PDA

View Full Version : We're all Lawful Good here.



Sardia
2007-03-28, 01:08 AM
Since there seems to be some difference of opinion on what actually qualifies one as good, lawful, evil, neutral, and chaotic, I imagine it's no less a gray area how a creature or character might see him or herself.

So, how do you think that characters of each alignment would claim to be Lawful Good?

Cybren
2007-03-28, 01:09 AM
I'm not lawful good...
Try down and to the right. Twice.
muahahahahahaha

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 01:24 AM
People rarely see themselves as villains.

The less Good someone is the more likely they:

tend to try and justify and rationalize their actions as good.
use relative morality, treating the lesser of 2 evils as a "good" choice.
try to dehumanize the people that they commit evil against, so that it's an ok thing to do that: "well, yes I slaughtered them in their sleep, but they had pointy teeth and green skin, so that makes it ok"
justify their actions based on what others; I'm better than some-mass-murdering-fascist-dictator-that-I-can't-name-without-godwinning-myself, so that must mean I'm good

As people get eviler, this isn't enough, so they become more and more aware of their own evil; they start denying the very concepts of good and evil. It's not accidental that a villan espousing the idea that "There is no good or evil, only the powerful and the weak" is so commonly used in books and movies.

Kalirren
2007-03-28, 02:22 AM
Opinion: the D&D alignment system sucks.

That stated, it exists, and as long as there's a system, it has to be adjudicated...

I would agree with the previous poster: in a world with assumed definitions of what "Good" is, which like most D&D settings, is assumed to be roughly Christian, people rationalize their being "good" by pointing to things and people worse than they are.

The "Lawful" aspect is slightly more delicate. In my experience, most of the more mature, character-rich, and socially involved campaigns I've played in degenerate to questions over the law-chaos axis, not the evil-good axis. It's only made harader by the obvious fact that while good and evil may be ordained absolute by the D&D universe, what's "lawful" is clearly dependent on the particular society in which the campaign is set.

In any given character's mind, then, "Lawfulness" is usually measured in relation to the social structure with which that character is most familiar. Giant raises the case of Isawa Shojo, who was a samurai imported into the western socio-moral system and whose actions, considered lawful neutral in his home culture, would probably end him in the chaotic evil bracket. ("Whaddaya mean, we can't kill the peasant?")

Of course, since D&D characters travel, they're often exposed to a multitude of cultures and societies, which means that the Lawful-Chaotic self-rationalization goes from being measured with respect to one's home culture to being measured with respect to one's regard for society in general as opposed to individual (or party) taste.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-03-28, 04:59 AM
There's very, very few who might up and call themselves evil. They might acknowledge things they do as wrong, but either justifiable or not "as bad" as they could be.
People who don't doubt themselves at all are either insane, or thinking on an entirely different level. Often, it's the ones that do have doubt that are the better.
Part of my problem with D&D is how evil is often just...evil. For it's own sake. Saturday Morning Cartoons Villainy syndrome. A twirl of the moustache and a nyah-hah-hah are as deep as their character goes.

its_all_ogre
2007-03-28, 05:46 AM
but in dnd you can know if you're evil by getting a friend to cast detect evil on you.
it is more difficult to rationalise your actions when you can prove your evilness so easily.
that makes it harder to rationalise...pretty much all of it

Sardia
2007-03-28, 05:48 AM
but in dnd you can know if you're evil by getting a friend to cast detect evil on you.
it is more difficult to rationalise your actions when you can prove your evilness so easily.
that makes it harder to rationalise...pretty much all of it

Well, that just means the friend (or his deity) is wrong or lying, right? Or that detect evil's just misinterpreted.

And even then, it won't pick up the Neutral types.

Lord Tataraus
2007-03-28, 05:55 AM
And that very question is why I don't use the alignment system. I scrap alignment almost completely. If someone is a paladin I just make sure that he sticks to his code and he is fine unless he does something completely against it and then its fallen palaldin for you! I find it much easier to 'punk it' or in otherwords play a game where the players are just trying to survive a cruel or not-so-cruel world. With this in place, the characters have more flavor because they don't have the restrictions of alignment that used to define their actions. Instead they have an idea of what the character might do and do it, not worry what someone of this or that alignment would do.

Just my 2cp

Roderick_BR
2007-03-28, 06:26 AM
Thing about aligment in D&D is that it's not how a person views himself, but how he is "inside", and how magic affects him.
As was stated, an evil dictator will believe that everything he does is "good and justified" (Doctor Doom, anyone?)
So, if you treat people fairly, respect the law, and defend the innocent, a corrupting spell will harm you, since it's designed to hurt "lawful/good" aligned people.
If you conquer territories by force and no real need, kill people that disagree with you, and has nothing against maiming someone for personal gain, a holy power is going to hurt you, as it was made to "punish those of tainted heart."

So, when a lich is smited by a paladin, or a vampire uses Unholy Blight on that fighter that is called "people's champion", calling they are a diferent aligment won't change the effect.
People dwell too much on aligment. It's just a tool to know what happens with magic effects, based on the character's actions. If you act good, then your aligment is good. If you are chaotic, your aligment is chaotic. People doesn't really claim what aligment they are (except maybe people at OotS) ;)

its_all_ogre
2007-03-28, 06:49 AM
but my point is you can get a friend to cast detect alignment x and then you will KNOW if you are evil/good etc.

NullAshton
2007-03-28, 06:53 AM
but my point is you can get a friend to cast detect alignment x and then you will KNOW if you are evil/good etc.

Unless they lie to you. Unless the person just doesn't want to know, he's too busy to care. Unless he has mindblank on him to help him prevent against getting the life sucked out of him by mind-affecting spells, and doesn't want to take it off because he's paranoid.

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 07:08 AM
detect alignment x spells are 2nd ed, no?

Pepz
2007-03-28, 07:16 AM
the whole alignment thing is .... crappy :) it's all relative to each other and the only absolutes are apparently the spells that can detect it. Even if the God of Good would smite some evildoers, the evil doers themselves might not think that they're evil...:) Lawful , Chaotic, Neutral is a bit easier to determine, since it's about what you think yourself, and basically has nothing to do with the law or chaos around you :)

And I disagree with the Topic ;) I claim to be chaotic neutral :) true neutral at best :P

Logos7
2007-03-28, 08:33 AM
it's only relative in people's perceptions. ... I don't know why people dislike the idea of people disagreeing over objective things.

Look at 9/10's of what people do everyday and they don't need to read a movie script or think what would Godzilla do, or even if they do think What would Godzilla do, they'd know what Godzilla would do, etc.

People have a really good sense of morals already. Concence and Guilt are wonderful indicators

How do bad people claim they're good, they justify and explain in terms of conseqences

Sure I feel bad about killing that little girl, but it was required in order to appease the hungry god . etc

Out Communities Purity is at stake

if you have to justify or explain in term's of consequences you know you did something wrong. No one really feel's the need for to justify feeding the poor or helping someone who's falling down or sick etc.

The Evil Warlord who mercilessly kills those who disobey's even if they surrrender and beg for mercy, harshly tax's and takes the first son of every household to be a soldier may have a very good reason ( I need me an army to further extend the Peace and Order I am Making and to eventrully bring my peace and order to everyone) doesn't make him any less evil. Look at anikin, Great Reason ( To Save a Loved One) Evil Acts = Darth Vader not some silly relativism.

Logos

Voice of the Wampinator: Trimmed of Real World Religion. More Godzilla added.

its_all_ogre
2007-03-28, 08:44 AM
i agree with you logos7 regarding 'if you have to justify or explain in term's of consequences you know you did something wrong. '

my beef is that in dnd you can be detected and then YOU WOULD KNOW!

justification is pointless cause you WOULD KNOW the answer.
accepted that an evil person would not get themselves checked, but a good person might try this detecting every day if they were unsure.
could get some good RP out of that actually

Jayabalard
2007-03-28, 08:59 AM
detect alignment x spells are 2nd ed, no?

beyond that, the number of people in the game world who can use detect evil is staggeringly smaller than the number of people in the game world. They also have better things to use it on than checking the evil levels of random commoners.

nor do most GM's allow detect evil to be used the way that you suggest; it doesn't tell you what evil deeds that you've done, just that you have an aura of evil; if you do both good and evil deeds, you don't register as evil immediately, or even quickly.

Piccamo
2007-03-28, 09:29 AM
I agree with scrapping the alignment system entirely and replacing it with the d20 Modern Allegiance system. Replace Detect alignment spells with Detect Allegiance and make it so smite works on those against the character's allegiance.

Dervag
2007-03-28, 09:30 AM
2.use relative morality, treating the lesser of 2 evils as a "good" choice.That isn't what philosophy normally calls relative morality.

Normally, 'relative morality' applies to beliefs in which "I think that this is good" makes something morally right, at least in one's own morality. The idea that every person has their own morality and that it's all a matter of perspective is 'relative morality'.

The idea that the least bad of two things is the best of those two things is rather different. It's utilitarian, but it is certainly possible to set up a morally good utilitarianism.

After all, if there really aren't any options that can categorically be called good, then what is a good person who wants to be good supposed to do? Do they there making but-but-but noises until the choice becomes irrelevant or until a new option presents itself?


And that very question is why I don't use the alignment system. I scrap alignment almost completely.Does that mean scrapping all the protection from [alignment] spells, all the DR 10/good abilities, et cetera?


the whole alignment thing is .... crappy :) it's all relative to each other and the only absolutes are apparently the spells that can detect it. Even if the God of Good would smite some evildoers, the evil doers themselves might not think that they're evil...:) Lawful , Chaotic, Neutral is a bit easier to determine, since it's about what you think yourself, and basically has nothing to do with the law or chaos around you :)

And I disagree with the Topic ;) I claim to be chaotic neutral :) true neutral at best :PWow. That's a lot of emoticons.

I would argue that the absolute nature of the spells is entirely consistent with the categories.

For example, we can draw a line running from extreme good (saints) to extreme evil (serial killers). At some point on the line, you go from 'good' to 'neutral'; at another point you go from 'neutral' to 'evil'. We know where saints lie on the line. We know where serial killers lie on the line. Where you lie on the line depends on what kind of things you believe about the world and about your place in it. How committed are you to the well-being of strangers? How committed are you to your own well-being? How much pain are you willing to inflict on someone to achieve your goals?

Now, a lot of people will lie very close to the points dividing good from neutral and evil from neutral. That's OK. The thing about those people is that they do not have a consistent or strong alignment.

For example, consider a monk who is sternly dedicated to a monastic code simply because it is a code (lawful neutral) but who often fits of generosity and benevolence (good). Sometimes they will refuse to perform a good act because it is incompatible with their code, saying things like:
"The Sage instructs us to respect the duty of the servant to the master, so we must not overthrow the evil warlord so long as he observes the reciprocal duty of the master to the servant."
"This man is accursed through his own negligence, folly, and dissolution. To remove the curse would be inappropriate until he has corrected the errors in his own character."

But on the other hand, they may also sometimes perform acts of good that are not mandated by the monastic code, simply because it is the right thing to do.

This monk will waver between lawful neutral and lawful good. Sometimes, if they've done several good things in a row, they will be lawful good. At other times, if they've done several neutral (non-good) things in a row, they will be lawful neutral.

That's OK in my book. This monk lies very close to the line between good and neutrality, and so they may bounce back and forth across the line. Sometimes they will show up on a detect good spell and sometimes they won't

Foxer
2007-03-28, 11:10 AM
Well, it's a very complicated subject, but as a starting point I generally consider altruism as being good and selfishness as being evil. The workaday enlightened self-interest shown by most people is roughly neutral.

Suppose a character is confronted by a starving child. The good-aligned character will give unstintingly from their own larder without thought for themselves. The evil character will kick the little beggar back into the gutter without a second thought. But, to my mind the alignment system is a spectrum rather than a series of points on a matrix. The character who gives the starving urchin all their food is right at the extreme end of good, whilst the character who splits it fifty-fifty with the kid is good, but leaning towards neutral. The neutral character who gives as much as they can spare without going hungry themselves is nearer the good end of neutral than the character who says "tell you what, kid, run a couple of errands for me and I'll buy you dinner".

If a character was claiming to be Lawful Good (though I'm not sure why a Lawful Good character would feel the need to make such a claim), then they'd base their claim around what they have done for another person.

Some of those claims could be amusingly tenuous. I can almost hear Skeletor saying "I must be Lawful Good... look at all the second chances I grant my minions when they fail me. An evil person would have blasted them to atoms, as they richly deserve!"

talsine
2007-03-28, 11:23 AM
Unforunetly, in D&D, morality is not relative, its a persistant force in the world and because some many of the mechanics revolve around it, its hard to just do away with in entirely w/o re-wrtiting a lot more stuff than i'm willing to. Do i think the system is stupid, yes, do i hope it goes away in the next iteration of the system, absolutly, but until it does we're stuck with it. Unless you play Arcana Evolved, then your gold. heh

In the real world, morality will always be realative to the society that is perceiving the action. Again, just the way things are.

note: why Godzilla? Why not Gamera? He's totaly better! Down with Goji, up with Gamera /protest

Gralamin
2007-03-28, 11:36 AM
Well, it's a very complicated subject, but as a starting point I generally consider altruism as being good and selfishness as being evil. The workaday enlightened self-interest shown by most people is roughly neutral.

Suppose a character is confronted by a starving child. The good-aligned character will give unstintingly from their own larder without thought for themselves. The evil character will kick the little beggar back into the gutter without a second thought. But, to my mind the alignment system is a spectrum rather than a series of points on a matrix. The character who gives the starving urchin all their food is right at the extreme end of good, whilst the character who splits it fifty-fifty with the kid is good, but leaning towards neutral. The neutral character who gives as much as they can spare without going hungry themselves is nearer the good end of neutral than the character who says "tell you what, kid, run a couple of errands for me and I'll buy you dinner".

If a character was claiming to be Lawful Good (though I'm not sure why a Lawful Good character would feel the need to make such a claim), then they'd base their claim around what they have done for another person.

Some of those claims could be amusingly tenuous. I can almost hear Skeletor saying "I must be Lawful Good... look at all the second chances I grant my minions when they fail me. An evil person would have blasted them to atoms, as they richly deserve!"

Sorry, I just love alignment debates, and giving people headaches.
So, you believe the perfect society is communism, as that is the pinnacle of altruism?

UglyPanda
2007-03-28, 11:39 AM
I would like to say that I actually like the alignment system. I like it simply because it's easy. If you use allegiances, you're going to wonder about alignment anyway, you just won't say lawful good or chaotic evil.
"So we're helping Mr. Norita. How do we know he's not a bad guy and going to kill a bunch of people?"
"Should we really help such a despotic government?"

A more realistic alignment system would be this:
Arranged in no particular order, not necessarily in order of severity either

Strongly Utilitarian
Utilitarian
Neutral
Individualist
Strongly Individualist

Very Generous
Generous
Neutral
Selfish
Very Selfish

Very Religious
Religious
Agnostic
Atheist
Anti-Religion

Believes in absolute good and evil
Believes there are occasionally shades of grey
Believes that good and evil exist, and there are subjective moments
Believes there are often shades of grey
Believes there are nothing but shades of grey

Industrialist
Capitalist
Neutral
Socialist
Hippie

Believes in social welfare
Believes in laissez-faire

Believes one may understand good and evil through logic
Believes one may understand good and evil through history

Lies about alignment
Embarrassed about alignment
Doesn't mention alignment
Unsure of alignment
Wishes to change own alignment
Proud of Alignment
Ecstatic about alignment

Wishes to destroy those who disagree
Wishes to force those who disagree into swaying to their side
Wishes to punish those who disagree
Wishes to reform those who disagree

I might be missing some, but I hope you get my point.


Sorry, I just love alignment debates, and giving people headaches.
So, you believe the perfect society is communism, as that is the pinnacle of altruism?

Communism isn't the pinnacle of altruism, it's attempted equality and equal exchange. Existence in itself carries a very small bit of evil in it because of the fact that humans need to eat. Eating as a process requires you to destroy plants and animals in order to fuel oneself. The pinnacle of selflessness requires divine beings who don't need to eat or breathe.

Diggorian
2007-03-28, 12:02 PM
To address the OP, the trick of the question is D&D characters dont know alignments exist aside from detection spells and aligned items which stem from the moral opinion of a capricious god. "Heironeous smites those that dont play by his rules. Big surprise ... a-hole."

I wouldnt think lawful or chaotic poles matter to most villains, BBEG that schedules his tortures rather than waiting for inspiration like an artist are both evil.

Neutrals take care of their friends and family; who cares about strangers? Evil folk may call themselves "extremely goal oriented", and the ends always justifies the means. "If Tharizdun ruled our plane the daily struggle to survive and not go mad would bring out the best in all races ... plus I'd get a palace."

I personally prefer Allegiance to Alignment, more character defining and unique than choosing one of the Big 9. It takes some interpretation as to what divinations detect or who gets smited, but not difficult.

Muz
2007-03-28, 12:13 PM
I don't mean to start an edition-war, but this is why I like Detect Evil from 2nd edition better. (Only working off current thoughts or intent, so that an evil man who was thinking about cake wouldn't register, but one who was looking at someone and planning to murder them would.) Of course, a pit fiend is just plain evil all the time, no matter what he's thinking about...but I think the OP was talking more about humans. :smallsmile:

Pit fiends love cake. :smallcool:

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-28, 12:25 PM
I don't think characters in D&D think of themselves as having alignments at all, its a artificial system created and imposed on the fictional world thirty some years ago by one Gary Gygax. Therefore it would be very odd for characters to have in character opinions about thier own alignments.

Regarding their own morality however, if characters consider it, they likely mitigate, justify, waffle and otherwise attempt to downplay their undesirable acts. Rare and truly frightening is the villian who has no illusions about his own acts. Thats probably the reason I loved the Operative from Serenity, he had no illusions about the fact that he was a vile and disolute soul with few redeeming qualities.

That said, I think that the vast majority of the time moral considerations do not enter in to the individual consciousness. It is the exception rather than the rule that people step back, abstract themselves out of the situation and their own limited perspective and ask "Is this right?" Rather the vast majority fo the time is spent in pursuit of varying levels of personal realization and fullfilling individual needs and desires absent of moral consideration.

Edo
2007-03-28, 01:25 PM
I will, for the record, reference TheOOP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1640314&postcount=1) in saying that "alignment is a property of creatures reflecting how they interact with spells relating to morality and ethics."

(Which, incidentally, partially explains why you don't bother casting detect spells on everybody. "How you'd be affected by Holy Smite" has at most a correlative bearing on your actions, and none at all on your motives, so it's not a terribly important thing to know. Especially when it's possible to get it wrong (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html).)

That said, in answer to the original question:

So, how do you think that characters of each alignment would claim to be Lawful Good?Ethically chaotic is hard to call on, because we don't really have any real consensus on what "Chaotic" means. A chaotic character trying to pass as lawful would, I'm guessing:
Adhere to the spirit, not the letter, of the law.
Rigidly uphold a code of conduct that they will refuse, under any circumstance, to define.
Blur the line between "Lawful" and "Good," relying on their interchangeability to cast themselves as Lawful.Morally evil characters, as a rule, don't think about morality. That's sort of the point: the good of others doesn't weigh into the situation at all. If they must claim to be Good, they'll work with the following principles in mind:
The actions of supporters are judged by intent alone; the actions of others, by result alone. (This allows them to gloss over the consequences of their actions and focus on the actions of others.)
That they're victims of their circumstances, and did the best they could with the hand they were dealt. (Intelligent evils will take efforts to make this true. Given time, they'll gladly engage in social engineering to control the hand that they get, so that they can continue to make the best of it.)
They are, in fact, better than you, because they were willing to do what needed to be done while everybody else was hand-wringing.
The repercussions of their actions will pay off in the long run. (Once all the people complaining are dead.)And so forth.

belboz
2007-03-28, 01:27 PM
D&D characters (at least, some of them) kind of have to know that, at least, there are 9 categories that have some important meaning that people fall into. There's the know alignment spell, plus the fact that someone with a high enough Knowledge (religion) ranking should be able to figure out that there are 9 possible combinations of answers to the questions: Does holy word affect them? What about unholy word? Dictum? Word of chaos?

(This is part of D&D's split personality about alignment--"It's a rough guideline for helping establish a character's personality" vs. "It's a mechanic that plays importantly into lots of spells and class features.")

Of course, in *this* sense of alignment, people can't be permanently deluded about what alignment they are--it's possible to *prove* to someone that they're "evil," or, at least, "affected by Holy Word."

What I do think can happen is that people can associate these 9 categories with different things than we do. "Evil" can become "strong," and "good" "weak", for example. Strong people know what they want and go for it--weak ones keep agonizing, in their tree/archon/peasant/fluffy bunny-hugging ways, about whether it's "right". Weak people are ineffective; they never get anything real done, because they're always worrying about the "other side of the story" and "how this will impact the poor" and "how much innocent blood will be spilled". Strong people don't get blinded by these externalities that, when you get right down to it, don't really matter to the task at hand.

Now, if we're talking about a homebrew in which alignment isn't mechanically detectable (often a popular subject), we can come up with a whole different set of answers--although I don't think most people care about lying to themselves about where they stand on the law/chaos axis; most of the self-delusion would probably be on the good/evil axis.

I'll try to post my thoughts on that list a bit later.

[Edit: Ninja'd, sort of. At least, Edo makes many of the points I was trying to.]

Olethros
2007-03-28, 02:04 PM
For the purposes of phylisophy and psychology, I agree with what many others have said of self perception of good and evil, and in reality these concepts being relative and potentially mutable.

In running a D&D game, however, I don't think such arguments apply. Good and Evil are definable absolutes as dictated by a set of Good and Evil gods. In a world system where the platonic ideals of morality can walk up and slap you around, the concept of good and evil become far more concrete.

Why is killing hundreds of surface Elves in there sleep an evil act for a Drow, because its exactly what loth, and evil diety, wants to happen (and would probly do herself except for more pressing shufflebord turnaments). Why is killing a group of non-combatant orc children, all of whom are aligned evil and will presumably someday grow up to be combatants evil, becaus Pelor says thats just not proper, and he will withold your dailly spell fix if you do.

I don't allow players to play "justify allignment" games no matter how good the phillosophical argument. A Paladin must follow the law, not his own personal code of behavior, the actual law. There are other game systems out there much better at exploring the gritty side of morality. Most of them don't have weapons that spicifically do more damage to "evil" and can only be wielded safely by "good." As long as there are direct game effects for the alignment of a character, the system is stuck being mostly rigid.

Aquillion
2007-03-28, 03:14 PM
Yes, in the D&D world, many evil creatures consider themselves evil in the same way someone in our world would consider their loyalty to a religion or political party. Remember, a God with the evil portfolio is a personification of evil--they embody the concept in physical form, and to worship them in that aspect is to openly and deliberately worship evil itself. Any cleric with the evil domain, therefore, likely considers themselves evil.

From the SRD, too:


Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
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.
...now, it's not impossible for an evil character to consider themselves good, but, again, you have to remember that D&D's alignment system is not geared towards introspection or deep philosophical debate. Evil characters are entirely selfish, greedy, destructive, and corrupt; whether they're lawful, neutral, or chaotic, they are, at best, out to grab as much as they can get away with, satisfy their personal desires, and so on.

An evil character in D&D (aside from the aforementioned pure-evil-worshippers, I suppose) isn't someone who happens to follow a nasty set of political beliefs or anything like that; they're bad to the bone. If you asked a typical evil character whether they consider themselves good despite the results of your Detect Evil, they'd nod thoughtfully, then stab you in the kidneys and take your wallet.

EDIT: Now, with that said, Law / Chaos is a bit different. Lawful characters will certainly think they're lawful; but no genuinely chaotic character is ever going to care. They might argue that there's no such thing as true lawfulness, or something similar, but they'd never feel a need to justify themselves as lawful, since a chaotic character, by definition, probably doesn't see lawfulness as a desirable trait.

TimeWizard
2007-03-28, 09:47 PM
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u74/a2boucher/alignment.jpg

The road to Hell is paved with Good intentions.

I highly doubt that anyone else played this game, but if you played Steambot Chronicles, Elder is the textbook case of fully understands what he is doing and its ramifications, and continues to do it. Really, he is the most clear cut villain ever. There's no self deception involved at all.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 09:52 PM
I can see the "Plays, doesn't play" axis, but you could have an upright, stick-up-the-rear, insufferable LG character, and a nice, friendly, happy, easy-going evil one.

The_Snark
2007-03-28, 09:58 PM
I can see the "Plays, doesn't play" axis, but you could have an upright, stick-up-the-rear, insufferable LG character, and a nice, friendly, happy, easy-going evil one.

Given on the first one. But even the most friendly, easy-going, happy evil guy is still an utter jerk at times. There are a variety of reasons for being evil, and none of them are nice, not even the ends-justify-the-means ones. Are you a nice guy who also happens to be a serial killer? Do you cheerfully support your brother-in-law's reign of terror? Perhaps you're nice to everyone but dwarves, whom you slaughter like despicable vermin? Or maybe you believe that in the interests of cosmic balance and the eventual betterment of all humanity, you're going to have to sacrifice some children to the Great Old Ones. Some of these are less nice than others, but none of them manage to be nice all the time.

A character whose every deed is nice is just not evil. Evil people can be friendly or nice most, but not all, of the time.

And on the flip side, presumably that insufferable paladin does, when you get down to it, want to help people. Unless he was brought up that way and unthinkingly accepts it without ever thinking about it... so I'm not going to argue that point.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 10:12 PM
A character whose every deed is nice is just not evil. Evil people can be friendly or nice most, but not all, of the time.

The only people who are nice all the time are probably scary. Even the really, really, nice person might still have a bad day, or snap at someone when pushed to the limits of frustration.
The evil nice guy could still be extremely nice...until he really needs something to go his way. Neutral Evil might be best at this-- the guy's a perfect charmer until he needs to save his own hide or stands to gain great personal benefit, then he either runs away and abandons his allies, or lies, cheats, etc. His explanation later might still be friendly and self-effacing, though.

"Really, guys, I'm sorry. I know it was my fault, and I should have stayed and fought, but there were so many of them I just lost it. I'll try to do better next time, and will gladly hand over my share of the treasure since I didn't really deserve it. Use it all to pay for Bob's resurrection."
This could be a nice explanation following a thief finding a particularly good bit of treasure (worth far more than the characters share of the resulting reward), hiding it, then scampering off while chuckling about the fools fighting the bugbears or whatever. Nice, very nice, and evil to the core.

Rainspattered
2007-03-28, 10:18 PM
Uh-oh, I'd forgotten about the alignment system. Time to start drinking again.
Someone get me to quit when WotC realizes that Order and Chaos and Law and Lawlessness are opposites.

The_Snark
2007-03-28, 10:37 PM
The only people who are nice all the time are probably scary. Even the really, really, nice person might still have a bad day, or snap at someone when pushed to the limits of frustration.
The evil nice guy could still be extremely nice...until he really needs something to go his way. Neutral Evil might be best at this-- the guy's a perfect charmer until he needs to save his own hide or stands to gain great personal benefit, then he either runs away and abandons his allies, or lies, cheats, etc. His explanation later might still be friendly and self-effacing, though.

"Really, guys, I'm sorry. I know it was my fault, and I should have stayed and fought, but there were so many of them I just lost it. I'll try to do better next time, and will gladly hand over my share of the treasure since I didn't really deserve it. Use it all to pay for Bob's resurrection."
This could be a nice explanation following a thief finding a particularly good bit of treasure (worth far more than the characters share of the resulting reward), hiding it, then scampering off while chuckling about the fools fighting the bugbears or whatever. Nice, very nice, and evil to the core.

I'd argue that he isn't nice, really. He's stabbing his friends in the back to save his life; cowardice is one thing, but he's doing it for personal gain also. He might act nice most of the time, might actually be nice some of the time, but he isn't really a nice person when you get down to it.

And yeah, a person who was nice all the time would be unrealistic, but there's a difference between being angry and snappish because you're having a bad day and deliberately abandoning your companions to the bugbears. Like I said, not all good people have to be nice, but evil people can't be nice all the time.

Goff
2007-03-28, 11:08 PM
Voice of the Wampinator: ...More Godzilla added.

That is possibly one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time. It also raises a good point; this board needs more Godzilla.

On topic(ish); I like my villains to be evil and know it. You know the kind of role you can see Tim Curry playing...
Bland hero-type person: Don't touch the *Artifact of Unfathomable Evil*! Only those with the blackest heart can withstand its power!
Deliciously Evil Villain: I know *picks up artifact and proceeds to use it with style and charm*

Whilst the villain who thinks he is doing good angle is fun, letting the players think he thinks he is doing good then pulling the rug out from under them is so much more fun.
Hero: Prince Evilguy, stop! The gnomes didn't really attack and kill your brother - it was a band of mercenary warriors. You can't declare war on the little folk!
Prince Evilguy: My good boy, I already know that... I did mastermind the attack after all.

Apologies for diverging from the debate.

Demented
2007-03-28, 11:25 PM
The best question, of course, is how does Lawful Good justify itself as Lawful Good?

Being Neutral* Evil myself, I really don't get how they can do it.

*Assuming 50% Lawful + 50% Chaotic = 100% Neutral

Rabiesbunny
2007-03-28, 11:30 PM
Lawful Good is easy to justify itself. It's Chaotic Good that's really, really hard to justify.

That's uber-left wing terrorist stuff there!

Muz
2007-03-28, 11:31 PM
Plus an evil character might freely admit to being evil without seeing "evil" as a negative thing. "Evil? Yeah, I'm 'evil.' I take care of myself, don't let anything get in the way of what I want, do what I please, when I please. Naw, I'm not out there saving peasants, I'm out there dungeon diving for treasure, and if some damn peasant gets in my WAY, I'm gonna run him through. More treasure for me that way. Who cares about a peasant? See these clothes? This sword? These two babes on my arm? 'Evil' got me this. And what's so bad about that? You're just jealous cause I got what you want." :smallamused:

Rabiesbunny
2007-03-28, 11:41 PM
The best example of alignments in a D&D book I've yet to see topped is "Prince of Lies", book four of the Avatar series. That shows the extremes of all three evils and at least two of the goods in an AMAZINGLY accurate light --

Fzoul Chembryl (LE) , Mask (NE), Cyric (CE), Oghma (N), Kelemvor (LN), Mystra (CG), Tyr (LG), Torm (LG).

It's amazing the amount of differences between singular alignments -- like Tyr and Torm. I LOVE the complexities of alignments! Yay!

Aquillion
2007-03-28, 11:42 PM
That's actually a pretty insightful comment. Now that I think about it, Good / Evil is like Law / Chaos in many ways, too... a lot of evil characters probably simply aren't going to believe in good and evil. A BBEG of this line would say that there is no good and evil, only power, that good and altruism are myths invented by the lazy and powerless to demand that enlightened 'evil' people like them sacrifice their own self-interest for a mythical common good, or something similar.

Then, while the players are trying to formulate a reply, he'd stab them kidneys and take their wallet. 'cause that's what evil people do.

Sardia
2007-03-28, 11:44 PM
...a lot of evil characters probably simply aren't going to believe in good and evil.

And presumably many Lawful Good types would see Law and Good as inseparable concepts as well-- that you can't be really good unless you're orderly and good.

Rabiesbunny
2007-03-28, 11:57 PM
Yes, there's a dynamic between Law and chaos that is quite interesting. LE, LN and LG would probably all be more willing in some societies to make an alliances with one another! To someone both Lawful AND good, the chaos utterly opposing law is just as much a problem as evil opposing good.

Talyn
2007-03-29, 05:36 AM
I've noticed that, in adventuring parties, LE characters tend to get along much better with the rest of the party than CN or even CG people. Of course, that could just be the typical player who wants CG to equal the Punisher and CN to equal Chaotic Obnoxious...

Theodora
2007-03-29, 05:44 AM
Personally, I like very much LE characters. They are very evil, ok, but they obey the rules always, and sometimes that is the wisest choice. By the way, I think that common people are not lawful good but neutral good. Can you imagine everyone acting as a palladin? omg

Snooder
2007-03-29, 05:50 AM
I think what everyone with the whole "i'm not evil, i'm just misunderstood" angle is forgetting is the existence of detect evil. In a world where large numbers of people can with utter 100% certainty know whether you are evil or not, that just doesn't work. It's like Miko's fall from grace. In our world, she could still argue that her action in killing Shojo was good and lawful. However, in a D&D centered universe, the Gods can and WILL pronounce a judgement. The evil guys can moan about getting a raw deal, but hey, if Pelor, Tyr or Heironeous say you are evil, you're evil. I see the alignment axes more as corresponding to the God's view of such things than as the God's view corresponding to the axes.

Theodora
2007-03-29, 06:28 AM
That concept about Gods deciding your alignment is allright, but it has also to do with someone's behaviour. Of course if Tyr says "you are evil, good, etc" the discussion ends, but it also depends on somene's attitude in the game. That's how paladins fall in games: DM observes your behaviour and if you make wrong actions, there you go. Of course, about Miko, what she did was evil and wrong, especially in game rules. In real world it would be discussed over and over.

Saph
2007-03-29, 06:46 AM
I think what everyone with the whole "i'm not evil, i'm just misunderstood" angle is forgetting is the existence of detect evil.

Nah. You're underestimating the power of denial.

Miko-type: "I'm not evil, I'm just misunderstood!"
Hinjo-type: "I cast detect evil on you. You're evil."
Miko: "What? No I'm not!"
Hinjo: "Yes you are. Look, I just did it again."
Miko: "Then obviously you're lying."
Hinjo: "I can't lie, I'm a paladin!"
Miko: "Then obviously you can't be a paladin either. You must have fallen. I'm going to have to kill you."
Hinjo: "Fine, I'll bring in three more paladins. They all say you're evil, so will you-"
Miko: "They all must be lying as well."
Hinjo: "I summon an agent of the Twelve Gods to come and-"
Miko: "Obviously that's an illusion you've created to try and deceive me into being corrupted to your vile lies."
Hinjo: "Agh! Okay, I'm going to specifically research a 'Detect Alignment of Self' paladin spell that I can give to you on a scroll so that you can see your own alignment! Will you believe me then?"
Miko: "No. It'll be some kind of trick to unjustly accuse me of being evil. I'm going to have to kill you now."

. . . and so on.

- Saph

NephandiMan
2007-03-29, 07:29 AM
Nah. You're underestimating the power of denial.

QFT. The human capacity for self-deception of every variety goes amazingly far, and all the non-human characters, however much we may try to vary their behavior and make them interesting, are ultimately based on human, possibly all-too-human psychology - bits and pieces of ourselves, projected onto a larger-than-life screen.

As I said in a previous thread, I would like to see the law/chaos axis replaced with an autonomous/heteronomous axis. Autonomy, strictly speaking, means that one obeys a law one has given oneself, and thus would correspond to some of the more attractive elements in the chaotic alignment, without providing license for the kind of annoyingly random behavior that some chaotic characters manifest. Heteronomy, on the other hand, is acceptance of and obedience to a law given by someone else, whether a church, a state, a tradition, one's family, or what you will. Of course, whatever axes are used, I would like to see a system of degrees formally instituted, in order to make finer distinctions possible.

As for the topic, I think each character who bothered trying to rationalize his behavior as lawful or good would do so according to the standards of behavior he chooses for himself - which will probably be the ones on which he was raised, in most cases.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 08:14 AM
Lawful Good is easy to justify itself. It's Chaotic Good that's really, really hard to justify.

That's uber-left wing terrorist stuff there!I don't really agree that good needs justification.

And I don't agree that the punisher is chaotic good; he doesn't meet the good part of that. Robin hood perhaps would be a better example, since he remains virtuous even while standing firmly outside of the law (the romanticized versions, not the grittier versions that appear from time to time)

I've always felt that Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress summed up the chaotic good sentiment fairly well, though they tended to be quite pragmatic so tend to be a little more neutral than pure good:
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

and

"believes that concepts such as ’state’ and ’society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world … aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

Dreamweaver
2007-03-29, 09:51 AM
Sorry, I just love alignment debates, and giving people headaches.
So, you believe the perfect society is communism, as that is the pinnacle of altruism?

Well, not that it was my post you responded to, but pretty much yes. The ideal communistic socitety would probably be Lawful Good while an ideal Libertine socitey would be Chaotic good.

Soniku
2007-03-29, 10:01 AM
if you have to justify or explain in term's of consequences you know you did something wrong. No one really feel's the need for to justify feeding the poor or helping someone who's falling down or sick etc.


What are you talking about? There are plenty of things you need to explain why you did them that are good.

I have a friend who is very much of the attitude "A single human life is worth more than the world." He still doesn't think it's a good thing to kill a single innocent child to save the rest of the human race if such a situation came up.

How could you place the life of a single child who would die from the imminent destruction of the world even if you didn't kill her above all of humanity? I think many of these so called "ethical" people are just trying to hide from the guilt that sometimes to do something good you will inevitably have to do something bad.

I can understand the argument about weather you would kill your own son or ten other children and how that would make people have trouble deciding, but when it's a single person or the human race how can anyone "Good" decide to let the world burn?

Inyssius Tor
2007-03-29, 10:04 AM
To everyone who wants to jump at the chance to derail this into a quickly-locked discussion about the USSR (and possibly even dragging in Godwin's Law, if the mods aren't swift with the lock): Dreamweaver is talking about the ideal Communist society. We haven't had one of those yet.

Dreamweaver
2007-03-29, 10:31 AM
To everyone who wants to jump at the chance to derail this into a quickly-locked discussion about the USSR (and possibly even dragging in Godwin's Law, if the mods aren't swift with the lock): Dreamweaver is talking about the ideal Communist society. We haven't had one of those yet.

Aye, although possibly Lawful, the communistic socities that have existed so far have been on a diffrent place on the Good/Evil scale

Theodora
2007-03-29, 10:40 AM
Aye, although possibly Lawful, the communistic socities that have existed so far have been on a diffrent place on the Good/Evil scale
Yes, of course, those communistic societies that have already existed and fallen were really lawful, but more in a neutral kind of way, I think. Lawful Neutral. Do you agree?

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 10:41 AM
What are you talking about? There are plenty of things you need to explain why you did them that are good.

I have a friend who is very much of the attitude "A single human life is worth more than the world." He still doesn't think it's a good thing to kill a single innocent child to save the rest of the human race if such a situation came up.

How could you place the life of a single child who would die from the imminent destruction of the world even if you didn't kill her above all of humanity? I think many of these so called "ethical" people are just trying to hide from the guilt that sometimes to do something good you will inevitably have to do something bad.

I can understand the argument about weather you would kill your own son or ten other children and how that would make people have trouble deciding, but when it's a single person or the human race how can anyone "Good" decide to let the world burn?I don't think anyone has actually claimed that the life a single child is more important than all of humanity. But that doesn't really matter: killing the child is an evil act, as killing the innocent always is; sure, you did it to save humanity, and that will make it easier to live with yourself, but it doesn't make what you did not evil.

I don't deny that good people will sometimes decide that have to do evil for the greater good, but when you do that you are still doing something evil. No amount of justification or rationalization (or even atonement) makes that act not evil, or will give you back the innocence and purity that you had before that act.

A good person, such as a paladin, who did such a thing would know that they have committed evil, and would fall from grace/lose thier innocence/become less pure. This would even happen even if they didn't "fall" per the rules of paladins falling (so even if the paladin doesn't lose their powers), or even if they aren't a paladin. They would feel the need to atone for their sin, as in do penitence, not have someone cast the spell on them.

A not-as-good person who did such a thing would just use a ends justify the means excuse and decide that they had done a good thing and move on with their life.

Foxer
2007-03-29, 11:15 AM
Well, not that it was my post you responded to, but pretty much yes. The ideal communistic socitety would probably be Lawful Good while an ideal Libertine socitey would be Chaotic good.

I think it was one of mine.

From a purely theoretical not-real-world standpoint, most systems of government that have been posited are Lawful and Good, in that they create a system of laws intended to provide for the greatest good of the greatest number. However, since each system contains within it measures to enforce their philosophy I would say they are by definition more Lawful than Good.

Some examples:

Communism suggests a society where property is held in common, and people draw upon the shared pool of resources according to need whilst contributing to it according to ability.

Capitalism suggests a society where property is held exclusively by individuals, and the opportunity to acquire and enjoy property is used as a spur to acts that benefit the group as a whole.

Feudal Monarchy suggests a society based upon a series of relationships in which the different strata of society owe various duties to the strata above and below them. Thus the peasants provide for the material needs of the aristocracy, who, in turn, protect the peasants and ensure the rule of law.

Even a libertine or anarchic society would still be governed by the principles of Lawful Good alignment. Even if you claim that individual freedom is the highest good possible, what happens why my expression of freedom impinges on yours? Unless we fight it out (which would be evil), we'll have to have recourse to some sort of legal structure (be it a court of law, a council of the elders, an agreed neutral arbitrator or whatever).

Of course, many societies would only be Lawful Good on the inside. A perfect communistic society of Orcs might still regard Elves and Humans as scum who are fit only to be driven into extinction.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 11:34 AM
I think you're mixing up how people perceive themselves with what they actually do. That comes back to "noone sees themselves as a villain", even if they are.

Just like I do with players, I rate in game governments/societies based on their "means" not the "ends" that they use to justify them.

Societies that are heavily structured, and place restrictions on individuals for the sake of the state are lawful; ones that are lightly structured, and restrict the state for the sake of the individuals are Chaotic.

Societies who's means are compassionate, just, fair, merciful, and who favor redemption over punishment and are good; those that are not aren't.

Foxer
2007-03-29, 11:56 AM
I think you're mixing up how people perceive themselves with what they actually do. That comes back to "noone sees themselves as a villain", even if they are.

No. I'm talking about systems of government. The application of any given system might well differ hugely from the philosophy behind it. In the abstract, Feudal Monarchy, for all it's inequalities, is Lawful and Good. In its application, however, a nation that is governed by Feudal Monarchy could be Good, Neutral or Evil depending on how the system is applied.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 12:09 PM
certainly, the feudal and communist ideals are lawful (rigid structure, limits individuals for the benefit of the state), but there's nothing in the ideal about the means that it uses to protect the common good, so it would be lawful neutral.

A Capitalist ideal has no overarching structure, just individuals, and nothing about protecting the welfare of individuals; chaotic neutral.

None of them, as ideals, are inherently good or evil; they only become that way once you start actually implementing them.

jjpickar
2007-03-29, 12:15 PM
I think when considered in purely hypothetical terms most government types seem pretty decent. Its when you add humanity (possibly the most evil thing I can think of) that the system becomes "evil." Of course I belive people are being inhuman when they do good things and being very very human when the commit horrible acts.

My two very very very very cynical cents anyway.:smallwink:

Aquillion
2007-03-29, 12:16 PM
You're making a common mistake: Confusing the alignment system with a paladin's restrictions. Paladins can fall based on a single evil act because their code says they can (although they can also fall for entirely non-evil and, yes, even for good acts--disrespect for legitimate authority, for instance, is a violation of a paladin's code, and this applies even to Lawful Evil type authority. A paladin can respectfully disagree with the evil baron, or respectfully refuse to obey his evil orders, but they can't start a rebellion movement against them; a Paladin in Latveria has to acknowledge Doctor Doom as its rightful leader.)

Alignment, though, represents a character's general moral and personal attitudes, not their actions; this is why one action can't change your alignment. Someone who would sacrifice a child to save the entire universe doesn't automatically qualify as evil unless you think that that makes their "general moral and personal attitudes" evil.

Also, note that the paladin code leaves absolutely no wriggle room on knowingly committing an evil deed. If you're saying sacrificing that child is an evil act, regardless of circumstances, then any Paladin who does it will fall instantly, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Now, I don't know if I'd agree that it's necessarily evil, but you can't talk about it being evil "even if the paladin doesn't lose their powers." The other parts of the Paladin's code are slightly looser, but if a Paladin willingly commits an evil act, they fall instantly and without exception.

Soniku
2007-03-29, 12:32 PM
A good person, such as a paladin, who did such a thing would know that they have committed evil, and would fall from grace/lose thier innocence/become less pure. This would even happen even if they didn't "fall" per the rules of paladins falling (so even if the paladin doesn't lose their powers), or even if they aren't a paladin. They would feel the need to atone for their sin, as in do penitence, not have someone cast the spell on them.



So what would a "perfect" paladin in that situation do? If it is an evil act to kill the child, the only other option is to walk away and allow everyone to die due to inaction which is an even greater evil act.

Either way the paladin has broken his code, it seems a bit hypocritical for a paladin to preach good but not be allowed to save humanity because he has to do something that if taken out of context would be evil.

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 01:21 PM
You're making a common mistake: Confusing the alignment system with a paladin's restrictions. Paladins can fall based on a single evil act because their code says they can (although they can also fall for entirely non-evil and, yes, even for good acts--disrespect for legitimate authority, for instance, is a violation of a paladin's code, and this applies even to Lawful Evil type authority. A paladin can respectfully disagree with the evil baron, or respectfully refuse to obey his evil orders, but they can't start a rebellion movement against them; a Paladin in Latveria has to acknowledge Doctor Doom as its rightful leader.)
No, I'm pretty clear on the difference between alignment, and the paladin code of conduct.

I disagree that a evil tyrant is a "legitimate authority" figure simply because he holds power. People in your order, or church hierarchy who have been placed above you would be legitimate authority figures; Baron von Evilguy of some random barony? Nope.

Different paladin orders may have different rules as to who and what the "legitimate" authority figures in the game are.


Alignment, though, represents a character's general moral and personal attitudes, not their actions; this is why one action can't change your alignment. Someone who would sacrifice a child to save the entire universe doesn't automatically qualify as evil unless you think that that makes their "general moral and personal attitudes" evil.Nope, alignment starts as your attitude but it never controls what you do; after a character is created, alignment is a reflection of your actions. Do evil, and over time it reflects that.


Also, note that the paladin code leaves absolutely no wriggle room on knowingly committing an evil deed. If you're saying sacrificing that child is an evil act, regardless of circumstances, then any Paladin who does it will fall instantly, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Now, I don't know if I'd agree that it's necessarily evil, but you can't talk about it being evil "even if the paladin doesn't lose their powers." The other parts of the Paladin's code are slightly looser, but if a Paladin willingly commits an evil act, they fall instantly and without exception.sure, by RAW... I think I've posted what I think of "by RAW" arguments enough this week; short version: this is not a debate about RAW, but a discussion about alignments and how people of different alignments perceive themselves and each other. If you want to argue RAW, there are plenty of places to do it, but it really isn't relevant here.


So what would a "perfect" paladin in that situation do? If it is an evil act to kill the child, the only other option is to walk away and allow everyone to die due to inaction which is an even greater evil act.

Either way the paladin has broken his code, it seems a bit hypocritical for a paladin to preach good but not be allowed to save humanity because he has to do something that if taken out of context would be evil.Yes I agree, it would take a cold GM indeed to present a completely no-win situation for the paladin.

A perfect paladin would have found a solution that didn't involve doing evil. Unfortunately, there aren't any perfect paladins, so the ones tat exist are doomed to strive for perfection and fail. Even an imperfect paladin would try and find a non-evil solution. At last resort, the paladin makes a judgment call and then tries his best to atone.

Foxer
2007-03-29, 04:18 PM
certainly, the feudal and communist ideals are lawful (rigid structure, limits individuals for the benefit of the state), but there's nothing in the ideal about the means that it uses to protect the common good, so it would be lawful neutral.

The means depends on the application. The philosophy is basically lawful good, but whether a given feudal society is lawful good depends on how it operates. King Arthur's court? Lawful Good - and a shining example of how the system is supposed to work. A feudal society run on the principle "might is right and the nobility can do whatever the hell they want, peasant" would be Lawful (or even Chaotic) evil.


A Capitalist ideal has no overarching structure, just individuals, and nothing about protecting the welfare of individuals; chaotic neutral.

No. According to a capitalist philosophy people must be free to earn, keep and enjoy the fruits of their productivity. That means a system of laws that, at the very least, provide freedom from violence (and the fear of violence). Definitely lawful. And since capitalism is explicitly intended to make everyone more prosperous (a rising tide floats all boats, even if it doesn't do so evenly), it is also good. It's no accident that the first modern police forces and free universal education were created in capitalist societies.

Again whether a capitalist society is Lawful or Good depends on how the philosophy is implemented. If a capitalist society includes cartelism and the active oppression of the poor, it would obviously be evil (and a perversion of the capitalist philosophy).


None of them, as ideals, are inherently good or evil; they only become that way once you start actually implementing them.

Like a lot of religions or other philosophies, most theories of government are Lawful and Good. They are intended to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. A great many thinkers have spent a great deal of time wondering "what is the best system of government, and how should it be implemented?(1)" Very few (if any) social systems have been formulated by somebody thinking "how can I make the maximum amount of people suffer with the minimum amount of effort?"

But as with a religion or a philosophy, there is often a massive gap between theory and practice. Just as you can have a sadistic inquisitor who ostensibly serves a lawful good faith, you can have a capitalist (or communist or what-have-you) who perverts the lawful good philosophy they claim to believe in. And to return to the OP, people like that would justify or excuse their actions by claiming adherence to that philosophy ("yes, Comrade, I shot that dissident, but I did it for the Party, so it can't have been evil" or "yes, I lobbied to prevent stricter safety standards in the mining industry. My company can't afford to implement them; we'd have to close the mine and that would cause poverty and misery for the community our business supports").

(1) Which isn't to say that, historically, the theory necessarily came first. Most political philosophers started out working with the system they grew up with, i.e. they looked at the set-up in their own country and thought "how should it work?"

Jayabalard
2007-03-29, 05:48 PM
I've already stated how I felt; political ideologies themselves are neither good or evil unless they include something about the means that is used to achieve the end. None of what you've said included that.

And capitalism doesn't mean protection from violence, and it certainly doesn't require any laws to govern commerce; to me that's clearly chaotic rather than lawful.

"Good for the greatest number of people" isn't necessarily good, evil or neutral... it's all about how you actually achieve that...so unless you start spelling that out in the ideology, it's neutral in it's purest form, not good or evil.

Demented
2007-03-29, 06:29 PM
Assuming all laws are means, then a government will nearly always be neutral, since 90% of a government's laws will be regulating Neutral issues, assuming it is not a solely a criminal court.

Unless you consider tax laws to be Evil and aid programs to be Good.


I would say Capitalism is more Neutral than Chaotic. It's stable and predictable, with no particular flexibility or inflexbility.

More Chaotic (but still Neutral) is a Free Market economy. You may sell and buy anything, be it slaves or medical supplies. You may even buy medical supplies with slaves, if you can find a seller with a hard stomach. In a Free Market, there is no Black Market. Of course, that could potentially be considered Evil, since it places the sanctity of commerce over the sanctity of the individual....

A chaotic ideal would be anarchy, despotism, or perhaps a system of government where the laws are reforged periodically.

ElHugo
2007-03-29, 06:56 PM
Well, I'd say morality, as such, is ultimately absolute, as any given action, at the very bottom line, is either good (net effect beneficial to humanity), neutral (net effect of good and bad on humanity zero) or evil (net effect adverse to humanity). There are three characteristics of an action, which could be considered when trying to decide where it falls:
Intent - do you do what you do because you honestly believe it will be to the greater good?
Action - is your action itself inherently good (or, as most examples go, evil)
Consequence - are the ultimate results of your actions beneficial to humanity.
(note that I'm going to leave out the entire racial conflicts in DnD out of this. My underslept brain can't handle it right now).

The problem is here, which is more important of these three? Taking the killing a child to prevent the destruction of the universe action, lets look at this:

Intent: it might "good" if your motivation was to prevent the end of all life. However, maybe you care only about your own ass, and maybe that of those that you love/consider useful, which might make your intent neutral at best, arguably evil.

Action: no debate here, you're killing an innocent child, killing an innocent is evil.

Consequence: no debate here (in my opinion), it's a good consequence. The consequence is the loss of a single of a single, as opposed to the loss of all life, including that of the child to begin here.

So, what do you decide is more important here? I would probably have to go with intent. Doing something you honestly believe to be for the greater good can make you misguided, but it will not make you evil. Of course, where do you place the value of a single human life, especially when not weighed directly against other lives? I'd say it's fair to say that in general principle, all human life has the same value. But what about physical suffering, loss of income or possesions, experiencing unpleasant discomfort, mutilation, loss of freedom, etc. etc... Still, that´s a side-debate.

Actions? Although Paladins might be strictly limited here, there are good people that aren't paladins, and they can do things that, when taken out of context, could be evil, when the price of every alternative action would be greater then the price of the action itself, and still be ´good´ in my book.

Lastly, consequences. Foreseen consequences will already be covered in intent, whereas I don't think people can be held morally unaccountable for consequences they honestly didn't foresee. They can be held financially accountable, maybe even criminally, but morality implies a choice, while you per definition didn't make a choice about what you didn't foresee, hence, it simply doesn't factor in.

In conclusion: intent is IMO the prime motivator in good and evil. Taking evil actions to a good extent is questionable, but someone of honestly good intent wouldn't take an evil action if they didn't honestly consider it to be necessary/worth the price of the action, compared to the alternatives they have.

Of course, that only skirts around the issue of what actually IS good or evil, just how to judge a single person or action within this framework, so lets take a much shorter shot at that as well...

I would argue from a purely utalitarian versus selfishness point of view here:
good actions are those actions that maximise positive effects for the largest amount of people, in a surface-of-the-square made of number of people affected by goodness of the effect, minus surface-of-the-square number of people by degree of badness they suffer. If the "positive surface" exceeds the "negative surface", it's a good act. I am not sure wether to not include yourself at all, but I tend more towards not weighing anyones' effect. In this view, giving all your gold to an urchin might actually be "less good" then giving a large part of it, as the urchin gains less positive effect from the last gold coin then you lose by giving it away, so I´m not sure what position to adopt.

On the other hand, evil would simply be concerned with their own max net benefit, the effect on anyone else is irrelevant, while neutrality might be considering everyone´s needs, but giving a moderate extra weight to your own. After all, the moment you also look out for yourself, you're not automatically evil. It could also be argued that good character do not factor themselves in, while neutrals evenly factor themselves, but this way, a neutral would still be compelled to give quite some gold to the proverbial urchin, as the urchin would derive more benefit from that gold then you would lose from not having it. I also can't really force myself to take a position here, but if I *had* to, I would say that good factors itself in at a lower weight then a single other, neutrals at a slightly higher, and evils don't care about the other at all.


Anyhow, as this is growing into a huge novel, I'll end it here. Maybe I´ll post about law and chaos later. Have a Good day everyone :-)

Soniku
2007-03-29, 07:29 PM
I also can't really force myself to take a position here, but if I *had* to, I would say that good factors itself in at a lower weight then a single other, neutrals at a slightly higher, and evils don't care about the other at all.

Now this is where I differ from a lot of people. Personally, I may be a good guy. I might be the sort who gives old books to charity, helps build a school in an under-funded area for free and so on and so on, all that standard community hero type stuff, but that doesn't mean the person will value their own opinions or wants at a lower level than any other individual. If you took your average good-guy Mc. Joe and put him in a situation where either he was going to be shot or his friendly next door neighbor bob I would bet that nine times out of ten Joe would run for his life as most humans see survival as more important than being the good guy.

Sure, it might well be different for paladins, but this is just your average good guy.

However, Joe would be more likely to take on moderate danger to help out someone (especially if it was someone he knows and/or knows that he has no chance of being seriously injured) than evil-dude Tim.

But again different factors come into play. Sure, Tim might be evil, but that doesn't mean he's not human (or elf, or whatever), if you told him he could either save a baby from a burning building or wander off to the sushi bar (he likes sushi) he would most likely wander off and devour some raw fish products, most likely with a twang of guilt because he's not your kids cartoon bad guy with no sense of humanity, but why should -he- have put his life at risk to save some baby he didn't know?

But then, what if it was -his- baby boy in the building? Or his wife, or pet kitty? Sure, it's flaming and theres a good chance he would die, but even someone who would steal the presents from Santa who's delivering presents to orphans on Christmas eve will almost certainly care for someone or something enough to put his own life at risk and have his hero moment.



There are a lot of factors involved, and sometime it will just be a spur of the moment adrenaline rush or a stray "why should I" thought in the mind of a usually good guy that will determine how the person in question will place his own well being in comparison to others.

Sardia
2007-03-29, 09:23 PM
A Capitalist ideal has no overarching structure, just individuals, and nothing about protecting the welfare of individuals; chaotic neutral.

I'd definitely go with Neutral on that one, but not necessarily chaotic-- for capitalism to exist, you've got to have some means of enforcing agreements, protecting property, and (ideally) running a system of finance.
Picture what a chaotic neutral banker would look like...

Sardia
2007-03-29, 09:28 PM
I would argue from a purely utalitarian versus selfishness point of view here:
good actions are those actions that maximise positive effects for the largest amount of people...

There's one big problem here-- by that standard, a physician who picked a person off the street and carved him up for parts to be distributed to other people who needed them to live and be healthier would be performing a good act-- one person dies who would have lived, half a dozen people live who would otherwise die. The net gain is huge, but I doubt anyone would consider the organ harvester good outside of theory.

Demented
2007-03-29, 10:18 PM
Picture what a chaotic neutral banker would look like...

You want to withdraw funds? It's urgent? There's a bomb attached to your ankle? I'm sorry, I'm currently on my lunch break. The time? Oh, it's 2:23 PM. So? A lunch break is a lunch break. I don't care what time it is.

Olethros
2007-03-29, 11:56 PM
Favorite back against the wall character ever played, a palladin in ravenloft.

Stephen_E
2007-03-30, 12:53 AM
Just a side issue -

Detect Evil (Good ecetre) doesn't per se detect what your alignment is. In fact of the 5 things that trigger a "Detect Evil", been of evil alignment is the weakest (don't tell me that's dumb. I'm just applying the RAW here).

In order from strongest down
1a) Cleric of an Evil God (remember you can be Neutral and Worship an Evil God).
1b) Have the "Evil Outsider" Subtype. Most creatures with the "Evil Outsider" type are evil, but it isn't automatic. As per RAW (MM Glossary) rare creatures aren't. Since DnD campaigns are generally full of the rare and exceptional you can probably put this at about 1 in a 100.
2a) Undead. Note Inteligent undead in particular aren't required to be of Evil alignment, but they'll still detect as evil.
2b) Evil Magic Items or Spells. Lets be blunt. Spells don't have an "Alingment" but thet doesn't stop them detecting as such.
3) And finally those who are of Evil Aligment AND have lots of levels detect as Evil. Basically you have to be 5-10 times as powerful as the other examples (which may actually be good in some cases) to detect as "Evil" to the same degree.

Stephen

Snooder
2007-03-30, 03:19 AM
Actually they don't need to have lots of levels to detect as evil. It's just not as strong. So your run-of-the-mill goblin would have a rather faint aura while the Necromantic Arch-priest of Nerull would glow with a tainted evil aura. Detect evil still gets em both, but the priest is much more palpable.

Snooder
2007-03-30, 03:24 AM
Favorite back against the wall character ever played, a palladin in ravenloft.

Yeah i've played that. First my first pally got slaughtered so the cleric could live. Then his mount got killed and turned undead. Then my second pally got turned into a vampire. I switched to a spellcaster.

Foxer
2007-03-30, 03:55 AM
I've already stated how I felt; political ideologies themselves are neither good or evil unless they include something about the means that is used to achieve the end. None of what you've said included that.

Yes I have. Communism provides for the common good by creating a shared pool of resources. Capitalism provides for the common good by using a reward system to make everyone more prosperous. Feudalism provides for the common good by a strict hierarchy of mutually-supportive social roles.

Whether that philosophy is implemented in a Lawful or Good fashion depends on the given society. For instance, a bunch of settlers on a deserted island might adopt a communist social set-up and just peacefully agree to pool their resources. On the other hand, implementing the communist philosophy in an existing, feudal society might require bloody revolution.


And capitalism doesn't mean protection from violence, and it certainly doesn't require any laws to govern commerce; to me that's clearly chaotic rather than lawful.

I'm sorry, but what? A capitalist society cannot exist unless people are free to earn and enjoy the fruits of their labours. If somebody can just come and take your hard-earned stuff, there's no incentive to create wealth and the whole system collapses. To have capitalism, you must also have property rights, and a system of laws to protect those rights. True, capitalism doesn't require much in the way of commercial law (although depending on the implementation of the capitalist philosophy, a given capitalist society might have lots of commercial law), but that does not equal chaotic.


"Good for the greatest number of people" isn't necessarily good, evil or neutral... it's all about how you actually achieve that...so unless you start spelling that out in the ideology, it's neutral in it's purest form, not good or evil.

An ideology cannot spell out step-by-step instructions on how to achieve its aims. That isn't what ideologies are. The best they can do is offer a broad outline, such as the creation of a social system. What you need to do to get there depends on the situation on the ground.

Jayabalard
2007-03-30, 08:51 AM
A capitalist society cannot exist unless people are free to earn and enjoy the fruits of their labours. Which doesn't require a structured society, and it doesn't even necessarily need any laws. I still don't see anything to make it not a chaotic, and certainly nothing that is strong enough to counter the importance placed on the individual in a capitalism.


An ideology cannot spell out step-by-step instructions on how to achieve its aims. That isn't what ideologies are. The best they can do is offer a broad outline, such as the creation of a social system. What you need to do to get there depends on the situation on the ground.I agree, which is why I consider that the ideology itself to be neutral. The good or evil only exists in the actual implementation.

Woot Spitum
2007-03-30, 09:10 AM
I think of law versus chaos as interdependence versus independence. That being said, I think both the terms can be rather subjective, due to the fact that laws vary widely from place to place. If we were to discuss law/chaos outside the bounds of society, it would probably come down to an individual's prsonal standards. A lawful person would have an internal code of things that he will and will not do, and would adhere to it fairly rigidly (this code having nothing to do with good and evil, just personal standards). A chaotic person might have certain ideas, but would have little trouble changing them on a whim. There are pros and cons to both.

Foxer
2007-03-30, 09:11 AM
I agree, which is whyI consider that the ideology itself to be neutral. The good or evil only exists in the actual implementation.

Obviously, I don't accept that ideologies have to neutral (otherwise we wouldn't be arguing). As far as I am concerned, a person's ideology guides their actions and is therefore just as capable of being "good" or "evil" as the person themselves. If I do good because I subscribe to an ideology, that ideology must be good. If I do ill because I'm following an ideology, it must be evil (and so must I). That doesn't preclude the possibility of my doing good or evil in spite of my code. I could be a bad follower of a good faith, for example.

Of course, that's a real-life understanding, and you'd be entitled to dispute that it's the right approach for D&D, so let me answer that too.

A cleric or paladin can serve a cause (PhB pg 30) rather than a deity. In the case of a cleric, I would have thought that their cause or ideology needs to have an alignment they must remain within one step of, just as a cleric of a deity must remain within one step of his god's alignment. A "cleric of capitalism" or a "cleric of communism" would be perfectly possible if they had genuine faith in their social philosophy.

(And I now want to create a Soviet vampire hunter so I can play a cleric of communism)

On capitalism:

Capitalism is the social philosophy which states that the greatest social good is achieved through the generation of wealth.

You cannot generate wealth if you don't have property rights. If you can wander over to my place and help yourself to the rewards of my labours, I'm not going to bother acquiring property at all and the whole system fails. Right at its fundamental level capitalism contains a social contract that states "my stuff belongs to me and other people's stuff belongs to them; I don't take theirs and they don't take mine." That's a Lawful proposition, right there. You say that capitalism places a great deal of importance on the individual, but how is that anything but lawful? Capitalism might well grant more personal freedom than, say, communism, but it still insists on limitations to that freedom (starting with "you can't take my stuff" and working upwards from there).

You build me a capitalist system that does away with that proposed social contract and limitations on the freedom of the individual, and maybe I'll buy the notion that capitalism can be chaotic.

Jayabalard
2007-03-30, 11:13 AM
Yes, capitalism does assume the rights of the individuals, but there is nothing to the idea that that has to be maintained by a system of laws. Individuals having Rights/freedom is toward the Chaos side of alignment vs Individuals being limited by rules and regulations is toward the law side of alignment. In capitalism's case, it's about the individual's right to control the means of production, contrasted with communism, where the state controls it.

Capitalism
-rights of individual to produce and own wealth
-distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a free market; the state does not interfere (Laissez-faire).

Communism and Feudalism
-responsibilities for individuals to produce wealth for the common good (communism) / for others (feudalism)
-distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined by the state.

Foxer
2007-03-30, 11:57 AM
Yes, capitalism does assume the rights of the individuals, but there is nothing to the idea that that has to be maintained by a system of laws.

Capitalism - or any social system - chooses to grant those rights. They are allowed for and limited by the system. An individual's actions are explicitly limited to those which the system allows, and any such system of rights and privileges is a lawful construct, even if it hasn't been enshrined in a statute-book. Custom and tradition are just as "lawful" as formal laws.

The fact that capitalism imposes relatively few restrictions does not make it non-lawful. I might accept that the philosophy is neutral, in the sense that since capitalism imposes the fewest possible restrictions on the individual it lies between Law and Chaos, but not that capitalism is chaotic.

A genuinely chaotic society would have no concept of property, no notion that a person's wealth is their's alone, and no notion that being a member of that society bestows certain rights, privileges or duties.

In fact, I cannot think of one single social group that lives (or lived) according to the so-called principles of chaos. Even violent feud societies like Medieval Iceland had a clear social order, tradition and system.

Jayabalard
2007-03-30, 12:31 PM
A genuinely chaotic society would have no concept of property, no notion that a person's wealth is their's alone, and no notion that being a member of that society bestows certain rights, privileges or duties. That would be anarchism, the prototype chaotic society ideology; I'll agree that is more chaotic... but just because it goes to the furthest extreme, that doesn't mean that capitalism isn't also. Capatilism is closer to anarchy than it is to communism.

Foxer
2007-03-30, 12:59 PM
That would be anarchism, the prototype chaotic society ideology; I'll agree that is more chaotic... but just because it goes to the furthest extreme, that doesn't mean that capitalism isn't also. Capatilism is closer to anarchy than it is to communism.

Anarchism as a social ideology? Don't make me laugh! Anarchism is the opposite of a social ideology, a rejection of the very notion of "society." If Anarchism could build a society it wouldn't be anarchy, would it? A bunch of people in the same approximate geographical area doing whatever they feel like is not a society.

And as for capitalism being closer to anarchy than it is to communism... please. A capitalist system is just as opposed to anarchy as it is to communism. Anarchism would deny the basic social contract that capitalism is founded on, and the two are utterly antithetical to one another.

Snaeferu
2007-04-01, 07:00 AM
About the child vs. the world dilemma,

A Lawful Good Paladin worth his title would know that two sacrifices was required here, the child and himself. .

Anything else would mean that he holds his own purity above others well being which is selfish and far from “Good”

He would even have to insist that he do the killing lest he condemn someone else to do it (again to save his own virtue)

Self sacrifice is a cornerstone of Good.

Talya
2007-04-01, 09:24 AM
The evil nice guy could still be extremely nice...until he really needs something to go his way. Neutral Evil might be best at this-- the guy's a perfect charmer until he needs to save his own hide or stands to gain great personal benefit, then he either runs away and abandons his allies, or lies, cheats, etc.


Ever read War of the spider queen?

This is Pharaun the Chaotic Evil drow wizard, although he's unapologetically like this. After all, he's drow. He can like you, respect you, genuinely enjoy your company. And he'll be friendly and cheerful and show comraderie....but in the end, if he'll benefit from it, he'll roast you alive.

Talya
2007-04-01, 09:27 AM
Anarchism as a social ideology? Don't make me laugh! Anarchism is the opposite of a social ideology, a rejection of the very notion of "society." If Anarchism could build a society it wouldn't be anarchy, would it? A bunch of people in the same approximate geographical area doing whatever they feel like is not a society.


Technically the rejection of society in its entirety is a social ideology.

cucchulainnn
2007-04-01, 12:36 PM
I don’t think the demon child works for this discussion. This I think is a more difficult choice. You’re a paladin who has been given quest to find out about a plague that has already killed thousands with the potential of killing billions upon billions and to stop it any way necessary. You’re well respected by allies and foes and enjoy a loving reputation. You’re a powerful, faithfully good paladin and loosening you would be horrible blow to the forces of good. After working with doctors, clerics and extensive research you discover
1- you have made an oath to find and remedy the plague, because of the oath it is your personal responsibly to remedy it.
2- the plague has carriers and people who die.
3- the carriers show no visible signs of having the plague
4- infected people who are not carriers die a slow very painful death that creates bleeding thought the skin, dark bruises, the tongue to swells making eating very painful so that not only do you die from the plague you starve to death and other horrible things.
5- only carriers spread the plague, interacting with the carriers two or three times is all that is necessary to become infected.
6- there is no cure for this plague magic or medical for either form of it.
7- the plague dies with the carriers, or should I say lives with the carrier, so that if you kill the carrier and resurrect them the plague comes back with the carrier. After the carrier dies the body has to be incinerated to complete stop the threat of infection.
8- you have traced it to two carriers, one an evil gangster who is hated and the other a loved 4 year old child who is a complete innocent, pure good, unblemished, pure of heart. The gangster and child have contracted the plague through no fault of their own, so have absolutely no guilt related to this.
9- the child is far to young to take care of him/her self if left alone (some place like and island) will starve to death. Any one staying to care for him/her will surely become infected, condemning the keeper to never have contact with any one expect his/her charge for ever. If kept in a jail cell the jailer who delivered food would have a very strong probability of contracting the plague either becoming a carrier or dieing thus reintroducing the plague to the world.
10- Only you and your small group of researchers know understand any of this, because of the lack of visible signs the general population would not believe you anyway. The gangster kind of understands and dose not care, he wants to live free by any means necessary. The child is too young to understand and only knows that his friends keep dieing.
11- killing an innocent outright is evil and will cause you to fall (in my opinion), isolating the child will cause the innocent to die by starvation take a few weeks, you can avoid the fall this way but the death would still be on your hands only indirectly.
12- killing the child will destroy your reputation causing you to be hated at best the general population to shun you and doing things like run you out of towns.
13- letting the innocent live unhindered will directly cause the death of billions

I haven’t DMed since the early 1990’s with AD&D. our group used a lot of house rules and based paladins on the Arthurian mythology concept of knighthood and paladins. As in Lancelot became a fallen paladin through adultery with his best friends wife, and Percival and Galahad are pure of heart type paladins. Of course that is open to debate. We tried follow the morals of the dark ages and middle ages as laid down in things like Beowulf, Arthurian and Norse mythology and Icelandic sagas. Or should I say we tried to use the alignment system with in the frame work of those morals.

I use this example because dark-age and medieval morals seem to very much to be rapped up in oaths, oath keeping and breaking. To me some one who is lawful would rather die then break and oath. A neutral person would try to keep an oath and a chaotic person really doesn’t care.

The way I would have DMed the above scenario would be if (intentions would be taken into consideration) if the paladin when into it intentionally sacrificing him self, his reputation, his paladin-hood, killing the child would cause him/her to fall but the sacrifice would be redeeming, canceling out he fall. The reputation would remain ruined and be used as a new dynamic in role playing. In my world sacrificing your self would not work if you conclusions about your options are wrong. meaning that you have to be very careful in making this decision.

I honestly don’t know how the new rules would require me to handle it thoe.

cucchulainnn
2007-04-01, 12:46 PM
About the child vs. the world dilemma,

A Lawful Good Paladin worth his title would know that two sacrifices was required here, the child and himself. .

Anything else would mean that he holds his own purity above others well being which is selfish and far from “Good”

He would even have to insist that he do the killing lest he condemn someone else to do it (again to save his own virtue)

Self sacrifice is a cornerstone of Good.

i completely agree with you.

Demented
2007-04-01, 05:11 PM
This thread isn't really about that debate. It's about how each alignment justifies itself as Lawful Good. Well, it was. Then it became an argument over whether capitalism is chaotic. Pshaw.

That said, an interesting wrench in the Child/Paladin argument was made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2292760&postcount=145), but was passed over as far as I can tell.

Caledonian
2007-04-01, 09:06 PM
D&D people won't call themselves Good if they're Evil, because 'Good' is a label for a moral position. It's not the same as 'good', meaning 'desirable' or 'right'.

Think of it more as Party Red vs. Party Blue. Someone who's part of Party Red might consider Party Blue to be utterly wrong - and if they associate that label strongly enough with wrongness, might wonder why anyone would describe themselves as 'Party Blue' - but people belonging to Party Blue would describe themselves as being in the right.

Evil people consider their positions to be correct just as Good people do. They think Good is wrong and not-good, while Evil is good and right.

Don't get hung up on the fact that the words used to describe the alignment polarities have everyday meanings, too.

Sardia
2007-04-01, 09:08 PM
D&D people won't call themselves Good if they're Evil, because 'Good' is a label for a moral position. It's not the same as 'good', meaning 'desirable' or 'right'.

Think of it more as Party Red vs. Party Blue. Someone who's part of Party Red might consider Party Blue to be utterly wrong - and if they associate that label strongly enough with wrongness, might wonder why anyone would describe themselves as 'Party Blue' - but people belonging to Party Blue would describe themselves as being in the right.

Evil people consider their positions to be correct just as Good people do. They think Good is wrong and not-good, while Evil is good and right.

Don't get hung up on the fact that the words used to describe the alignment polarities have everyday meanings, too.

Exactly-- I was just pondering what everyone's take on how each group justifies itself to itself as being the truly lawful and good ones among the bunch.

"I'm good because..."

Sage in the Playground
2007-04-01, 09:15 PM
This thread isn't really about that debate. It's about how each alignment justifies itself as Lawful Good. Well, it was. Then it became an argument over whether capitalism is chaotic. Pshaw.

That said, an interesting wrench in the Child/Paladin argument was made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2292760&postcount=145), but was passed over as far as I can tell.

If Good is willing to sacrifice a child's soul to prove a point, thats not really good, or any idea of good worth beleiving in.

Caledonian
2007-04-01, 09:16 PM
The alignment definition of Lawful doesn't really differ from the everyday use of 'lawful', and so not only would people in the different alignments not be likely to describe themselves that way, neither do players.

Each alignment might describe itself as good (not Good), but the non-Lawful ones would be unlikely to be self-described as lawful.

I think what I'm trying to say is that your question needs to be altered slightly. It's been a long time since D&D took it for granted that Lawful Good really was the best alignment.

Nowhere Girl
2007-04-01, 11:11 PM
I'll throw in my two cents', for what it's worth.

First off, logically, "lawful" cannot simply mean "always adheres strictly to local laws, whatever they may be." Really. It can't. In order for it to mean that, one of two things would have to be true:

1. The PC is bats**t crazy. He or she has a moral/ethical outlook that flips and twirls and whips around like gauze in a gale. Yank said PC out of modern Western society and drop him/her in ancient Rome, and instantly he/she is totally for slavery because it's the law. Before, he/she was totally against it. He/she also has, overnight, an entirely different set of expectations and operates on a completely changed set of ethical standards.

2. The PC is basically a comformist coward who lacks the strength of conviction to stand up for what he/she believes in, or who really doesn't believe in anything and will just mindlessly say "yes sir" to anything.

No. No, no, no. Wrong. That is not what lawful should mean, or even what I think it was intended to mean.

Here's what I see each of the alignment terms as meaning:

Lawful: Lawful characters adhere strictly to a code of conduct of some kind. This isn't just an undefined "I have a code, but nevermind what exactly it is" -- rather, it's a set of ethical rules that the character considers important enough to follow even when it's horribly inconvenient to do so. Examples include (but are not limited to) always honoring his/her word, never lying "in support of a greater truth," and the Bushido concept of (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here, of course) "succeed or die." To a lawful character, the principles that form his or her code of conduct are extremely important, and to discard them would bring far more harm than whatever small "in the moment" benefit he or she might get out of it. In the mind of a lawful character, to steal a line from a very obscure book, "There are no 'mere' points of honor."

Chaotic: Chaotic characters are, of course, the exact opposite. To them, the ends justify the means, rules were made to be broken, and "honor" is a waste of perfectly good opportunity. They might claim to be honorable people, and they might even convince themselves that they are, but any "rules" they claim to follow, if they bother to come up with any to follow in the first place, will quickly be discarded or "temporarily set aside" when they become even slightly inconvenient.

Neutral (with respect to Law/Chaos): This one is really tricky. A lot of people will argue -- and have a good case in so doing -- that you either adhere to a code, or you don't; you can't "kind of" adhere to a code. But for the purposes of interpreting the alignments, I'd take neutrality with respect to law/chaos as being basically "chaotic lite." You lack the conviction to really adhere to a code, but you like to think you have one, and you probably stick to it most of the time, only really scrapping it when it seriously inconveniences you.

Good: It's right there in the book: "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Would you run out into traffic to push that child out of the way of an oncoming car, in the process putting yourself at risk? Do you volunteer time to help the homeless (assuming you have time available that you could use that way)? Congratulations: you're good.

Evil: Again, it's right there in the book: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Are you a Mafia wiseguy? A serial killer? A wealthy capitalist who pays your employees as little as humanly possible, gives them horrible working conditions and long hours, and lays them off when it's more immediately profitable to do so? Congratulations: you're evil.

Neutral (with respect to Good/Evil): And ... it's right there in the book: Neutral people "... lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." Which, really, is probably most people. If you're neutral, you'd still fight tooth and nail on behalf of your own child, your brother/sister, your best friend, etc. You'd even make personal sacrifices for them! But you wouldn't make personal sacrifices for strangers. You probably don't go around exploiting/harming others for your own gain or amusement (that's evil), but you wouldn't make sacrifices to prevent or stop such things (although you might do it for pay). You're probably the type who "looks the other way." If you actively get involved in fighting evil, it's probably as a well-paid mercenary. And let's be honest: even if in some small way, you take a little satisfaction from having done some good, really you're in it for the money.

Foxer
2007-04-02, 05:06 AM
Evil: Again, it's right there in the book: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Are you a Mafia wiseguy? A serial killer? A wealthy capitalist who pays your employees as little as humanly possible, gives them horrible working conditions and long hours, and lays them off when it's more immediately profitable to do so? Congratulations: you're evil.

But the question was how such a person would define themselves? Yes, you can be an evil capitalist, nobody's arguing that, but an evil capitalist isn't going to call himself "evil".

He would either deny the existence of the good-evil spectrum ("evil is just a label people use to describe guys like me, who have the balls to do what everyone else is too afraid to do") or he would claim to be good, on the basis of the external code he claims to subscribe to ("capitalism is good, I'm a capitalist, therefore I am good"). Obviously, I would say that such a claim is spurious, but that won't stop him making it.

Another example I gave was of the inquisitor in the service of a Lawful Good faith. The inquisitor is evil - he loves putting people to the question and torturing them into recanting their "heretical" beliefs - but he would claim to have the same alignment (or moral outlook, since alignment is a game mechanic that a character is likely to be unaware of) as the rest of his church.

Sardia said:


Exactly-- I was just pondering what everyone's take on how each group justifies itself to itself as being the truly lawful and good ones among the bunch.

"I'm good because..."

I guess what you're really asking here is "what do the non-Lawful and non-Good people perceive as being the virtues of their outlook?" and I guess there are a whole host of answers. Chaotic Evil person A probably has a very different answer to Chaotic Evil persons B through Z.

In fact, even amongst the Lawful and the Good, there are people who subscribe to different interpretations of what constitutes virtue. For instance, an ascetic monk would probably call self-denial "good" in and of itself, despite the fact that it doesn't help anybody.

Still, I'll have a crack at an answer:

Ogda is an orc warrior, and a lawful evil member of the faith of Gruumsh. Ogda is a "good" orc (by his own lights) because:

1. "I obey the clan chiefs Gruumsh put over me."
2. "I practice with my spear and shield, to strengthen my body and hone my skills so that I might serve Gruumsh better."
3. "I slew Darga and took his women. Orcs are the image of Gruumsh and weaklings like Darga should not be allowed to pollute that image by fathering children."
4. "When Urgtha tried to take the women I took from Darga, I let him live. Despite his youth, Urgtha is a talented fighter and will be a great warrior one day. It would have been wasteful to slay such a servant of Gruumsh."
5. "Three times have I led war-bands into the forest to slay elves. One day we will slay all the elves and fulfill the destiny Gruumsh assigned for us."

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 06:21 AM
But the question was how such a person would define themselves? Yes, you can be an evil capitalist, nobody's arguing that, but an evil capitalist isn't going to call himself "evil".

No, but he would call himself Evil if he lived in a D&D world, just as he would call himself 'capitalist' because it's the term that describes his economic views.


or he would claim to be good, on the basis of the external code he claims to subscribe to ("capitalism is good, I'm a capitalist, therefore I am good"). Obviously, I would say that such a claim is spurious, but that won't stop him making it.

Well, of course he'd claim to be good! He simply wouldn't claim to be Good.

And that is why it was a bad idea to name that alignment axis 'Good-Evil', because people use those words in multiple, overlapping ways, and those are particular titles.

Foxer
2007-04-02, 07:07 AM
To paraphrase Mama Bitterleaf's little boy:

"How much crap do we have to go through because nobody at TSR had a thesaurus?"

What would be a better pair of names?

Jayabalard
2007-04-02, 07:58 AM
D&D people won't call themselves Good if they're Evil, because 'Good' is a label for a moral position. It's not the same as 'good', meaning 'desirable' or 'right'.

Think of it more as Party Red vs. Party Blue. Someone who's part of Party Red might consider Party Blue to be utterly wrong - and if they associate that label strongly enough with wrongness, might wonder why anyone would describe themselves as 'Party Blue' - but people belonging to Party Blue would describe themselves as being in the right.

Evil people consider their positions to be correct just as Good people do. They think Good is wrong and not-good, while Evil is good and right.

Don't get hung up on the fact that the words used to describe the alignment polarities have everyday meanings, too.no, when people in the game talk about good and evil, they use the terms just like people in the real world do.

Good and Evil, the alignments, are metagame concepts; they have no place in the actual game. Characters are no more likely to discuss it than they are to discuss their character levels, or how many plusses a magic weapon has.

so people with Neutral and Evil alignments are very likely to see themselves as "good" and call themselves good.

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 08:51 AM
no, when people in the game talk about good and evil, they use the terms just like people in the real world do.

Good and Evil, the alignments, are metagame concepts; they have no place in the actual game. Except for all of the spells that interact with those alignments, like "Detect Good" or "Smite Evil".


so people with Neutral and Evil alignments are very likely to see themselves as "good" and call themselves good.

Correct. They will not, however, call themselves Good.

Jayabalard
2007-04-02, 09:01 AM
Except for all of the spells that interact with those alignments, like "Detect Good" or "Smite Evil".There's no reason for characters to assume that that means anything different than "detect good" and "smite evil".


Correct. They will not, however, call themselves Good./shrug
since there's no in-character difference between Good and good, why not? Alignments don't exist as far as the characters know.

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 09:09 AM
Alignments don't exist as far as the characters know.

Unless they cast Summon spells, or Protection from X spells, or are Clerics or Paladins, or have Knowledge: Religion or Knowledge: The Planes.

Then they'll know.

The four alignments are some of the most basic elements of the D&D cosmos. Everyday people won't talk about them much, the same way everyday people don't discuss the four fundamental forces of physics, but they're still there.

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 09:16 AM
Alignments are objective. Right and wrong aren't (in any useful sense). The problems arise because people want Good to be right and Evil to be wrong, when that isn't necessarily the case in D&D. (Or in real life, but that's a very contentious topic.)

hewhosaysfish
2007-04-02, 09:40 AM
Well, of course he'd claim to be good! He simply wouldn't claim to be Good.

And that is why it was a bad idea to name that alignment axis 'Good-Evil', because people use those words in multiple, overlapping ways, and those are particular titles.


Then I shall, for the sake of this post and this post only, rename them! In unsubtle paradoy of the law-chaos/left-right parallels, I shall name them Up and Down. This also ties in nicelty with the Outer Planes in DnD being classified as Upper and Lower.

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

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

So, having set some sort of terminology, let's begin.

Paladins are Lawful Upity. This means that they believe that both Law and Up are good. They believe that Down is evil and that Chaos is at besy foolish and misguided, at worst just as evil as Down.

People in this world tend to, or at least aspire to, similar values. We praise Up and call it "good" (which is where the original confusion arose in the first place: we use the word "good" to describe Up).

The orc in Foxer's example holds different definitions. He believes that Down is good because Gruumsh is Downy, and beleives that Up is evil because it encourages weakness. It is possible that the Orc word for Down is the same as (or a synonym) their word for "evil" (or maybe "strong"). The commands an Orc would give to a dog, for example, might if translated literally come out as: "Sit! Siiiit! Evil dog, evil dog! Roll over! That's strong! Evil boy! Fetch! No, that's my axe, fetch the stick. Fetch the stick! Hey! COME BACK WITH MY AXE! GOOD DOG! GOOD DOG! Weak dog...!"
This would obviously be very confusing and explanatory footnotes would have ot be included in all Orc-English dictionaries, as to the differences between the literal translation and the accurate one.

Jayabalard
2007-04-02, 10:32 AM
Unless they cast Summon spells, or Protection from X spells, or are Clerics or Paladins, or have Knowledge: Religion or Knowledge: The Planes.

Then they'll know.

The four alignments are some of the most basic elements of the D&D cosmos. Everyday people won't talk about them much, the same way everyday people don't discuss the four fundamental forces of physics, but they're still there.Nope
Summon spells bring creatures from speicifc places, not just using metagame knowledge to summon from <insert alignment zone here>.

Protection from X spells are just protection from good, protection from evil, etc. No metagame knowledge of alignment is involved.

Knowledge: Religion or Knowledge: the planes include information about deities and the planes of existence respectively , but not anything about the metagame concepts of their alignment.

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 06:19 PM
Nope
Summon spells bring creatures from speicifc places, not just using metagame knowledge to summon from <insert alignment zone here>.

And casting the spells is an evil/good/chaotic/lawful action, depending on the nature of the being summoned. There are no "specific" places, there are only specific creatures.


Protection from X spells are just protection from good, protection from evil, etc. No metagame knowledge of alignment is involved.

Um, no. If Evil people viewed themselves as good and Good as evil, don't you think people would be confused when an Evil-cast Protection from Evil warded off allies instead of enemies?

Do you also think that Chaotic people call themselves 'lawful', and Lawful 'chaotic'?


Knowledge: Religion or Knowledge: the planes include information about deities and the planes of existence respectively , but not anything about the metagame concepts of their alignment.

Those aren't metagame concepts.

Jayabalard
2007-04-02, 07:27 PM
Do you also think that Chaotic people call themselves 'lawful', and Lawful 'chaotic'?I have never once heard anyone in the real world say that they were lawful or chaotic except in reference to a RPG.... so I would say that lawful and chaotic people call themselves "good" or "proper" and the other ones "evil" or "bad"

That of course might be different if you modeled a game world after the world of Recluse for example, Where the situation is Order vs Chaos, and even in that case the lawful people refer to themselves as good and refer to the chaotic people as evil, even though you can see later on that that isn't necessarily the case.


Those aren't metagame concepts.Yup, alignment is always metagame. They have nothing to do with anything in character.

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 08:17 PM
I have never once heard anyone in the real world say that they were lawful or chaotic except in reference to a RPG.... so I would say that lawful and chaotic people call themselves "good" or "proper" and the other ones "evil" or "bad"

Yes, but if you ask someone who'd know about such things, they will describe themselves as Lawful or Chaotic, Good or Evil. What's right and proper is irrelevant.

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 08:19 PM
Yup, alignment is always metagame. They have nothing to do with anything in character.

Um, no. Alignments are the foundation of the cosmology of the various D&D universes. Not only the foundation but the walls and the roof of Planescape.

Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are fundamental and objective forces in D&D. That's an inherent part of the magic system and the religions.

Nowhere Girl
2007-04-02, 10:04 PM
But the question was how such a person would define themselves? Yes, you can be an evil capitalist, nobody's arguing that, but an evil capitalist isn't going to call himself "evil".

Of course not. I never said he would.


He would either deny the existence of the good-evil spectrum ("evil is just a label people use to describe guys like me, who have the balls to do what everyone else is too afraid to do")

Mmhmm. If moral relativism can be said to do anything at all, it serves as an excellent excuse to deny any real moral responsibility for one's actions. "Well gosh, you say rape and murder are evil, but from my perspective ...!"

In D&D or even in the real world, moral relativism is really just a load of horse-pucky. But yes, I agree that that would be a typical response from said evil individual.


or he would claim to be good, on the basis of the external code he claims to subscribe to ("capitalism is good, I'm a capitalist, therefore I am good"). Obviously, I would say that such a claim is spurious, but that won't stop him making it.

Again, all very likely scenarios.

You could have a real "bad boy" type who took a certain perverse pleasure in saying, "Yeah, I ruin lives, and ya know what? I do it because I can." Which is pretty close to saying, "I'm evil, and I'm proud of it." But most really wouldn't do that, if only for fear of the social reprecussions.

Besides, most of them aren't doing it just because "they can," they're doing it because they value money more than the lives and livelihoods of other people. Which, if you think about it, is in a way not unlike the outlook of an assassin.

Nowhere Girl
2007-04-02, 10:18 PM
Ogda is an orc warrior, and a lawful evil member of the faith of Gruumsh. Ogda is a "good" orc (by his own lights) because:

1. "I obey the clan chiefs Gruumsh put over me."
2. "I practice with my spear and shield, to strengthen my body and hone my skills so that I might serve Gruumsh better."
3. "I slew Darga and took his women. Orcs are the image of Gruumsh and weaklings like Darga should not be allowed to pollute that image by fathering children."
4. "When Urgtha tried to take the women I took from Darga, I let him live. Despite his youth, Urgtha is a talented fighter and will be a great warrior one day. It would have been wasteful to slay such a servant of Gruumsh."
5. "Three times have I led war-bands into the forest to slay elves. One day we will slay all the elves and fulfill the destiny Gruumsh assigned for us."

I also agree with this -- that is, what you describe makes sense to me. Notice that Ogda doesn't just do whatever he feels like doing at any given moment; he acts based on a strict set of rules. He's certainly evil, but he could also be called honorable. (Honorable evil people still aren't people you necessarily ever want to meet. Just because they adhere to a code doesn't mean they're at all nice.)

Oh, a small addendum to my earlier discussion of the alignments: evil people may be committed to others through personal relationships. It depends. A typical drow in a typical drow society probably really isn't (their whole culture encourages scheming and backstabbing, after all), but a Mafia boss might be totally devoted to his children, for example (perhaps to the point of having anyone who messes with them slowly tortured to death and mailed to their families in pieces). The two main characters of Natural Born Killers were totally, irredeemably evil, but they were also very much in love and would probably willingly have died for one another.

Sardia
2007-04-02, 10:30 PM
Mmhmm. If moral relativism can be said to do anything at all, it serves as an excellent excuse to deny any real moral responsibility for one's actions. "Well gosh, you say rape and murder are evil, but from my perspective ...!"

One question or test for that is if the morals in question are actually occasionally onerous to the person maintaining them. Someone who uses a moral code as justification for being harsh to others, but doesn't apply it to himself might be chaotic and come up with some justification. Someone who applies the code to himself might be evil, but isn't using it as an excuse.
As an example of the second (perhaps), I believe there was a Roman commander once whose son disobeyed orders during a battle. Despite winning as a result of that, disobedience was frowned upon, so the father had him executed.

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 10:37 PM
For the last time, there is no good-evil spectrum. There is a Good-Evil spectrum. Upity-Downity, if you like, but the words are not relative concepts, nor are they subjective. They are absolute and very real.

To a Blackguard, Evil is good. But evil isn't Good, and neither is Evil, Good. The capitialization isn't arbitrary, but indicates something very important.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of yelling this at people. The subjectivity of D&D morality isn't in the names, which refer to absolute concepts, but the value placed on those absolutes.

Sardia
2007-04-02, 10:51 PM
Quite frankly, I'm tired of yelling this at people. The subjectivity of D&D morality isn't in the names, which refer to absolute concepts, but the value placed on those absolutes.

There still may occur disagreement over the matter, though.
"If the kingdom were weakened and fell, tens of thousands could die. I prevented this instability by killing a few hundred dissidents, and made sure their children wouldn't seek revenge by killing them too. The kingdom is stronger, and all its citizens will prosper by my actions. I am Good, capital G good."

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 11:03 PM
Killing innocents? No, that's not Good. It might even be right, but it's not Good.

Duke Malagigi
2007-04-02, 11:31 PM
Um, no. If Evil people viewed themselves as good and Good as evil, don't you think people would be confused when an Evil-cast Protection from Evil warded off allies instead of enemies?


Simple, Evilly aligned characters would think of such a spell not as Protection From Good or Evil but as Protection From the Weak-Minded or the Strong-Minded.

Jayabalard
2007-04-03, 11:07 AM
Simple, Evilly aligned characters would think of such a spell not as Protection From Good or Evil but as Protection From the Weak-Minded or the Strong-Minded.
Or even simply "Protection", and they know that it protects them from certain types of their enemies; they don't know that those enemies have the "Good" or "Evil" type; those are purely metagame concepts.

sure: law, chaos, good and evil are the foundations of the rules that govern the game... but they are completely metagame concepts, only applying to the game as a game, not anything in character. The only people who know about them are players; no characters have any knowledge of them, any more than they know any other game rules.