most evil (non-fiends, let's say).

CN is more random and free-wheeling. It's not insane, or doesn't have to be. Evil often looks insane because it refuses to acknowledge that there is a moral basis for anything, that there is any difference between x and y morally (the sin of false equivalency), any reason to be good, etc.

Evil is proudly unconcerned with anything that isn't part of its agenda, which usually involves tearing everyone else (or a particular someone) down for [reasons]. The point is that the reasons don't matter. Evil for the sake of evil defies everything, even reason or logic, in pursuit of [vice of choice]. Pride, which some style as the epitome of evil, is simply about believing that the self is more important than everything, that whatever the self wants, the self gets, consequences be damned, that rules are for weaklings and that the self is beyond that, beyond the petty judgement of others.

Now, once we mix in L or C to the E, then the flavor gets diluted a bit. But real evil and ultimate chaos do share some things in common (like a certain nihilism or extinguishing of the self).

[Boci]

Ruthless? Its has negative connotations but isn't all bad.

[georgie_leech]

Ruthless? Its has negative connotations but isn't all bad.

What about Lawful Evil? They abide by contracts and rules, at least the letter of them. They may try to twist and work around where possible, but I'd argue that they certainly have plenty of ruth's. :smalltongue:

[Boci]

What about Lawful Evil? They abide by contracts and rules, at least the letter of them. They may try to twist and work around where possible, but I'd argue that they certainly have plenty of ruth's. :smalltongue:

Huh?

ruth·less
[rooth-lis]
adjective
without pity or compassion; cruel; merciless:

What is not lawful evil about that? Nothing says a ruthless individual won't follow the word of a contract.

[georgie_leech]

Huh?

ruth·less
[rooth-lis]
adjective
without pity or compassion; cruel; merciless:

What is not lawful evil about that? Nothing says a ruthless individual won't follow the word of a contract.

Huh, today I learned that my understanding of ruthless was incorrect. I'd always seen it used to describe individuals that wouldn't let anything stop them, as oppose to just moral concerns.

[Svata]

"The whole point of evil" is CN?

Because seriously you're describing chaos.

Well, CN and NE are, at the heart of it all, quite similar alignments. I find it hard to describe one without someone thinking I'm describing something closer to the other.

[Anlashok]

Evil is actually not totally unlike CN on a bad day.
CE. "The death of sanity and reason" and all that stuff about being completely unfettered is an aspect of Chaos, not evil. A CE character might act that way, but an NE character might only to an extent and an LE character would almost never follow a majority of those tenants.

When your philosophy describes CN as well as it does CE and a CG character would agree with a few of those principles too, while two thirds of the evil spectrum disagree, I don't think it's much of an Evil philosophy.


It's not insane, or doesn't have to be.

The madmen of the universe inhabit the plane of chaos. I think that's a bit telling, but yeah, they don't have to be. Neither does an evil character.


Well, CN and NE are, at the heart of it all, quite similar alignments. I find it hard to describe one without someone thinking I'm describing something closer to the other.
That's because half the time people playing CN are really playing CE. The difference is pretty clear: Evil does things for personal gain, Chaos just does things (also by being neutral on the good-evil scale CN is less liable to go out of their way to hurt someone for their own benefit.)

[Boci]

Well, CN and NE are, at the heart of it all, quite similar alignments. I find it hard to describe one without someone thinking I'm describing something closer to the other.

Isn't it the typical serial killer (organized, loner, regulated by a logic, but may be internal and inconsistent to outsiders) vs. the typical axe murderer (crazy, wild, much less common in RL)?

[Phelix-Mu]

The difference is pretty clear: Evil does things for personal gain, Chaos just does things (also by being neutral on the good-evil scale CN is less liable to go out of their way to hurt someone for their own benefit.)

Except that, to say that evil does things for personal gain leaves out that evil is often (and perhaps even usually) terminally shortsighted about how it's measuring "gain." The game makes it clear that the vast majority of evil people, in the end, go to the Lower Planes or an evil god's domain, where their fate is extremely, extremely, extremely undesirable. So, for an evil person to "gain" by doing evil, they either believe that the rules of the cosmos are meaningless/lies/attempts at undermining their ambitions, or they are severely deluded or misled. Or they just care about today, and screw the long-term.

Know what else doesn't care about the long-term? Chaos.

Even if we leave out the cosmological ramifications of a life of evil, maybe thinking that such isn't common knowledge (as is likely the case), evil people still measure "gain" in a way that defies common understanding of the term. Exclusive focus on the self tends to impoverish oneself in equal measure (though in ways that evil people hold in less esteem...friendships, allies, personal integrity), and while the rest of reality may or may not see this contradiction, evil people thrive in it.

Know who else thrives in contradictions? Chaos.

Part of the issue is that law/chaos in the game are problematic because law/chaos in real life are more constructs designed to reinforce/deter the existence of the moral axis, and thus are hard to view in isolation from the moral axis. Thus, CN is hard to picture, because anyone that is random is going to do as much harm as good, and that probably makes them seem evil.

As to the LE thing and death of sanity/reason, the rules that evil follows in this case are inherently self-defeating and used to uphold a twisted and corrupt system, to reinforce hierarchies of power that otherwise have no purpose, and as an excuse to inflict suffering on those judged to break the rules by judges who themselves only follow rules when it suits them. This is hardly sane or reasonable, as those words are used in the common parlance. Yes, the system has it's own logic, but it's not logic that anyone but an addled Inevitable could appreciate.

[Anlashok]

Again though, you're only describing a specific sort of evil character, one who aligns themselves with chaos.

A perfectly valid character, it just doesn't encompass the alignment as a whole

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I know this might not be the most constructive answer but,



****ing Metal


F'n Metal encapsualtes a lot of the imagery generally associated with D&D Evil while often being viewed as a proactive force that people openly promote and associate with.

[Flickerdart]

I'm completely not opposed to rejiggering the rest of the alignments to give Not!Evil a little more breathing room, especially since current conceptions of Evil seem to overlap considerably with Chaos in the "unfettered" department. What does Evil take from Law, though?

[Pan151]

What does Evil take from Law, though?

Tyranny, slavery, etc.

[georgie_leech]

I'm completely not opposed to rejiggering the rest of the alignments to give Not!Evil a little more breathing room, especially since current conceptions of Evil seem to overlap considerably with Chaos in the "unfettered" department. What does Evil take from Law, though?

Abuse, mostly. The Evil side of Lawful Evil uses order and structure as tools for their own advancement, whether it's exploiting loopholes in laws or contracts to exploit other people, enforcing legal slavery or tyranny, or just a bureaucrat that delights in using Law as a shield to protect him from recriminations for what amounts to legally bullying people. If you're fine with also renaming Good, I'll second switching Good/Evil with Altruism/Egoism; The Good of All vs. The Good for Self.

Edit: Partially ninja'd

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, let's look at some of the evil stuff the game presents:

Killing: Well, this is noteworthy, except that the game also presents a rather comically conflict-based world, in which the average group of adventurers does more killing onstage than the bad guys likely are seen to do. The key here is that non-evil killing should always care who is being killed and for what purpose. Evil can kill anyone for whatever reason they want, just like evil doesn't really care about much of anything except evil.

Corruption: Take the non-evil and make it evil. Whether it's slippery slope or the Rocket Sled to Heck, evil likes to infect others with its mindset. Nothing justifies my view on using cruelty as a weapon, fear as art, or the innards of innocents as bunting like my being able to point to others and say "hey, everyone does this." Moreover, evil promotes moral relativism; anything is justifiable, there is no difference between good and evil. Evil does this to encourage people to not think about the consequences of their actions. Caring about bad outcomes and price is good-type behavior.

Casting Evil Spells: Well, the game isn't particularly coherent here, largely because it didn't use the [evil] descriptor in a consistent manner.

Animating the Dead: We'll be skipping this, as whole other, quite extensive threads already cover this debate.

Cruelty: Cruelty is just the outward manifestation of my doing what I want, regardless of everyone else. From simply being acerbic, to needlessly kicking kittens, to beating people for fun, the emphasis in all of this is that I do it because I like it or because it suits me. This isn't chaotic, because evil people consistently enjoy hurting others, or use means that consistently put themselves first at the price of others (and they often flaunt exacting that price). Whether it's perverted pleasure or psychotic obsession, it's about me, not about freedom from constraints or precedent. Indeed, many evil people are compelled to repeat the same behaviors, tainted by their previous actions, unable to use principles of goodness or moderation, which are much more tedious and un-fun than evil methods.

From the PHB:

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever
she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She
sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or
convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that
following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or
more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature
or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. The criminal who
robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil
for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities
or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents
pure evil without honor and without variation.

Evil starts to look like chaos when we consider that anyone that is "out for herself" is eventually going to end up alone and friendless, and likely condemned for all eternity to one of the Lower Planes. For one reason or another, such a nihilistic end doesn't deter evil. That really does seem like acting without any restriction, typically thought of as chaos. To selfishly act for self in a manner that eventually damns yourself is pretty much evil, though. They just don't care or don't believe that they will pay in the long run.

[Segev]

Chaotic Neutral is all about freedom and (ironically) a certain amount of personal responsibility. Not as much as Chaotic Good, which values responsibilities to others beyond merely tit for tat (the whole "love thy neighbor" thing of Good shows up, there), but Chaotic Neutral does tend to respect that you should at least give as good as you get under most circumstances. It gets a little fuzzy on what constitutes "earning" something, though: if you can take by guile or skill, you've "earned" it in many CN philosophies. Not all, of course; another point of "chaotic" behavior is not having to agree with others' philosophies.

Chaotic Neutral is about thinking for yourself and doing what you like, but still recognizing that others have the right to do the same. Sure, you might feel justified in stealing, but even the chaotic neutral thief is going to feel some pangs of conscience if he realizes he just stole the last loaf of bread from a starving family. He might not feel obligated to give a starving family one of his loaves of bread, but he's not heartless and he is more likely to seek a target who can "afford" his skills being plied against them.

Neutral Evil isn't about disorder. It's about corruption. Neutral Evil can be short-sighted; it's about what feels good to you at this time. It doesn't care if that family will starve without this bread; neutral evil might even enjoy watching them suffer, knowing it has "won" by proving it's superior. It needn't, necessarily, mind. Neutral Evil is not essentially psychopathic; it can be merely sociopathic. It could simply not care, deriving neither pleasure nor pain from the suffering of others. Neutral evil is all about what's good for you, and screw anybody who isn't in some way of use to you.

Neutral evil can also plan long-term. Sacrifice of one's immediate desires for a greater payoff later IS within Evil's purview. But the payoff had better be darned worth it. And if Evil can have its cake and eat yours, too, it will. Because why should it put off its joys now if it can get them at others' expense while saving its own resources for the later payoff?

The weakness of evil tends to be that somebody DOES have to pay for it to have everything it wants. Self-sacrifice isn't in its nature, and others resent being sacrificed on evil's selfish altar.


The death of sanity and reason...now that's Chaotic Evil. Combine CN's focus on personal freedom with evil's lack of care for any sort of responsibility, and you see where CE gets the attitude that everybody else exists only for their own pleasures. Chaotic Evil doesn't even stop to think about self-consistency. It may plan, even intricately, but CE will rely on its personal, immediate strength and exult in its power in the moment before it will delay any gratification. If CE is delaying gratification, it means something BIG is coming.

CE doesn't let itself be locked in by any notions of personal responsibility, nor by any constraints of consistent behavior. Whatever works NOW is its choice. CN and NE can both work in some sort of hierarchy, if only out of respect for the need to cooperate. CE is only likely to work in a hierarchy if the immediate alternative is having the guy above him hit him harder than he could hit said guy-above-him. CN isn't likely to betray his allies, and will hold to his part in a plan unless he thinks it genuinely will help the plan as a whole for him to change it up. He might risk the plan for personal gain, but he will only very rarely take anything short of MASSIVE personal gain to throw over the whole plan. Again, he was relying on others, so it's only fair that he let them rely on him, at least for the moment.

NE will definitely betray others in a plan; however, he won't do so on a whim. NE, after all, recognizes that having a reputation of reliability is important. For massive gain, of course, he'll still do it, but he'll want to make sure his former allies can't make him pay for the treachery. CN would try most likely to justify that his allies could do it without him. NE would work to ensure they failed, if he chose to betray them.

CE... CE will turn on them for even petty reasons. CE will think itself clever to play both ends against the middle, betraying both sides and relying on its personal wit and cleverness to hold what it gained and ensure both sides destroy each other. CE is, too, a bit more unpredictable; the threshold of how big its personal gain must be before it betrays is lower, but harder to judge.

CN believes turnabout is fair play. NE believes that the ends justify the means (where "the ends" are "his personal benefit"). CE tends to not care about such silly justifications or philosophies: CE thinks he can do whatever he wants and anybody who says otherwise should be destroyed. What's good for CE is not necessarily good for anybody else; he has no reason to respect them the way he demands they respect him.

[Pan151]

Evil starts to look like chaos when we consider that anyone that is "out for herself" is eventually going to end up alone and friendless, and likely condemned for all eternity to one of the Lower Planes. For one reason or another, such a nihilistic end doesn't deter evil. That really does seem like acting without any restriction, typically thought of as chaos. To selfishly act for self in a manner that eventually damns yourself is pretty much evil, though. They just don't care or don't believe that they will pay in the long run.

Well, an afterlife in the Lower Planes can hardly be called "Damnation", to be honest. In almost any other afterlife, you become a husk of your former self with no power and no memories and that's about it. In the Lower Planes, you get to become a Fiend and are given the chance to work yourself up the ranks of power, eventually becoming stronger than in life if you are trully worth it, and maybe even reclaim your living memories.

Why would an evil person ever choose the first afterlife over the latter?

[Larkas]

Well, an afterlife in the Lower Planes can hardly be called "Damnation", to be honest. In almost any other afterlife, you become a husk of your former self with no power and no memories and that's about it. In the Lower Planes, you get to become a Fiend and are given the chance to work yourself up the ranks of power, eventually becoming stronger than in life if you are trully worth it, and maybe even reclaim your living memories.

Why would an evil person ever choose the first afterlife over the latter?

Because that's not how it works? In any afterlife you can be raised into an exemplar (archons, slaad, rilmani, what have you). Still, the large majority of mortal souls will end up turning into a petitioner (what you seem to call a "husk"), and this includes any souls that end up in the lower planes. But the ones that do end up in the latter and are not raised into fiends (i.e.: the large majority of all evil souls) will suffer phenomenally until the end of times or until their essence can no longer hold together and merge with their plane.

Even the ones that do end up being raised into fiends are in for a world of pain. Or do you really think that surviving the hierarchies of Hell or, well, the Abyss is an easy thing? You may have to wait a couple of eternities before being promoted from a lowly Dretch. Meanwhile, you'll be used time and again as cannon fodder in the Blood War.

But, well, there are always Pit Fiends and Balors to convince stupid evil souls that they can climb their way up and prosper in the lower planes. This must be one of the most amusing ways for fiends to gather larvae.

I won't say "reclaiming past memories" is something simply never happens, but I don't remember any example offhand.

Bottomline, ending up in the lower planes is not a pleasant experience. There's a reason why so many evil creatures try to cheat death.

[Pan151]

Because that's not how it works? In any afterlife you can be raised into an exemplar (archons, slaad, rilmani, what have you). Still, the large majority of mortal souls will end up turning into a petitioner (what you seem to call a "husk"), and this includes any souls that end up in the lower planes. But the ones that do end up in the latter and are not raised into fiends (i.e.: the large majority of all evil souls) will suffer phenomenally until the end of times or until their essence can no longer hold together and merge with their plane.

Even the ones that do end up being raised into fiends are in for a world of pain. Or do you really think that surviving the hierarchies of Hell or, well, the Abyss is an easy thing? You may have to wait a couple of eternities before being promoted from a lowly Dretch. Meanwhile, you'll be used time and again as cannon fodder in the Blood War.

But, well, there are always Pit Fiends and Balors to convince stupid evil souls that they can climb their way up and prosper in the lower planes. This must be one of the most amusing ways for fiends to gather larvae.

I won't say "reclaiming past memories" is something simply never happens, but I don't remember any example offhand.

Bottomline, ending up in the lower planes is not a pleasant experience. There's a reason why so many evil creatures try to cheat death.

And would you think that evil souls would find an eternity of servitude to the forces of good or an eternity of being one with nature any more pleasant?

In the lower planes, you always have the chance, however small it might be, to become the next big thing, attain huge amounts of power and have your way with lesser beings. In short, everything an evil person aspires for.

In the upper planes you're gonna be subjected to an eternity of having to be a goody-two-shoes, you will not necessarily get to be powerful even if you are worthy, and even then you will never be allowed to use that power for your own good. For anyone of evil alignment, that is literally the worst torture.

As for regaining one's mortal memories, Orcus did that if I am not mistaken.

As for cheating death, it's all about having the power to do so and nothing to do good or evil. See archliches, baelnorn, deathless, Elminster and co, etc. Besides, becoming a powerful outsider is only a valid goal when you are not already as powerful in your mortal form - why would a powerful evil wizard want to become a Balor when he is already powerful enough to bind Balors to his will, and why would a powerful good cleric want to become a solar when he can already command solars?

[Pan151]

See, here's the thing. If you are good, you're not being "forced" to do that; it's something you'd want to do anyway, because that's simply the kind of person you are.

But we're not talking about good people, are we?


Orcus was a god to begin with.


Like many of the most powerful demon lords who struggle for power in the Abyss, Orcus started his existence as a mortal on the Prime Plane. He was apparently a wicked spellcaster of some sort, most probably a priest to some dark deity. After his death, his soul, like the souls of all chaotic evil mortals, went to the Abyss and Orcus began his afterlife as a lowly larva.

[Shining Wrath]

Let's go look at D20SRD on evil, shall we?


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

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

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

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

"debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit".
"hurting, oppressing, and killing others".

I think if you're going to replace "Evil" with one word that's more politically correct, the word you are looking for might be "mean". Evil people don't just hurt you if they can see no other alternative; some, at least, thinking hurting you is it's own reward. Others hurt you only if it's convenient, but don't actually enjoy doing so.

As regards corporations - a corporation, if you treat it as a person, is a person who lives to make money, full stop. Any action that can be undertaken that increases profits should be done. Technically, a corporation is supposed to act within the law, but examples abound where the legal penalties for breaking the law were accepted as less than the profit gained from doing so and the corporation broke the law.

An executive of a corporation is supposed to act like that when making decisions. In fact, they have a fiduciary duty to do so.

Corporations, then, are at best neutral, and many are evil. If you know your product kills people, but it is still legal to sell it, than you advertise it, lie and say it's harmless, and so on. Again, examples abound.

[Segev]

I could reply with how corporations are actually good under circumstances where government interference isn't empowering evil action, but I will instead simply suggest we shy away from politics and stick to morality. "Business is evil" is such a painful flame-war bait that it almost makes one want to start checking under bridges for ambushes.

[Cruiser1]

Can we come up with a similar sort of thing to replace evil? Something that still serves as an opposite of Good, but isn't all downsides?
Use "strong" for evil, and "weak" for good. Good and evil are clearly opposite words (so if you use one you probably need to use the other as its opposite), however those are the two words used from the point of view of good/neutral people to describe the duality. Many evil people don't see themselves as "evil", but rather something closer to "ambitious" (LE), "strong" (NE), or "unfettered" (CE). An evil person considering good aligned people is likely to see them as "followers" (LG), "weak" (NG), or "laid back" (CG).

[georgie_leech]

Use "strong" for evil, and "weak" for good. Good and evil are clearly opposite words (so if you use one you probably need to use the other as its opposite), however those are the two words used from the point of view of good/neutral people to describe the duality. Many evil people don't see themselves as "evil", but rather something closer to "ambitious" (LE), "strong" (NE), or "unfettered" (CE). An evil person considering good aligned people is likely to see them as "followers" (LG), "weak" (NG), or "laid back" (CG).

I'm not sure that reversing the positive/negative connotations really fit the goal.

[JKTrickster]

Do we necessarily have to keep with the Dualistic/Antagonistic structure?

Borrowing from a more eastern philosophy, couldn't we make the Good/Evil axis into something that's more neutral on both ends? So instead of just changing Evil, we should change Good too.

Anyway if we don't do that, I think it's best to call Evil -> Dominance

After all that's what they want - to dominate. To place their will above others. Sounds nice, no?

[Phelix-Mu]

I hate to invoke afroakuma here, but I'm pretty sure that the result of several other threads was that all evidence points to the vast majority of evil souls either getting merged with their plane after wandering about as petitioners for as long as the soul can take it (assuming some random fiend doesn't come up and decide that the poor sod is on today's menu), turned into larvae and used as currency by fiends (the vast majority of which are consumed by fiends/magic or just tortured for sport), or they end up in the domain of whatever evil god they worshiped (which basically involves eventually being absorbed into the being of that god). Even assuming that a soul is lucky enough to be turned into one of the base types of fiends (dretch, lemure, etc), those things are marched into the meat-grinder of the Lower Planes conflicts by the untold millions, dying senseless deaths in a war with no purpose.

So, not only do you need to make it into the hierarchy (usually by nothing more than luck), you need to survive the early stages, which literally mulch 99%+ of what they consist of. At every level, you have to not just be the biggest badass in an infinity of badasses, but you have to survive randomly getting your face ripped off by some jerk who happens to be more senior.

And, even if you do make it to be a fiend, you may or may not actually "be yourself." Most of the time, this extremely horrific process shreds past memories and personalities, until all that is left is "vanilla fiend."

As for the good planes, some good petitioners do experience similar things; absorption into the plane, becoming one with a good god, and so forth. Of particular note is Celestia, where petitioners may be promoted to lantern archons, and then work their way up that hierarchy. There is little predation among good souls and celestials to speak of; it's pretty much only fiends that waste/enjoy souls in that manner.

The takeaway is that, while both good and evil souls may eventually surrender their individuality to whatever power of wherever they ended up, for good souls it is a process of gentle, gradual surrender to the blissful essence of paradise (bleh), while for evil souls it is generally a process of horrific torture, grinding the soul down until it looks the same as all of the other evil souls.

In any case, back on topic, if I were gonna change the system, I'd just change it to a graph instead of a bunch of compass points. Thus, it's not so much "are you good/evil" as "if you add up all of your deeds, what is your value on the good/evil spectrum." I'd appreciate getting away from the silliness of evil person/good person, and back toward "person that has done much evil/good." This makes alignment more of a thing of actions or relationships, and less of an intrinsic quality of an individual, which I think helps people think in slightly less objective terms.

[Nilehus]

Well, the sorts of people that approve of slaughter, slavery, torture, etc. are typically not the kindest, gentlest souls around. So the Evil afterlives being completely awful makes sense.

If someone is Evil enough in life (effectively so, not rampant "MWAHAHA -stabs plot hook-"), I imagine they'd get some form of special treatment, but remember; these are ALL the LE/NE/CE souls. No matter how much of a big evil badass you are, odds are there's someone that laughs at how hard you're trying. Culling the weak to bring the best and the strongest forward makes complete sense for an Evil afterlife.

Most DM's I've played with are a little more lenient about alignment, though. Most characters tended to fall into Neutral, with only a few actually qualifying as Good or Evil. Your Warlock better make sure he keeps the fiends or chaos entities that give him his powers happy, and the Paladin better actually act like a champion of Good, all that. So my viewpoint may be a bit skewed. I like it more than the alignment RAW, though.

[Slipperychicken]

I imagine they'd get some form of special treatment, but remember; these are ALL the LE/NE/CE souls. No matter how much of a big evil badass you are, odds are there's someone that laughs at how hard you're trying.

And even if you were a big evil badass in life, you're dead now. A helpless larval soul on the devil's doorstep, waiting to be used as currency (CR^2 * 100gp as I recall), eaten, transformed into a CR 1 fiend via hideous torture, or burned up to empower a spell or save someone 10xp on crafting. And what are you going to do about it? Nothing, because you're dead.

[Flickerdart]

Well, the sorts of people that approve of slaughter, slavery, torture, etc. are typically not the kindest, gentlest souls around. So the Evil afterlives being completely awful makes sense.
A punitive evil afterlife makes sense as a means of punishment, but that argument just goes back to Evil being a byproduct and not an ideal, which is a big part of why I'm dissatisfied with it.

[Phelix-Mu]

A punitive evil afterlife makes sense as a means of punishment, but that argument just goes back to Evil being a byproduct and not an ideal, which is a big part of why I'm dissatisfied with it.

But it's not really all about being punitive. Good may look at it as punitive, but, as has been pointed out, evil people wouldn't much like a paradise-like afterlife anyway. They want an eternity of being able to push around others and indulge their egotistical fantasies and desires through cruelty and violence. Sadly, not every evil person can rule the roost, and cosmic evil needs someone to oppress and torture.

Also, most evil people that do know about that system of the afterlife usually try to hedge their bets or wheedle out of the afterlife altogether (actually pretty plausible in D&D).

As to an alternative to evil.... Nah, sorry. I really like the way it works. If you don't like evil, maybe you have lacked a satisfactorily in-depth role play of an evil character that you liked to play? As DM, I come up with evil bastards all of the time, and a few of them are actually pretty interesting and engaging to role play (especially when an interesting dynamic occurs with a non-evil character).

[Jeff the Green]

The madmen of the universe inhabit the plane of chaos. I think that's a bit telling, but yeah, they don't have to be. Neither does an evil character.

Only if you have a ridiculously narrow view of insanity. Modrons are incapable of adapting to change. Devils are addicted to evil schemes. Demons are at least as batty as slaadi. And rilmani don't care about anything. I wouldn't be surprised if every alignment has something in the DSM you could peg on them.

Even if you want to go with a more commonplace definition of insanity like "delusional" or "psychotic", Evil has more than its fair share too.

Sure, slaadi are the only ones you can tell are insane by watching them walk down the street. That doesn't mean the rest aren't just as ****ed up.

[Phelix-Mu]

Only if you have a ridiculously narrow view of insanity. Modrons are incapable of adapting to change. Devils are addicted to evil schemes. Demons are at least as batty as slaadi. And rilmani don't care about anything. I wouldn't be surprised if every alignment has something in the DSM you could peg on them.

Even if you want to go with a more commonplace definition of insanity like "delusional" or "psychotic", Evil has more than its fair share too.

Sure, slaadi are the only ones you can tell are insane by watching them walk down the street. That doesn't mean the rest aren't just as ****ed up.

+1.

My own neutral tendencies tend to make me feel that neutrality is more balanced than all of the extreme alignments, but I'm sure that is just my personal bias speaking.:smallamused:

[Jeff the Green]

+1.

My own neutral tendencies tend to make me feel that neutrality is more balanced than all of the extreme alignments, but I'm sure that is just my personal bias speaking.:smallamused:

See what I said about Rilmani, though. I forgot what it's called, but they're basically the epitome of one particular mental disorder/symptom.

I think probably the closer you are to the Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil extremes the worse your mental health. Remember what I said about Rilmani; that's classic depression symptoms (or dissociative identity disorder, depending on the depiction). NG might have messiah complex as it's special issue. Depression in certain settings.

[Phelix-Mu]

Ironically, I tend to be overly empathic, to the extent that a sense of self is sometimes tenuous (maybe my chaotic tendency there). Empathy, when it isn't just depressing for me, also makes me inclined toward being good (since ignoring others can be hard for me to manage).

I think that, if you want to get away from the compass-points system, then you might be better served by making the system more complex, not maintaining the same level of extreme simplification. Hence my suggestion of using an XY graph to plot out just how far one is from the center. This has the downside of teh DM needing to eyeball shift values to associate with any of the practically infinite number of possible actions that a character could commit.

[Anlashok]

I wouldn't be surprised if every alignment has something in the DSM you could peg on them.

They do. Pretty much every plane is ****ed in the head in one way or another. That doesn't change the fact that "the death of reason and logic" is clearly within Chaos' portfolio and not Evil's, which was the point of the discussion because I disagreed with the assertion that CN was the quintessential evil alignment.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think I demonstrated enough nonsense underlying the evil mentality to justify "death of reason and logic." If a person is so consumed by doing things for personal gain that they ignore that they build up a debt they can't possibly pay (be it in the present or in the afterlife), then that is pretty much the opposite of both reason and logic (which presumably suggest that, if your goal is A, don't do [opposite of A]).

Sorry if my hyperbole was beyond your ken. Evil doesn't make sense. Sense is one of those things that it ignores in favor of screwing everything for personal gain (though only in it's most extreme manifestations).

[Anlashok]

I think I demonstrated enough nonsense underlying the evil mentality to justify "death of reason and logic."
But again, you can apply nonsense to every alignment, that doesn't make them bastions of insanity and chaos.


If a person is so consumed by doing things for personal gain that they ignore that they build up a debt they can't possibly pay (be it in the present or in the afterlife), then that is pretty much the opposite of both reason and logic
Unless of course they don't believe that they're building up a significant debt. It might not be logic that you or I agree with but it's definitely reason and logic. A lich knowing he's immortal and therefore not being as concerned with what might become of him in the afterlife is perfectly reasonable. A duke knowing that the people he's taking advantage of can't assail his position and that with a few bits of sprinkled honey here and there he can stay beloved by the rest is being reasonable. Immoral, unethical and all that jazz sure, but that doesn't necessarily make them Chaos incarnate. That's not to say they probably aren't a little bit unbalanced in some way, but there's a significant difference between the two.


anyone that is "out for herself" is eventually going to end up alone and friendless
Unless of course, that person believes that they're better off with said companionship.

Again the problem here is pigeonholing every character with a given alignment into a certain set of behavioral stereotypes.


rules that evil follows in this case are inherently self-defeating and used to uphold a twisted and corrupt system, to reinforce hierarchies of power that otherwise have no purpose, and as an excuse to inflict suffering on those judged to break the rules by judges who themselves only follow rules when it suits themTake a look at Eberron. LE king promoting peace and stability because it's the best thing for himself. Nothing at all about "reinforcing hierarchies of power that have no purpose", quite the opposite really (because such a system would be unstable and prone to dissention).

[Phelix-Mu]

The premise of the thread is that core "evil" is too narrow and cartoon-villain to be an appealing way of life. I merely posited that, while it is unappealing to many of the beings in the game, a person bereft of what everyone else thinks of as sanity or reason can easily justify any amount of cartoon villainy, "everything is fine now that I'm a lich," or "if I need something I can't do myself, then dominate monster will cover that."

Which all may or may not make sense to the individual. But they are definitely covered within core evil, and they are quite often judged to be mentally impaired by everyone not suffering from that particular brand of insanity.

Again, your saying that "sanity and reason" are relative doesn't disprove that evil is a type of "death of blah blah blah."

Actually, forget it. I was wrong. This line of debate isn't going to go anywhere interesting in this lifetime.

[Slipperychicken]

This line of debate isn't going to go anywhere interesting in this lifetime.

It's an alignment thread. What did you expect?

[Phelix-Mu]

It's an alignment thread. What did you expect?

I just thought someone might overlook the distinction between the "death of sanity and reason" and the "utter absence of sanity and reason." You can't kill something that chaos never had.

[Lord Raziere]

"The whole point of evil" is CN?

Because seriously you're describing chaos.

as chaotic person, I am offended. Most Evil is too orderly to be appreciate freedom and individuality. The greatest evils are the systemic ones, corrupting entire societies and rendering evil a normal, orderly thing, weaving their cruelty and "necessary" measures into their processes. I being the CN or CG person that I am, find it that its often the rulers that claim certain measures are "necessary" to accomplish things and proclaiming that its just "pragmatic" to "ensure other peoples safety" that these measures are implemented.

Sure there is chaotic evil, but their evil is nothing compared to the large systemic evils that are out there. why would I be insane and excessive just because I dislike wider rules that seem unnecessary or nonsensical to me? I just disagree with a wider culturally-infused traditional viewpoint. it doesn't mean CN or Chaos in general is completely off their rocker. please don't judge all Chaos by the actions of a Slaad.

[Erik Vale]

*Reads a bit before skipping*

I don't have anything particularly to add, which may change, but:


Evil works fine. Doesn't stop a lot of people, really, and there's not really another word for people that, as a quote I read somewhere said, "Look out for number one while crushing number two."

"Evil isn't looking out for number one, Neutral is looking out for number one. Evil is looking out for number one while crushing number two."

I think.