To be Lawful

[BootStrapTommy]

Note that the Evil Sherrif of Nottingham is also primarily interested in forcibly redistributing wealth. Exactly my point.


Remember, we're talking about an alignment system in which Robin Hood is Good. Dude is the poster boy for using violent, coercive power to redistribute wealth. In the tale of Robin Hood, the law is using its violent, coercive power to redistribute wealth. Robin Hood is just taking it for those to whom it really belongs. Remember, he's not actually an outlaw. He's just outlawed by those who took power.

If you steal my Luke Skywalker action figure and I go to your house smack you and take it back, I have not exerted violent, coercive force. I exerted my property rights (a part of my individuality), which you've violated. Rebut yourself:

Individuals are "others", too, and the 3.5 alignment rules explicitly say that recognizing that is part of being Good.

That's very different than you making me give you my Luke Skywalker action figure, or you'll beat me up and lock me in a cage. Even if you wanna give it to some poor kid with no toys.

[theNater]

Even if you wanna give it to some poor kid with no toys.
Exactly no one is talking about taking things and giving them to people with no toys. I'm talking about giving things to people with no food. Taking your action figure and selling it to feed a starving kid is at worst a minor affront to your dignity(made even more minor if I have observed you and judged that you don't need it) and a massive boon to the life and dignity of the starving kid.

[veti]

I do believe the thread consensus was something like ''Lawful people are pure perfect angels and would never do bad things like put a baker like Bob out of business. Because laws made by lawful people are always perfect. So, free muffins for everone!''

Closer to "why do you persist in saying the people in your examples are LG, then describe them doing things that are neither L nor G?"



Your not really thinking evil enough:

Step 1: What is my mission? What can I do to benefit myself, while using the mission as a cover and at least making it look like I completed the mission.
Step 2: Within the framework of Step 1, how can I enrich myself and promote my evil viewpoints, while keeping everyone off my case?
Step 3: How can I use this mission to advance myself in the lawful hierarchy?

A ''dirty cop'' is a classic Lawful Evil example. They will follow the rules and the law...at least enough not to get caught. They will steal money from criminals. They will use lots of violence. They will often twist and bend...but maybe not overly break rules and laws. The classic of ''they kill a prisoner and then put a weapon on the body and say he was trying to escape'' is a classic older then dirt.

You're confusing means with ends. Sure, sometimes I may want to advance myself in the hierarchy - but really that's just one way of bettering myself, I shouldn't let it blind me to all the other possibilities out there.

As for"promoting my evil viewpoint", why? What's in it for me? Better if everyone else assumes the best.

[Michael7123]

Exactly no one is talking about taking things and giving them to people with no toys. I'm talking about giving things to people with no food. Taking your action figure and selling it to feed a starving kid is at worst a minor affront to your dignity(made even more minor if I have observed you and judged that you don't need it) and a massive boon to the life and dignity of the starving kid.

Ah, but do the ends justify the means? The outcome of stealing and then selling the action figure is directly good (helping to feed a starving child is practically the go to example of good aligned behavior). But the methods used involve taking something belonging to someone else, which in many places is known as theft, which is both evil and chaotic (evil in that it deprives someone else of what is theirs, and chaotic in that it breaks property rights.)

And no, I'm not trying to say that taxation is both chaotic and evil. Largely because it's not being hidden from anyone. It's a very public (if convoluted and bureaucratic) and widely known part of living under a certain set of rules.

[Gritmonger]

And no, I'm not trying to say that taxation is both chaotic and evil. Largely because it's not being hidden from anyone. It's a very public (if convoluted and bureaucratic) and widely known part of living under a certain set of rules.

Here is part of the disconnect, again, because it appears that a few on this thread are arguing that living in a society where by common agreement collective services are paid for by everybody in shares is the moral equivalent of knocking me down and taking my stuff.

The follow-on to this appears to be that any society where the police are not directly employed by me paying a "police bill" is evil.

Ergo, there is no point, in this thread, in arguing that a "lawful" society could be good.





Which was never the point of the thread in the first place. It was to discuss "how to play a lawful person" in the context of roleplaying for somebody not experienced in trying to emulate that alignment.

And if some want to argue that to do so, one would have to play the stereotypical "Lawful Jerk," that's their opinion; but it doesn't make it correct, or a good answer.

[Citrakayah]

Ah, but do the ends justify the means? The outcome of stealing and then selling the action figure is directly good (helping to feed a starving child is practically the go to example of good aligned behavior). But the methods used involve taking something belonging to someone else, which in many places is known as theft, which is both evil and chaotic (evil in that it deprives someone else of what is theirs, and chaotic in that it breaks property rights.)

Way I've always played it is that the ends and the means aren't different, really. What you do--the means--have an effect on what ultimately happens--the ends. If I steal a jewel to pawn and feed the starving, the ends are:

1. A jewel has been stolen.
2. People who would otherwise die didn't.

So yeah, I did something bad, because my actions did hurt someone. But that's true of everything we do. Our continued existence causes countless minor hurts on others, and our nonexistence would as well. Attempting to avoid hurting others at any cost is simply a fool's errand, because your actions can't lead to everybody getting what they want.

[Seto]

Ah, but do the ends justify the means? The outcome of stealing and then selling the action figure is directly good (helping to feed a starving child is practically the go to example of good aligned behavior). But the methods used involve taking something belonging to someone else, which in many places is known as theft, which is both evil and chaotic (evil in that it deprives someone else of what is theirs, and chaotic in that it breaks property rights.) (emphasis mine)

The question you're raising is an important one, but without actually taking part in the debate I wanted to remind you of two facts.
1- The bolded part is a defensible point of view, and indeed many societies view it as such, but it's not a consensus, it's not to be taken for granted. (And I personally don't think that statement is always true within the frame of D&D alignment). Propriety is not necessarily a moral principle, and whether "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" are negated by theft is not self-evident. One could argue that it depends more on context and the actual consequences than on principle. (Yeah, you "deprive someone else of what is theirs", but if they don't need it, does that hurt them or even goes against their best interests ? If not, that's hardly Evil. Sure, deciding in their place what is good for them and what isn't is kind of a jerk move, but that has to do with Law/Chaos, not Good Evil.)
2- Within the frame of the D&D alignment system, the question "do the ends justify the means" meets a firm and canonical "no". However, since it could be argued that the means here are not Evil (see 1.), we're into "consequentialism vs. deontology debate" territory. While it is certainly an interesting debate to have and a question of the utmost importance for anyone to find their own answer to, it is highly unlikely that you'll reach an answer here, at least not without doubling the already respectable length of this thread.


Way I've always played it is that the ends and the means aren't different, really. What you do--the means--have an effect on what ultimately happens--the ends. If I steal a jewel to pawn and feed the starving, the ends are:

1. A jewel has been stolen.
2. People who would otherwise die didn't.

So yeah, I did something bad, because my actions did hurt someone. But that's true of everything we do. Our continued existence causes countless minor hurts on others, and our nonexistence would as well. Attempting to avoid hurting others at any cost is simply a fool's errand, because your actions can't lead to everybody getting what they want.

You're confusing ends with results. In the opposition ends vs. means, "ends" is synonymous with "goals" : what I'm looking for, what I'm pursuing. The distinction between ends and results is capital because the moral problem is that, precisely, my actions may have results exterior to what my ends were.

[Breitheamh]

I just finished reading this entire thread, and I got to tell you, it was a bit of a an emotional rollercoaster. At first I just kept getting more and more heated, then I quickly plummeted from the heights of anger into the twisting, turning track of resigned amusement.

My advice to the OP is: there are so many way to play Lawful it's nearly impossible to nail down, just like any alignment. There have been some great tidbits, like keeping a schedule or routine, having a written personal code of honor, etc. But the truth is, there's no single "right" way to play a Lawful character.

However there is a (I hesitate to say "wrong") way to play it that will quickly alienate the other PC's, and eventually alienate the other players as well. Don't believe me? Follow Darth Ultron's "Lawful" model and see how that goes. In fact, Darth Ultron's apparent animosity toward all things Lawful is probably a pretty good indicator of what happens when people act Lawful Stupid. (I'm not saying that Darth Ultron is acting Lawful Stupid. I'm saying somebody probably acted Lawful Stupid toward him/her at some point, and that's part of why s/he feels this way)

Darth Ultron, I actually find it funny how many times you've backtracked on things you've said previously, made outright fallacious claims, and said things like:


Well, I do see Good as the worst. The whole being nice and helping others is great...as long as you don't go too far. But that is the big problem with Good. They simply never stop.

Never stop......helping people? How dare they!?!? Or:


The worst tyrannies are when the Lawful Good people try and help everyone.

In contrast to things like tyrannies that commit genocide. Yep, the misguided but earnest attempts to help people are worse than mass murder. Definitely.

Or:


The ''helping others'' is the big downfall of Lawful Good. Everything they do is to try and help others, but at the cost of the individual.

Yes, helping other people is always a big downfall of societies with Laws made for the Good of the many.

I don't have time to quote every instance of things you said that I found offensive or just amusing, so I strongly encourage you to go back through the thread, even if you only read your own comments, and see if you can pick out all the inconsistencies, fallacies, and stereotypes present in your words. Also might want to check for spelling and grammar, 'cause "wow."

Honestly, I'm kind of curious as to where you live and how you were raised. Your experience with the world in general appears to be vastly different from my own. That's fine, but it seems like we are straying into Blue and Orange Morality, as Envyus said, and if that's the case, I'd rather end this discussion before it gets any worse.

[theNater]

Ah, but do the ends justify the means? The outcome of stealing and then selling the action figure is directly good (helping to feed a starving child is practically the go to example of good aligned behavior). But the methods used involve taking something belonging to someone else, which in many places is known as theft, which is both evil and chaotic (evil in that it deprives someone else of what is theirs, and chaotic in that it breaks property rights.)

Theft is not inherently Evil, it is inherently Chaotic. Taking property does not harm anyone by the D&D definition of harm. Your thief-type character classes are given non-Lawful restrictions or tendencies, whereas assassins are restricted to Evil.

There are some considerations a Good thief has to make-don't steal more than the victim can afford, don't steal in such a way as to oppress, etc. But stealing is totally a viable option for Good characters; see Robin Hood and Haley Starshine.

[Darth Ultron]

And here I was thinking that that's exactly what Good characters would care about...

Sadly, the road to Very Bad Things is paved with good intentions.


Closer to "why do you persist in saying the people in your examples are LG, then describe them doing things that are neither L nor G?"

Well....what is Lawful or Good anyway. The king points to a country and says ''attack'' and sends in his army. Evil action right? Or does it matter if the king has a good reason? Does the reason matter? Does the reason matter only if you agree with it? Are there Good reasons to invade another country? See the problems....



You're confusing means with ends. Sure, sometimes I may want to advance myself in the hierarchy - but really that's just one way of bettering myself, I shouldn't let it blind me to all the other possibilities out there.

As for"promoting my evil viewpoint", why? What's in it for me? Better if everyone else assumes the best.

Most lawful people do want to advance in a hierarchy, after all life does get better the higher up you go. Though sure plenty of lawful people are happy to be followers and just sit in the same spot in a group.

Evil people, trapped living in a good society, yearn for freedom. That some day, maybe, all the good people will open their eyes and see that they are doing things wrong. It's a dream, but having a dream is good.

Take our evil cop. He wants to kill all the criminals, but the good laws protect the criminals to a fault. And he does not want to be caught and face the lawful good justice. So he looks for ways to kill criminals, that won't get him in trouble. Then when he is (not) ''forced'' to take a life, he might try and get others to see his view point of ''see we should just kill them all''.


Here is part of the disconnect, again, because it appears that a few on this thread are arguing that living in a society where by common agreement collective services are paid for by everybody in shares is the moral equivalent of knocking me down and taking my stuff.

I kinda wonder why you don't see them as exactly the same?

[Citrakayah]

Sadly, the road to Very Bad Things is paved with good intentions.

Yes, but thankfully we come equipped with this GPS known as "a brain." Not to mention that in any campaign I'm running, someone who starts going full out Stalin, even if their intentions are completely in the right, is going to be stinking to high heaven of evil pretty damn quickly.


Well....what is Lawful or Good anyway. The king points to a country and says ''attack'' and sends in his army. Evil action right?

Based solely on that, evil, yes. Context can change this.


Or does it matter if the king has a good reason?

Yes, but not totally. Someone can have a good reason--or at least think they do--and still count as evil. And, in any world I run, they'll show up as evil on alignment spells... which is another reason not to kill everything that pings as evil, it might be so deluded or misinformed that it actually thinks it's doing the right thing.


Does the reason matter?

Yes. Obviously.


Does the reason matter only if you agree with it?

No. But obviously if I think the reason doesn't justify it I'm going to consider it evil.


Are there Good reasons to invade another country?

Sure. They're just ridiculously rare. For instance, were a neighboring kingdom run by extraplanar demons using their citizens as tools in a machine built to fuel the rise of a god of evil, to the point where people are being sacrificed, I'd be justified in sending my paladin army, chosen by the very fundamental essence of good, equipped with healing magic, the ability to detect evil outsiders, with attached units who can help build up infrastructure, in to help them.


See the problems....

Not really, no.


Most lawful people do want to advance in a hierarchy, after all life does get better the higher up you go. Though sure plenty of lawful people are happy to be followers and just sit in the same spot in a group.

Lawful people accept a hierarchy even if they aren't at the top. This is actually supported by canon; a lot of chaotic evil species have a hierarchy, but everyone wants to be at the top because you boss everyone else around.


Evil people, trapped living in a good society, yearn for freedom. That some day, maybe, all the good people will open their eyes and see that they are doing things wrong. It's a dream, but having a dream is good.

No, they really don't. What kind of bizarre trolling doublethink is this, where good is evil and evil is good? Seriously?

An evil person in a good society doesn't "yearn for freedom" they want to do whatever it is that makes them evil.


Take our evil cop. He wants to kill all the criminals, but the good laws protect the criminals to a fault. And he does not want to be caught and face the lawful good justice. So he looks for ways to kill criminals, that won't get him in trouble. Then when he is (not) ''forced'' to take a life, he might try and get others to see his view point of ''see we should just kill them all''.

How are they "protecting the criminals to a fault?" If there's actually a problem, then he (and people who are actually lawful good, I might add) would bring this problem to public attention and deal with it. This still won't result in killing all criminals, because that's a bloody stupid idea especially in a medieval setting without a welfare state (it would involve killing a whole bunch of kids who nab a piece of bread so they don't starve to death, after all), but it would remove the fault, or at least alleviate it.

Of course, a lawful good kingdom in Dungeons and Dragons really doesn't have an excuse for an impoverished underclass. Even without the Tippyverse (which I despise as a setting), there are natural forces that would be willing to lend a hand, and even if druids and clerics and other magic users don't want to help out of the goodness of their hearts, you can pay them.


I kinda wonder why you don't see them as exactly the same?

Because they aren't.

[theNater]

Well....what is Lawful or Good anyway.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

...

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Source. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

The king points to a country and says ''attack'' and sends in his army. Evil action right?
Depends.

Or does it matter if the king has a good reason? Does the reason matter? Does the reason matter only if you agree with it? Are there Good reasons to invade another country?
Yes. Yes. No. Yes.

[Acacia OnnaStik]

Sadly, the road to Very Bad Things is paved with good intentions.

At which point it has stopped being Good.


I kinda wonder why you don't see them as exactly the same?

Because we like having roads, an educated workforce, bridges that don't fall down, firefighters who don't let our homes burn while arguing with us about whether we've paid the Fire Protection Bill (Google "Crassus fires" if you want to see what happens without those), a reasonable expectation that if someone wrongs us we can take them to court, and, yes, food that's not full of roaches and rat droppings. We recognize that it is impossible to have these structures be purely opt-in, as those born into these benefits cannot later choose to retroactively not have benefited, and levying taxes is the most reasonable way anyone has yet found to handle that.

People can certainly choose not to continue benefiting from a government once they've grown up, of course. Just move to someplace without one, Andrew Ryan, and nobody will force you to give up your metaphorical action figures so that everyone can be slightly safer. They made a video game about that.

[Gritmonger]

I kinda wonder why you don't see them as exactly the same?
Because I understand it is effectively my all-in-one bill for living among other people.

But that isn't and was never the point of the thread.

The point is "How do I play a Lawful Character?" My answer includes the stipulation that one can be lawful and not be a dunce. And that Lawful Good is a possible alignment without being a dunce.

That appears to run counter to other arguments here, but I cannot find a convincing reason in those arguments why "Lawful" means "Dunce" or "Evil" automatically.

[Citrakayah]

Because I understand it is effectively my all-in-one bill for living among other people.

But that isn't and was never the point of the thread.

The point is "How do I play a Lawful Character?" My answer includes the stipulation that one can be lawful and not be a dunce. And that Lawful Good is a possible alignment without being a dunce.

That appears to run counter to other arguments here, but I cannot find a convincing reason in those arguments why "Lawful" means "Dunce" or "Evil" automatically.

Hey, I totally agree with you. I just think Lawful types are more likely to try and form an ordered system with a chain of command, clear protocols, et cetera. It's kind of what they do; stick a bunch of lawful people together in the wilderness and one of the first things they'll do is arrange who's in charge of what, decide on a leader, and so forth.

And once that happens, if they're all lawful, they aren't going to ignore it, or even complain about it that much unless it starts to be a serious problem.

[veti]

Well....what is Lawful or Good anyway.

As I'm sure you know, there are several books devoted to answering that question in a D&D context, and whole libraries on the subject in a wider sense. I'm not going to be drawn into trying to condense all of that here.


The king points to a country and says ''attack'' and sends in his army. Evil action right? Or does it matter if the king has a good reason? Does the reason matter? Does the reason matter only if you agree with it? Are there Good reasons to invade another country? See the problems....

Yes, the reasons matter. And that single answer - actually answers all five of the questions you've listed there, so I guess you're just trying to make it look more complicated than it is.


Most lawful people do want to advance in a hierarchy, after all life does get better the higher up you go.

Exactly, "life gets better", and that's the reason for wanting to advance. Advancing in the hierarchy is a means, not an end. If you can make your life better in other ways, without advancing, why would you throw away that opportunity?

Example: let's consider this corrupt cop of yours. He could improve his life by getting promoted to a nice desk job that still gives plenty of opportunities for graft. Or he could do it by getting a hold over his superior, so that he pretty much never has to worry about being disciplined. Or he could do it by simply stealing a shedload of money and buying a bigger house. "The hierarchy" is just one way of getting ahead - there are many others, and it's irrational to treat one of them as inherently preferable to the others.


Evil people, trapped living in a good society, yearn for freedom.

Chaotic people in a lawful society may do that. Evil people in a good society? Mostly yearn to get rich. There's no obvious reason why they'd want everyone around them to stop being nice, because assuming you each value the same things, it's better to live next door to a Good person than an Evil one - that's kinda the definition of "Good".

[Mando Knight]

Sadly, the road to Very Bad Things is paved with good intentions.

And it's run roughshod by those without them. Your point? The phrase is meant as a warning: that good intentions don't always work out and don't excuse bad decisions. The idea that it even implies that being not-good is better because good people can be mislead to evil deeds is silly.

[LoyalPaladin]

This (http://easydamus.com/alignment.html#lawvschaos) is a great site for alignment questions. You can tell by my name that LG is my standard alignment. I think a common misconception is that by being lawful you will take any decision made by the law without questioning it. That is wrong. You are supposed to strive to follow your morals to a T. But sometimes, the G has to outweigh the L (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice) at the top of your character sheet.

Remember, "Duty before booty".

[BootStrapTommy]

Exactly no one is talking about taking things and giving them to people with no toys. I'm talking about giving things to people with no food. Taking your action figure and selling it to feed a starving kid is at worst a minor affront to your dignity(made even more minor if I have observed you and judged that you don't need it) and a massive boon to the life and dignity of the starving kid. You can sell you own Luke Skywalker action figures to feed poor kids. But your "supposed" authority does not give you the right to take MINE to feed the poor kids. Doing so is little better than theft, regardless of want your "authority" grants you. Theft by lawful authority is still theft, regardless of whether the authority labels it taxes. It's just "justified" extortion.

[Citrakayah]

You can sell you own Luke Skywalker action figures to feed poor kids. But your "supposed" authority does not give you the right to take MINE to feed the poor kids. Doing so is little better than theft, regardless of want your "authority" grants you. Theft by lawful authority is still theft, regardless of whether the authority labels it taxes. It's just "justified" extortion.

Yeah.

So?

[Darth Ultron]

You can sell you own Luke Skywalker action figures to feed poor kids. But your "supposed" authority does not give you the right to take MINE to feed the poor kids. Doing so is little better than theft, regardless of want your "authority" grants you. Theft by lawful authority is still theft, regardless of whether the authority labels it taxes. It's just "justified" extortion.

I agree.

Again this points out the Lawful/Chaotic split:

Lawful: You have no choice but to help others in exactly the way we say so or we will imprison you, take even more of your money and property, ruin your life or kill you. So sure you can ''choose'' to not pay the tax....but the automatic results of that will be worse then if you just payed the tax. It's loose loose, no matter what in the Lawful world.

Chaotic: We ask you to help others. That is it. If you don't we won't do anything close to what the lawful people will do, but you might some indirect penitently, like not get invited to a party and won't get a holiday card.

[hamishspence]

Isn't "stealing from the rich (but "undeserving") to help the poor (and "deserving")" quintessential CG though?

Running afoul of a CG thief who thinks you are "rich and undeserving" isn't exactly going to be a pleasant experience.

[BootStrapTommy]

Yeah.

So? Making claims of "Good" alignment a hollow attempt at ego masturbation.


I agree. NNNOOOOO! :( You don't.

I came here to disagree with you Ultron. What have I done? What is this voodoo!?!

[Citrakayah]

I agree.

Again this points out the Lawful/Chaotic split:

Lawful: You have no choice but to help others in exactly the way we say so or we will imprison you, take even more of your money and property, ruin your life or kill you. So sure you can ''choose'' to not pay the tax....but the automatic results of that will be worse then if you just payed the tax. It's loose loose, no matter what in the Lawful world.

Chaotic: We ask you to help others. That is it. If you don't we won't do anything close to what the lawful people will do, but you might some indirect penitently, like not get invited to a party and won't get a holiday card.

Well, as it happens, if you're living in the area we control, you are benefiting from the stuff we're using the taxes for. So you'd be committing theft if you didn't pay them.

And you forgot a third option: Don't use the services we offer and don't make money. Go live in the middle of nowhere. Don't use money, because that's a service we provide (remember, the government produces coinage and regulates it, ensuring that people don't start making fake money). Roads? Well, if we're maintaining them, then you can't use them. Police, fire department, health and safety? You're a hermit, they aren't going to be able to help you effectively.

The fact of the matter is that what you want here is for us to not touch any of your stuff, but are totally ignorant of how the only reason you can get stuff is because of the services that are paid for by taxes.


Making claims of "Good" alignment a hollow attempt at ego masturbation.

Not really.

I'm a utilitarian. I don't give a flying **** about your Skywalker figure, at least not compared to the life of someone who would otherwise die a slow horrible death from starvation.

[BootStrapTommy]

I'm a utilitarian. I don't give a flying **** about your Skywalker figure, at least not compared to the life of someone who would otherwise die a slow horrible death from starvation."What was that? I can't hear you over all the children starving in world because you haven't robbed Bill Gates yet, slacker. :p

You sentiment is understandable, but it doesn't make your violent extortion any less evil. It just makes you self-righteous."

-said the rogue to the paladin

[hamishspence]

That's why taxation comes at the "wages stage" with people getting their wages after the taxes have already been skimmed off - it's a lot easier that way.

Don't know if D&D rulers handle taxes that way though.

[Citrakayah]

"What was that? I can't hear you over all the children starving in world because you haven't robbed Bill Gates yet, slacker. :p

You sentiment is understandable, but it doesn't make your violent extortion any less evil. It just makes you self-righteous."

-said the rogue to the paladin

"Nah, I totally get that, since any amount of pain or suffering is bad, my action isn't purely good. But no action is. Action... inaction... no matter what we do, no matter what we don't do, we can't make everyone 100% happy 100% of the time. That's a fool's errand, and I won't chase after it."

"What we can do, is try to make the world a better place. Make more people happier, or make fewer people unhappy. If I could feed the starving out of my own pocket, I would do that. If I could personally intercede with the god of agriculture and have her make crops spring up from the soil, I would do that. And yeah, I know a bit of magic, so I can make a single corn stalk grow well, or create enough food to feed a single person starvation rations for a day."

"But ultimately? I don't have those options, not on the scale required. If I rob someone rich of some of their property, though, I can feed the starving. And I can do that, too, rob someone. I'm good at it."

"So. Way I figure it, I've got a choice. Either dozens of people die--and let me tell you, starving really sucks--or one man loses the equivalent of maybe a day's income. Either way, there's pain and suffering."

"If everyone got together--all the clerics, all the wizards, all the druids, all the bureaucracy--maybe we'd have more options. Maybe it would simply be a matter of helping someone navigate paperwork, or contacting a druid to provide hunger relief. And maybe someday we'll get that."

"But in the mean time? I'm still stuck with the two options of what's going to happen, and I know what I choose."

-- said the rogue to the paladin


(Of course, I wouldn't call a paladin a slacker for not robbing Bill Gates, but whatever.)

[BootStrapTommy]

Don't know if D&D rulers handle taxes that way though. I'd assume it's the ancient method of hiring professional extortionist, erm I mean tax collectors, to physically go get it.

I also assumed most nations have a scizzy adventurer tax exemption created by the powerful adventurers' lobby.


"Nah, I totally get that, since any amount of pain or suffering is bad, my action isn't purely good. But no action is. Action... inaction... no matter what we do, no matter what we don't do, we can't make everyone 100% happy 100% of the time. That's a fool's errand, and I won't chase after it."

"What we can do, is try to make the world a better place. Make more people happier, or make fewer people unhappy. If I could feed the starving out of my own pocket, I would do that. If I could personally intercede with the god of agriculture and have her make crops spring up from the soil, I would do that. And yeah, I know a bit of magic, so I can make a single corn stalk grow well, or create enough food to feed a single person starvation rations for a day."

"But ultimately? I don't have those options, not on the scale required. If I rob someone rich of some of their property, though, I can feed the starving. And I can do that, too, rob someone. I'm good at it."

"So. Way I figure it, I've got a choice. Either dozens of people die--and let me tell you, starving really sucks--or one man loses the equivalent of maybe a day's income. Either way, there's pain and suffering."

"If everyone got together--all the clerics, all the wizards, all the druids, all the bureaucracy--maybe we'd have more options. Maybe it would simply be a matter of helping someone navigate paperwork, or contacting a druid to provide hunger relief. And maybe someday we'll get that."

"But in the mean time? I'm still stuck with the two options of what's going to happen, and I know what I choose."

-- said the rogue to the paladin

(Of course, I wouldn't call a paladin a slacker for not robbing Bill Gates, but whatever.)
"Silly rogue. You're disregard for the individual makes you Lawful. And it's illegal to steal.

And in addition to you're hypocrisy, your violent extortion of others negates the good you claim to do. You've chosen to personally elavate the needs of a few over the rights of all. You playing God doesn't make you a saint. It makes you a self-righteous tyrant.

-said the ex-paladin to the silly rogue

[Citrakayah]

I'd assume it's the ancient method of hiring professional extortionist, erm I mean tax collectors, to physically go get it.

I also assumed most nations have a scizzy adventurer tax exemption created by the powerful adventurers' lobby.

Implied setting for default vanilla Dungeons and Dragons is feudal Europe, so however they did it.

Of course, feudalism is fundamentally incompatible with a good alignment.

[hamishspence]

3.5 DMG2 suggests it's a slightly looser version - it's like feudalism, but adjusted a bit to make it more pleasant for the PCs to adventure in.

It's also possible that people are more often neutral than other alignments. Maybe that applies on a large scale - kingdoms are more often Neutral than Good or Evil, too.

[Citrakayah]

3.5 DMG2 suggests it's a slightly looser version - it's like feudalism, but adjusted a bit to make it more pleasant for the PCs to adventure in.

It's also possible that people are more often neutral than other alignments. Maybe that applies on a large scale - kingdoms are more often Neutral than Good or Evil, too.

Well, part of why life sucked back then was disease and such, which magic does help alleviate.

Personally, the way I define good--generally having a good impact on the people you affect through your actions or inactions--most people are good, a fair minority are neutral, and very few are actually evil.

[hamishspence]

Interesting. Perhaps not exactly consistent with the PHB though - which makes TN the "typical" human alignment, rather than LG or NG.

[Citrakayah]

"Silly rogue. You're disregard for the individual makes you Lawful. And it's illegal to steal.

And in addition to you're hypocrisy, your violent extortion of others negates the good you claim to do. You've chosen to personally elavate the needs of a few over the rights of all. You playing God doesn't make you a saint. It makes you a self-righteous tyrant.

-said the ex-paladin to the silly rogue

Disregard for the individual doesn't make you lawful... nor am I disregarding the individual.

Actually, I'm not practicing violent extortion, since I'm just sneaking in and robbing someone.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And everyone has a right to food.

[BootStrapTommy]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And everyone has a right to food. Nature and economic reality disagree.

[Citrakayah]

Nature and economic reality disagree.

Is-ought confusion.

[veti]

Nature and economic reality disagree.

"Nature and economic reality" have nothing to do with "rights". That's an is-ought question.

"Do you think all people should have a right to eat?" That's an "ought" question, it requires a value judgment on your part and it's either "yes" or "no".

Another "ought" question in the same vein would be "Do you think people should have a right to prevent others from eating food that belongs to them?"

Neither of these has a "natural" answer. Just what you decide.

[BootStrapTommy]

"Nature and economic reality" have nothing to do with "rights". That's an is-ought question.

"Do you think all people should have a right to eat?" That's an "ought" question, it requires a value judgment on your part and it's either "yes" or "no".

Another "ought" question in the same vein would be "Do you think people should have a right to prevent others from eating food that belongs to them?"

Neither of these has a "natural" answer. Just what you decide. Traditionally, "rights" have not been in terms of "ought" but it terms of "ought not". "Ought not" is freedom. "Ought" is entitlement.

But to answer the question, ought people have a right to eat? Yes. Ought they have the right to use violent, coercion to take what is not theirs to do it? No.

[Envyus]

It should be noted that in Robin Hood he did not have a problem with taxes themselves. The issue was John and the Sharif were bleeding the peasants dry with pointlessly high taxes they could not hope to make a living on and not even using the money to try and make life better for people they were pretty much stealing it from.

Pretty much there is a difference between Taxing and Extortion.

[theNater]

You can sell you own Luke Skywalker action figures to feed poor kids.
A Lawful Good king is always the first to pay their taxes, and pays them just like everybody else.

But your "supposed" authority does not give you the right to take MINE to feed the poor kids. Doing so is little better than theft, regardless of want your "authority" grants you. Theft by lawful authority is still theft, regardless of whether the authority labels it taxes. It's just "justified" extortion.
Call it theft or extortion if you like. Neither is inherently Evil by D&D standards, so it doesn't matter much what you call it.

Again this points out the Lawful/Chaotic split:

Lawful: You have no choice but to help others in exactly the way we say so or we will imprison you, take even more of your money and property, ruin your life or kill you. So sure you can ''choose'' to not pay the tax....but the automatic results of that will be worse then if you just payed the tax. It's loose loose, no matter what in the Lawful world.

Chaotic: We ask you to help others. That is it. If you don't we won't do anything close to what the lawful people will do, but you might some indirect penitently, like not get invited to a party and won't get a holiday card.
No, the Lawful/Chaotic split is that a Lawful character will tell you in advance how much you are expected to provide and what exactly will happen if you don't(note that Lawful Good will, at worst, kick you out of town). The Chaotic character will just break into your house and take whatever seems valuable.

[goto124]

I'm more concerned about how it would affect CGs if stealing was Evil in a game.

'Wait, I can't steal the keys from the guard without wrecking my alignment?'

You could say 1 or 2 acts won't change alignment, but adventurers often have to obtain things without the owners' permissions. Like getting the MacGuffin from the BBEG. I would make stealing purely Chaotic but not Good or Evil just for playability.

Unless stealing would destroy the campaign somehow...

[BootStrapTommy]

Pretty much there is a difference between Taxing and Extortion. The difference being?

[theNater]

"What was that? I can't hear you over all the children starving in world because you haven't robbed Bill Gates yet, slacker.
I ran the numbers earlier. Robbing Bill Gates once won't feed all the starving people in America, much less the world. No one person can do it all, which is why multiple people need to chip in, voluntarily or not.

[Acacia OnnaStik]

The difference being?

That taxes go to maintain a system from which you benefit, while extortion goes to line the pockets of the extortionist.

[BootStrapTommy]

No one person can do it all, which is why multiple people need to chip in, voluntarily or not. The morality of an action is derived solely from whether it's voluntary. That is a basic concept in Ethics. It's why we cling to the idea that we have free will. Without free agency, our actions lack responsibly. Without responsibly, moral judgments are meaningless. Coercion robs agency. Which is what makes it one of the most grieveous evils.

[theNater]

The morality of an action is derived solely from whether it's voluntary.
Right. When the other person takes a bit of your wealth to feed the starving, they are doing Good. You are doing nothing, which is Neutral.

Coercion robs agency. Which is what makes it one of the most grieveous evils.
Agency is not universally protected by the D&D alignment system. A consistent and thorough deprivation of your agency would be oppression, which is Evil, but denying you the agency on what to do with an affordable part of your money, while leaving you the remainder of your agency, isn't.

[BootStrapTommy]

Right. When the other person takes a bit of your wealth to feed the starving, they are doing Good. You are doing nothing, which is Neutral You've chosen to take it upon yourself to force me to make decisions about what to do with something that is mine. And you've done it with violence. You act is at best Neutral.


Agency is not universally protected by the D&D alignment system. A consistent and thorough deprivation of your agency would be oppression, which is Evil, but denying you the agency on what to do with an affordable part of your money, while leaving you the remainder of your agency, isn't. Without agency, the concepts of Good and Evil have no meaning. If rock falls and kills you, no fault can be put on the rock. Rob a man of his choice between the Good and Evil, and no morality can be said of his actions. He's done no Good, nor Evil. His action is devoid of responsibility. It become amoral.

So when you force him to do Good, he doesn't. His action is nothing. And your violent attempt to impose morality upon him is an act of tyranny. Which is Evil. Regardless of your "intent".

[Breitheamh]

BootStrapTommy, I'm kind of confused. You keep talking about violently doing these things. I think we can all agree that the taxmen coming around beating up the people who won't pay their taxes and taking them anyway is evil, even if the taxes are helping to feed the poor. However, if I understand correctly, most of the people who disagree with you are simply trying to point out that taxes themselves (which at their most basic level, take money from the population and give back other services to the population) are not evil.

I could be misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone is saying violently taking your taxes is good, just that taxing you to help feed the hungry and provide roads and bridges and emergency services is actually a good thing, and not extortion. I would say it's at neutral at worst, since in a way it is evening out the suffering, but certainly not evil, unless your collection methods are brutal and the money isn't actually helping anyone.

Edit: Oh, are you more referring to the Robin Hood deal? Steal from the rich, give to the poor? Are you saying that's evil because he's doing it violently? If that's your point, your whole argument makes much more sense to me, and I'd actually call out the people dissenting for not really addressing your point.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm more concerned about how it would affect CGs if stealing was Evil in a game.

'Wait, I can't steal the keys from the guard without wrecking my alignment?'.

Even if stealing was Evil, a CG person could still get away with borrowing stuff. Taking the keys from the guard, opening the locked door...and then giving the keys back to the guard is not exactly stealing.



You could say 1 or 2 acts won't change alignment, but adventurers often have to obtain things without the owners' permissions. Like getting the MacGuffin from the BBEG. I would make stealing purely Chaotic but not Good or Evil just for playability.

You'd really need to take the extra step and say ''it's only stealing if it's done for an evil reason...like greed''. After all, if the BBEG has gathered the three parts of the Orb of Doom, it's not an evil act to ''steal'' part number two, so he can't put the orb back together.

[Breitheamh]

Even if stealing was Evil, a CG person could still get away with borrowing stuff. Taking the keys from the guard, opening the locked door...and then giving the keys back to the guard is not exactly stealing.

At that point, it's probably more Good to offer him a bribe to give you his keys, since losing his keys could easily lose him his job, and the money could help him get back on his feet.

Not that it's a terribly important distinction. Just a thought.

[BootStrapTommy]

BootStrapTommy, I'm kind of confused. You keep talking about violently doing these things. I think we can all agree that the taxmen coming around beating up the people who won't pay their taxes and taking them anyway is evil, even if the taxes are helping to feed the poor. However, if I understand correctly, most of the people who disagree with you are simply trying to point out that taxes themselves (which at their most basic level, take money from the population and give back other services to the population) are not evil.

I could be misinterpreting, but I don't think anyone is saying violently taking your taxes is good, just that taxing you to help feed the hungry and provide roads and bridges and emergency services is actually a good thing, and not extortion. I would say it's at neutral at worst, since in a way it is evening out the suffering, but certainly not evil, unless your collection methods are brutal and the money isn't actually helping anyone. The problem is the difference between charity (giving to the needy for the sake of Good), which is what everyone thinks of as Good, and taxation (the requisitioning of funds by a Lawful authority) is that "Lawful authority" can only be maintained through the violent force of "lawmen". Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes. And " give me money, or I'll put you in a cage." doesn't become less bad because the guy saying it has a badge.

I would agree with you on the overall Neutrality of the action. If you use violent extortion to feed the hungry and cloth the poor, you've potentially committed both a Good and an Evil. You've hit the middle.

I just reject the idea that you've done only Good. Despite the claims of utilitarians, doing Evil to do Good is at most breaking even.

That's why the Templar trope is Lawful Evil for Good. But we still consider them Evil, despite "the greater good" they work towards.

[Citrakayah]

The morality of an action is derived solely from whether it's voluntary.

No, the status of being able to judge whether or not an action is moral is derived solely from whether it is voluntary. Whether or not an action is moral is derived from the effects of the action, but if it's not voluntary--a rock killing you--you can't assign moral worth to it, be that good or evil.

Of course, ultimately I prefer to reframe ethics to be not about actions, but about results. That does include any actions you take--if I kill someone to obtain an organ for someone else, that life I took is part of the results--but it does mean that if a rock falls on you, and kills you, that's bad. It doesn't make the rock bad, and it would be stupid to punish the rock, or get angry at the rock, but dying sucks.


Without agency, the concepts of Good and Evil have no meaning. If rock falls and kills you, no fault can be put on the rock. Rob a man of his choice between the Good and Evil, and no morality can be said of his actions. He's done no Good, nor Evil. His action is devoid of responsibility. It become amoral.

He does have a choice, as I've said. Moreover, coercion does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions, it alters the parameters in which those actions occur. If my family is taken hostage and I am told to blow up a train station or they will all be killed, I have a choice. It's not a nice choice. But it's still a choice.

After all, I suspect you would not be sympathetic for those who followed a particularly unjust law.


So when you force him to do Good, he doesn't. His action is nothing.

The issue was never "let's force this person to do good." The issue was "starving is bad, let's make sure people don't starve to death."


And your violent attempt to impose morality upon him is an act of tyranny. Which is Evil. Regardless of your "intent".

Guess we can't have any laws, then, since all of them are "violent attempts to impose morality."

And you saving people from death is an act of charity. Which is Good.


The problem is the difference between charity (giving to the needy for the sake of Good), which is what everyone thinks of as Good, and taxation (the requisitioning of funds by a law authority) is that "law authorities" can only be maintained through the violent force of "lawmen". Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes.

I would agree with you on the overall Neutrality of the action. If you use violent extortion to feed the hungry and cloth the poor, you've potentially committed both a Good and an Evil. You've hit the middle.

I just reject the idea that you've done only Good. Despite the claims of utilitarians, doing Evil to do Good is at most breaking even.

That's why the Templar trope is Lawful Evil for Good. But we still consider them Evil, despite "the greater good" they work towards.

Well, there's your problem. You're presuming a 1-to-1 conversion ratio for your evil and your good. But that isn't how it works. "Letting people starve and die of exposure" is a lot worse than "taking a relatively small amount of money from someone."


Even if stealing was Evil, a CG person could still get away with borrowing stuff. Taking the keys from the guard, opening the locked door...and then giving the keys back to the guard is not exactly stealing.

I dare you to try that in court.


You'd really need to take the extra step and say ''it's only stealing if it's done for an evil reason...like greed''. After all, if the BBEG has gathered the three parts of the Orb of Doom, it's not an evil act to ''steal'' part number two, so he can't put the orb back together.

In which case you aren't stealing if you break into someone's house, take twenty bucks off their kitchen table, and donate it to the Poor Starving Orphans Fund.

[Darth Ultron]

At that point, it's probably more Good to offer him a bribe to give you his keys, since losing his keys could easily lose him his job, and the money could help him get back on his feet.

Not that it's a terribly important distinction. Just a thought.

Most good people won't take a bribe.

In theory taxes are neutral, as both good and evil us them.....but it's a fine line. And good people fail with the whole taxes idea all the time as there is so much corruption, greed and selfishness in people.

[Citrakayah]

In theory taxes are neutral, as both good and evil us them.....but it's a fine line. And good people fail with the whole taxes idea all the time as there is so much corruption, greed and selfishness in people.

Again, rests on the false idea that Good + Evil = Neutral, regardless of the magnitude of the relevant actions. And that's ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but if I torture someone to death and then paint their widow's house, I am not in any way remotely close to Neutral. I'm some variety of Evil.

[Breitheamh]

The problem is the difference between charity (giving to the needy for the sake of Good), which is what everyone thinks of as Good, and taxation (the requisitioning of funds by a Lawful authority) is that "Lawful authority" can only be maintained through the violent force of "lawmen". Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes. And " give me money, or I'll put you in a cage." doesn't become less bad because the guy saying it has a badge.

I would agree with you on the overall Neutrality of the action. If you use violent extortion to feed the hungry and cloth the poor, you've potentially committed both a Good and an Evil. You've hit the middle.

I just reject the idea that you've done only Good. Despite the claims of utilitarians, doing Evil to do Good is at most breaking even.

That's why the Templar trope is Lawful Evil for Good. But we still consider them Evil, despite "the greater good" they work towards.

That clears things up a bit. You may be right, that taxation without at least a subtle threat of violence may be impossible without the technology the IRS has today (if you don't pay your taxes, they can just take the money from your bank account), but I think generally under Lawful Good rulership, the ruler will try to make taxes as painless as possible. S/he will try to inform the populace about what the money is used for, exactly how much it will be, and all the rules involved in paying and collecting it. There's always going to be someone who refuses to pay even though they are as fair as possible, and they will probably end up in jail, a punishment that by its nature must be enforced by threat and use of violence, but you cannot make a perfect society with imperfect beings.

[BootStrapTommy]

No, the status of being able to judge whether or not an action is moral is derived solely from whether it is voluntary. Whether or not an action is moral is derived from the effects of the action, but if it's not voluntary--a rock killing you--you can't assign moral worth to it, be that good or evil.

Of course, ultimately I prefer to reframe ethics to be not about actions, but about results. That does include any actions you take--if I kill someone to obtain an organ for someone else, that life I took is part of the results--but it does mean that if a rock falls on you, and kills you, that's bad. It doesn't make the rock bad, and it would be stupid to punish the rock, or get angry at the rock, but dying sucks. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar

This reasoning is the origin of this trope. Just cause your results are Good, doesn't excuse your Evils.

Push someone on the tracks to save fifty, they don't give you a metal for heroism. They charge you with murder.


After all, I suspect you would not be sympathetic for those who followed a particularly unjust law. Maybe he would be responsible. But those who made him are the real Evil.


The issue was never "let's force this person to do good." The issue was "starving is bad, let's make sure people don't starve to death." By threatening others with bodily harm or imprisonment.


Guess we can't have any laws, then, since all of them are "violent attempts to impose morality." Laws are fine. When those who are subject to them have voluntarily consented.


Well, there's your problem. You're presuming a 1-to-1 conversion ratio for your evil and your good. But that isn't how it works. "Letting people starve and die of exposure" is a lot worse than "taking a relatively small amount of money from someone." Even from your utilitarian perspective, you might not be in the clear like you think. If more people are not starving than are (which is true), you're committing far more acts of robbery than you are saving lives. The agrigate good might not tip so much in your favor at you think.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm sorry, but if I torture someone to death and then paint their widow's house, I am not in any way remotely close to Neutral. I'm some variety of Evil.


You need to go by each action. You can't murder and innocent and then help someone in need and say your neutral.

But:

Using torture to kill someone only once in a while to get needed information that will help and save others: Good.

Using torture to kill someone for fun all the time for no really reason then you like to hear the screams: Evil.

[Citrakayah]

Push someone on the tracks to save fifty, they don't give you a metal for heroism. They charge you with murder.

Yeah, they do. Which is the correct action.

When you have to do evil, major evil, like that... even if you made the right choice, you accept the consequences of your actions. One of those is that you murdered someone. Even if you selected the best option of your limited options, our society is based on the even application of laws.

Though, for the record, I would put myself on the lines first.


Maybe he would be responsible. But those who made him are the real Evil.

They're both evil. "Just following orders" is not an excuse.


By threatening others with bodily harm or imprisonment.

Yeah.


Laws are fine. When those who are subject to them have voluntarily consented.

In which case they aren't laws. They're contracts.


Even from your utilitarian perspective, you might not be in the clear like you think. If more people are not starving than are (which is true), you're committing far more acts of robbery than you are saving lives. The agrigate good might not tip so much in your favor at you think.

Might not, but "robbery" isn't even close to "saving a life" when it comes to the absolute moral value (absolute moral value as in absolute value in mathematics applied to ethics).

[BootStrapTommy]

That clears things up a bit. You may be right, that taxation without at least a subtle threat of violence may be impossible without the technology the IRS has today (if you don't pay your taxes, they can just take the money from your bank account), but I think generally under Lawful Good rulership, the ruler will try to make taxes as painless as possible. S/he will try to inform the populace about what the money is used for, exactly how much it will be, and all the rules involved in paying and collecting it. There's always going to be someone who refuses to pay even though they are as fair as possible, and they will probably end up in jail, a punishment that by its nature must be enforced by threat and use of violence, but you cannot make a perfect society with imperfect beings. I agree. I'd neither claim rulers who tax are universally Evil, nor claim Lawful Good rulers couldn't still redistribute wealth. I simply argue that robbing Peter to feed Paul because you decided that Peter won't miss the money is not an act which qualifies as Good.

[Breitheamh]

Using torture to kill someone only once in a while to get needed information that will help and save others: Good.

False. That is the Knight Templar idea the BootStrap brought up. Torture is evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds, D&D's manual of goodness, calls committing an Evil act for a Good end an Evil act, and not justifiable.

[Citrakayah]

There is a big difference between "Dirty Business" and "Knight Templar."


You need to go by each action. You can't murder and innocent and then help someone in need and say your neutral.

But:

Using torture to kill someone only once in a while to get needed information that will help and save others: Good.

Using torture to kill someone for fun all the time for no really reason then you like to hear the screams: Evil.

Well, torture doesn't work, so Evil.

Anyway, "robbing someone" and "feeding someone" are two separate acts, just casually connected.

[BootStrapTommy]

Yeah, they do. Which is the correct action.

When you have to do evil, major evil, like that... even if you made the right choice, you accept the consequences of your actions. One of those is that you murdered someone. Even if you selected the best option of your limited options, our society is based on the even application of laws.

Though, for the record, I would put myself on the lines first. Last time I checked, they do not. Push someone in front of a train, and only no one will applaud.


In which case they aren't laws. They're contracts. And theoretically governments are supposed to be contracts between the governors and governed. They rarely play out that way.


Might not, but "robbery" isn't even close to "saving a life" when it comes to the absolute moral value (absolute moral value as in absolute value in mathematics applied to ethics). Rob too many people and feed too few and by your mathematic ethics, you're Evil. Something large bureaucracies are in the habit of doing. Despite doing so under your same logic.

You'd be more successful trying to incentive Good than you would coercing it. A land of Neutral folk who voluntarily feed the poor is better than a land where violence is applied for the same means.

[Citrakayah]

Last time I checked, they do not. Push someone in front of a train, and only no one will applaud.

Correct. I am saying that placing me on trial for murder is the correct action on their part. I will accept that punishment.


And theoretically governments are supposed to be contracts between the governors and governed. They rarely play out that way.

The governed as a group, yes. You can't get every single individual person to sign a contract agreeing to abide to each and every single law.


Rob too many people and feed too few and by your mathematic ethics, you're Evil. A habit, large bureaucracies are in the habit of doing. Despite doing so under your same logic.

Yes, due to corruption, in large part, which is evil. Also due to bureaucratic problems, which are solvable problems. Moreover, in a Dungeons and Dragons universe, we have magic to help us. Divinations and conjuration magic would greatly improve efficiency.


You'd be more successful trying to incentive Good than you would coercing it. A land of Neutral folk who voluntarily feed the poor is better than a land where violence is applied for the same means.

And if it doesn't work? Don't get me wrong, I prefer such methods, but ultimately in most settings, there exists a starving underclass despite people trying to incentivize good.

Also, they wouldn't be neutral then, they'd be good.

[BootStrapTommy]

Yes, due to corruption, in large part, which is evil. Also due to bureaucratic problems, which are solvable problems. Moreover, in a Dungeons and Dragons universe, we have magic to help us. Divinations and conjuration magic would greatly improve efficiency.

And if it doesn't work? Don't get me wrong, I prefer such methods, but ultimately in most settings, there exists a starving underclass despite people trying to incentivize good. And what if it doesn't work?

Despite magic, D&D still has the same flawed people our world has. Arguably more so, given the power magic bestows and the corrupting effects of that power. If those same mages couldn't figure out how to incentivise Good, why would they be more likely to make efficient bureaucracies?

I think the issue is you don't trust people to be charitable. And I don't trust people with power to be efficiently charitable. And for neither of us, good intentions don't mean squat.

[Citrakayah]

And what if it doesn't work?

Despite magic, D&D still has the same flawed people our world has. Arguably more so, given the power magic bestows and the corrupting effects of that power. If those same mages couldn't figure out how to incentivise Good, why would they be more likely to make efficient bureaucracies?

I think the issue is you don't trust people to be charitable. And I don't trust people with power to be efficiently charitable. And for neither of us, good intentions don't mean squat.

Those are two completely different challenges. One is a matter of pure logistics.

Would you trust a government that has celestials operating in it like Cheliax has devils operating in it to be pretty efficient?

[veti]

You've chosen to take it upon yourself to force me to make decisions about what to do with something that is mine. And you've done it with violence. You act is at best Neutral.

Without agency, the concepts of Good and Evil have no meaning. If rock falls and kills you, no fault can be put on the rock. Rob a man of his choice between the Good and Evil, and no morality can be said of his actions. He's done no Good, nor Evil. His action is devoid of responsibility. It become amoral.

So when you force him to do Good, he doesn't. His action is nothing. And your violent attempt to impose morality upon him is an act of tyranny. Which is Evil. Regardless of your "intent".

You keep using the word "violent". I do not think it means what you think it means.

So let's get this straight:

When you're doing Good, it's only Good if you do it voluntarily. That is to say, you must mean to do Good. Otherwise the action is Neutral.
When you're doing Evil, "intent" is irrelevant: only the action matters. That is to say, even if you mean to do Good, the act is Evil.


Case 1: intent is the only thing that matters. Case 2: intent has nothing to do with it.

How do you explain the asymmetry?

(I'm resisting the temptation for now to ask what this thing called "agency" is, and how you can tell if it exists in a given context.)

[BootStrapTommy]

You keep using the word "violent". I do not think it means what you think it means.

So let's get this straight:

When you're doing Good, it's only Good if you do it voluntarily. That is to say, you must mean to do Good. Otherwise the action is Neutral.
When you're doing Evil, "intent" is irrelevant: only the action matters. That is to say, even if you mean to do Good, the act is Evil.


Case 1: intent is the only thing that matters. Case 2: intent has nothing to do with it.

How do you explain the asymmetry?

(I'm resisting the temptation for now to ask what this thing called "agency" is, and how you can tell if it exists in a given context.) Incorrect. In both cases intent is meaningless. But robbing agency is an Evil act, regardless of intent. Especially when paired with effective robbery.

Taxes are enforced by violence. Don't pay them, the police will lock you up. Resist, they can kill you.

Free agency is the ability to act of your own voilition. It is having free will and exercising it without coercion.


Those are two completely different challenges. One is a matter of pure logistics.

Would you trust a government that has celestials operating in it like Cheliax has devils operating in it to be pretty efficient? Both are matter of logistics. One of not wasting resources frivaliously, the other of finding ways to appeal to people's incentives so that they choose to do Good. If we're speaking of mages, I see no reason why they could overcome one and not the other.

As for the last, I don't really know. In D&D celestials, like the gods they serve, don't come off that Paragon of Good. I mean, they are letting people starve while possessing the collective magic to address these problems. But I suppose the more infallible ones might prove shrewd bureaucrats.

This ultimately comes down to the whole utilitarian versus deontological dilemma. On the Good-Evil scale D&D tends to be deontological. Yet the Lawful-Chaotic scale introduces room for utilitarian ethics, leading to some of the weirder question.

Which I guess is why its so hotly debated.

Out of curiosity, by your utilitarian ethics does someone who is mind controlled, thus rob not just of agency but of free will, hold responsibility for their actions?

[Darth Ultron]

False. That is the Knight Templar idea the BootStrap brought up. Torture is evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds, D&D's manual of goodness, calls committing an Evil act for a Good end an Evil act, and not justifiable.

Though it does depend what ''torture'' is, and the D&D books are no help there. They just kinda leave it unsaid that ''torture is the bad stuff we don't even want to talk about'', and that is of no help.
.
Though, rules wise, there are no real rules for ''torture''. In D&D ''damage is just damage''. So stab someone with a sword is not any different from put them in the iron maiden. A spear of flaming is exactly the same as a poker of flaming. And this does nothing to account for magic, like baleful polymorph, curse, feeblemind, or most other spells.



Well, torture doesn't work, so Evil.

What do you mean by ''doesn't work''? It's a useful way to get information, so it works in that sense.




So let's get this straight:

When you're doing Good, it's only Good if you do it voluntarily. That is to say, you must mean to do Good. Otherwise the action is Neutral.
When you're doing Evil, "intent" is irrelevant: only the action matters. That is to say, even if you mean to do Good, the act is Evil.


So it's good we we says it's good, but it's evil if we say it's evil?

[theNater]

You've chosen to take it upon yourself to force me to make decisions about what to do with something that is mine. And you've done it with violence. You act is at best Neutral.

Without agency, the concepts of Good and Evil have no meaning. If rock falls and kills you, no fault can be put on the rock. Rob a man of his choice between the Good and Evil, and no morality can be said of his actions. He's done no Good, nor Evil. His action is devoid of responsibility. It become amoral.

So when you force him to do Good, he doesn't. His action is nothing. And your violent attempt to impose morality upon him is an act of tyranny. Which is Evil. Regardless of your "intent".
Check me on this: Suppose Christine is about to get shot by a sniper. Alice is running to save her; in the process she shoves Bill out of the way. She has just forced Bill to do something(move to another location) with violence(a shove). Was that an act of tyranny? Is her rescue now Neutral at best?

Most good people won't take a bribe.

In theory taxes are neutral, as both good and evil us them.....but it's a fine line. And good people fail with the whole taxes idea all the time as there is so much corruption, greed and selfishness in people.
Like with so, so many things, taxes are indeed Neutral; intentions and use matter. But you're still better off with Good people working it; as you note, they are less likely to take a bribe or engage in other forms of corruption.

By threatening others with bodily harm or imprisonment.
Threatening people with bodily harm or imprisonment is not inherently Evil. Heck, committing bodily harm or imprisonment is not inherently Evil, otherwise paladins would fall every time they swing their swords.

Using torture to kill someone only once in a while to get needed information that will help and save others: Good.
Nope. Torture is always Evil. It is, at it's core, an attempt to thoroughly destroy the dignity of a sentient being.

Might not, but "robbery" isn't even close to "saving a life" when it comes to the absolute moral value (absolute moral value as in absolute value in mathematics applied to ethics).
Don't fall for it! Robbery by itself isn't Evil at all, by D&D morality.

I think the issue is you don't trust people to be charitable.
Charity is a trait of Good people. D&D humanity is at least two-thirds nonGood. Trusting D&D characters to be charitable is not going to work out.

Incorrect. In both cases intent is meaningless.
Intent usually matters in D&D. It's why Roy and Belkar fighting the same ogres is a Good act for Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html)(heroic rescue) and an Evil act for Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html)(murder for entertainment).

But robbing agency is an Evil act, regardless of intent. Especially when paired with effective robbery.
Neither of those are inherently Evil by D&D standards. Robbing agency is closest, but it has to come pretty much to the point of denying the right to have agency in anything, ever(torture, slavery, etc.). Note that the Dominate Person spell is not an Evil spell, despite straight-up denying the target agency in all ways for days at a time.

[BootStrapTommy]

Intent usually matters in D&D. It's why Roy and Belkar fighting the same ogres is a Good act for Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html)(heroic rescue) and an Evil act for Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html)(murder for entertainment).

Neither of those are inherently Evil by D&D standards. Robbing agency is closest, but it has to come pretty much to the point of denying the right to have agency in anything, ever(torture, slavery, etc.). Note that the Dominate Person spell is not an Evil spell, despite straight-up denying the target agency in all ways for days at a time. And this is why D&D ethics are hotly debated! At its core is deotonological ethics. Yet it's speckled throughout with instances of actions it judges amoral for convenience, whose morality become determined by intent.

It's a somewhat confusing mix, complicated by alignment descriptions which imply utilitarian concerns.

[theNater]

It's a somewhat confusing mix...
I'll grant that it can be confusing, which is why I want to be clear: are we in agreement that D&D does not find agency deprivation inherently Evil? And therefore that robbing Peter to feed Paul is, in D&D terms, a Neutral act and a Good act, thus being entirely reasonable for Good characters to do?

[hamishspence]

Though it does depend what ''torture'' is, and the D&D books are no help there. They just kinda leave it unsaid that ''torture is the bad stuff we don't even want to talk about'', and that is of no help.
.
Though, rules wise, there are no real rules for ''torture''.

Actually there are - they're just not in the main rulebook, but BoVD and FC2.

[Seto]

You can sell you own Luke Skywalker action figures to feed poor kids. But your "supposed" authority does not give you the right to take MINE to feed the poor kids. Doing so is little better than theft, regardless of want your "authority" grants you. Theft by lawful authority is still theft, regardless of whether the authority labels it taxes. It's just "justified" extortion.

Law/Chaos don't take a stance here. Law can take your action figure through taxes and regulations, Chaos can do so through an individual's belief that it's the right thing to do. If you go and try to take it back, both will defend themselves, with the difference being that Law will in most cases be more ruthless and efficient (but sometimes Chaos can be just that too : if you're not strong enough, you'll not be judged and imprisoned, but discarded or killed just as helplessly). In either case, both can argue that your right to your action figure doesn't mean much in the face of a person's starvation, and if you call it a violation of your rights, and if you call it theft, then so be it.
"Theft" has no essence and no alignment in D&D, it depends on the concept of propriety. Propriety is culturally defined. Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, are not. They're cosmological principles. They raise eyebrows at the idea that some superficial, newly created thing such as "propriety" or "theft" could mean something to them. Of course in the real world you could argue that they are social constructions just like propriety is ; in D&D they're primordial and objective. And Baator and Acheron echo with laughter everytime someone invokes their property-based right to let children starve.

On a smaller scale, when considering not Law and Chaos and Good and Evil but lawful, chaotic, good and evil people and societies, your argument becomes relevant. But unfortunately, it's still flawed. Why ? Because propriety and theft are lawful concepts derived from the necessity of social coherence. So, if a law takes your action figure ? Well, you can only call it "theft" in reference to what you consider a more primordial scheme of organization (propriety : things are not only linked to a person when they are being used, but somehow permanently attached to a specific person no matter if they are used are not... - when you think of it, that's counterintuitive, isn't it.) that overrides the specific set of laws responsible for taking your action figure. So, that's a choice between two brands of Lawfulness, and Chaos doesn't really come into that. You could say one is a more chaotic brand of lawfulness, but I don't even think that's true because, if taken to the extreme, authoritative redistribution of wealth and absolute maintaining of existing propriety are both potentially oppressive clockwork-like systems. It's just that we're more used to various mixtures of both that are not taken to the extreme.

[hamishspence]

"Theft" has no essence and no alignment in D&D, it depends on the concept of propriety. Propriety is culturally defined. Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, are not. They're cosmological principles. They raise eyebrows at the idea that some superficial, newly created thing such as "propriety" or "theft" could mean something to them.

The gods, on the other hand, might tend to draw certain concepts toward certain alignments.

Mask, God of Thieves in Faerun, for example, is NE. Every act of theft may increase the power of this [Evil] outsider (Fiend) also called a god.

[veti]

But robbing agency is an Evil act, regardless of intent. Especially when paired with effective robbery.

Let's talk about the starving woman with a child to feed...

She can't get paid work. She's tried begging (persuading people to voluntarily support her and her child), and that hasn't worked. There's nowhere she can go. She has no knowledge to scrounge off the land, and anyway there's no "un-owned" land to be scrounged off. So, as people always seem to end up doing in these examples, she steals a loaf of bread from a baker. The theft happens while the baker is busy elsewhere, and he doesn't notice it until he counts up his stock later in the day.

She's robbed the baker of agency (he can no longer decide what he wants to do with that loaf of bread). And she's robbed him in the most literal sense. So that was an evil act, right? "Regardless of intent", you said.


Taxes are enforced by violence. Don't pay them, the police will lock you up. Resist, they can kill you.

That threat, in so far as it exists at all, is so far removed from the process that it's hard to believe it's even there. How many people have you heard of being locked up, or killed, for refusing to pay their taxes in modern times?

I've heard of people jailed for evading taxes - that is, attempting by subterfuge to pretend that they're not liable for them - but even that is extremely rare. I can't recall anyone being jailed for making a principled stand against paying them, although it may have happened. But I've sure as heck never heard of anyone being killed during this process.

So you're talking about a remote, theoretical threat, with a lot of steps to get to that point. And in that case, I have a hard time taking this word "violence" seriously. You might just as plausibly say that "violence" is implicit any time two people are present in the same room, because I always have the option to attack you if you annoy or frighten me enough.

Let's get this straight. Violence - according to Google - is "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". If that hasn't happened to you, then whatever you've been subjected to, it wasn't "violence". Not the physical kind, at least.


Free agency is the ability to act of your own voilition. It is having free will and exercising it without coercion.

Oh lordy, here we go again...

First, can you explain what "free will" is? When framing your answer, please consider how it might be applied to:
1. you and me
2. a wild goat
3. a d20
4. a slot machine
5. the weather.

And, of course, any other things (or abstract concepts, for that matter) you think might be enlightening.

Second, everyone is subject to some degree of "coercion" all the time. We all have to eat and sleep; that requires us to maintain a source of income (or beg, or steal...), and whichever of those courses of action we take, it comes with enormous inbuilt constraints that we have no choice but to accept. If we don't, we lose the ability to eat and sleep, which is quite the threat.

Or a more immediate example: we're all subject to the rules of posting on this forum. Ignore those, and mods will punish us. That's coercion, but we're both somehow living with it. By choice, even - there are unmoderated forums out there, and yet here we both are.

I guess what I'm saying is, the degree of coercion is important. If you just say "if coercion is present, there is no free agency", then you've already defined "free agency" out of existence, at least in all but the most trivial and meaningless cases.

[Acacia OnnaStik]

The gods, on the other hand, might tend to draw certain concepts toward certain alignments.

Mask, God of Thieves in Faerun, for example, is NE. Every act of theft may increase the power of this [Evil] outsider (Fiend) also called a god.

And, since he's not also the God of All Taxation No Matter How Reasonable, it looks like we've got a cosmological answer to our question...

[Segev]

Isn't "stealing from the rich (but "undeserving") to help the poor (and "deserving")" quintessential CG though?

Running afoul of a CG thief who thinks you are "rich and undeserving" isn't exactly going to be a pleasant experience.

Technically, the story of Robin Hood isn't "rob the rich to feed the poor," despite that being the oft-repeated slogan. It's "rob the corrupt government officials overtaxing the people actually producing anything, and return it to those who made it so they don't starve."

Now, yes, that sounds equally preachy, just in a different way, but think about the story and its particulars: the "rich" are Prince John, the Sherrif of Nottingham, and their cronies, who are all nobles and other government officials. They tax and tax and even corruptly demand more than the taxes require (calling it "taxes" anyway), and then line their pockets with it.

This is corruption, at best and possibly lawlessness if we assume that they're not holding themselves to anything resembling a legal standard other than "I am in charge so I make the rules for everyone else."

There is not a "robber baron" except for literal nobility who literally take goods and wealth from the commoners. The "poor" are the ones who actually make stuff. None of them are paid BY those named as "rich."

The metaphor falls apart when you try to put the government in the role of Robin Hood and employers or even just privately wealthy individuals in the role of "the rich."

A closer metaphor would be a thief who uses hacking to rob the Treasury of its tax-filled coffers, or to empty the budgets of various government agencies just before bonuses go out to their high-paid department heads, and then cashes it out at various banks to hand out to people who want to invest it in their small businesses.

...which actually would make an interesting story and raise ethical questions and have exciting cyber-crime elements.




As to this whole "LG King issuing decrees to enrich himself at the expense of bakers in his kingdom?" No. By definition, his motive is evil. He is LE, assuming he makes sure that the law is applied equally to his royal bakeries and he's just exploiting his greater wealth to keep them in business. He is NE if he employs corrupt methods to ensure that no bakery save his own passes inspections, and uses that as a cover to close his competition. He is CE if he actively sabotages the other bakeries. (In fact, the CE guy likely wouldn't bother with the charade of the law...unless he was a CE ruler of a more-or-less Lawful kingdom, and needed the charade to keep from being deposed by some sort of legal method.)

You can say, "But the King claims it was for the greater good," all you want. What you CLAIM about your alignment doesn't make it so.

That seems to be the core of your misunderstanding, Darth Ultron: you keep applying the "good" label, and even the "law" label, and then describing things that violate one or both of them. And your defense of your label amounts to, "they claim to be LG." A lion can claim to be a vegan all he wants, because he claims that cows are vegetables, but that doesn't make either claim true.

Nobody's said Lawful people are perfect angels who never make mistakes. But an LG ruler who passed a law that increased suffering would not have done so to enrich himself, and would actively seek to correct his mistake when he realized the harm it was causing, even at his own expense. He might make stupid rulings - LG doesn't necessarily mean you have double-digit Int and Wis - but he wouldn't do it for selfish reasons, and if he found out, he'd be horrified that he'd caused harm to others.

[Duke of URRL]

That threat, in so far as it exists at all, is so far removed from the process that it's hard to believe it's even there. How many people have you heard of being locked up, or killed, for refusing to pay their taxes in modern times?

I've heard of people jailed for evading taxes - that is, attempting by subterfuge to pretend that they're not liable for them - but even that is extremely rare. I can't recall anyone being jailed for making a principled stand against paying them, although it may have happened. But I've sure as heck never heard of anyone being killed during this process.



Well, does ''modern'' even count when talking about D&D? Before the 20th century, debtors prisons were a thing...and still are in some places. But even in modern times, a punishment for not paying a tax is imprisonment. There are lots of ''tax protesters'', they just don't make front page news.

[Segev]

I think, though I could be wrong, that the actual punishments for REFUSING to pay your taxes is just that your property is seized, your assets frozen, and your life ruined. Throwing you in jail would be too dignified. It's only if you perjur yourself by lying about your income or otherwise trying to falsify your tax liabilities that you wind up risking jail.

I think. Again, I could be wrong.

[Citrakayah]

Free agency is the ability to act of your own voilition. It is having free will and exercising it without coercion.

In which case I've never had free agency, nor has anyone in the entire history of the world.


Both are matter of logistics. One of not wasting resources frivaliously, the other of finding ways to appeal to people's incentives so that they choose to do Good. If we're speaking of mages, I see no reason why they could overcome one and not the other.

Well, in Dungeons and Dragons, there are a lot of organizations--mostly large religions--that do try to appeal to people's better natures. But they don't really seem to be all that effective, in the grand scheme of things.

And, ultimately, logistical matters are easier to overcome than fundamentally changing human nature entirely through carrots.


As for the last, I don't really know. In D&D celestials, like the gods they serve, don't come off that Paragon of Good. I mean, they are letting people starve while possessing the collective magic to address these problems. But I suppose the more infallible ones might prove shrewd bureaucrats.

Well, most outsiders can't really access the Material Plane without someone summoning them. Gods are another matter, but their influence does seem to be limited by what powers they give to their agents, and divine MAD plays into inaction as well.


Out of curiosity, by your utilitarian ethics does someone who is mind controlled, thus rob not just of agency but of free will, hold responsibility for their actions?

Not really. They aren't actually doing anything, someone is using their body like a puppet--or a robot. If their mind has been "reformatted" to the point where they are forever an intelligent, free-willed--but ultimately loyal--servant of whoever cast the spell, I would consider the original person to be dead, and a new entity to be born and using their body.

And this new person would be responsible.


Don't fall for it! Robbery by itself isn't Evil at all, by D&D morality.

I'm arguing from utilitarian ethics, which holds, actually, that there are no neutral acts, since every action we do has some marginal effect on other beings capable of feeling emotion. Everything is connected, and all our actions have good and bad consequences. But when deciding what the morality of an action is, we don't think to ourselves "well, some people came off better for it, and some people came off worse for it, so it's neutral." We have to weigh the actual effects of the action.

[theNater]

I'm arguing from utilitarian ethics, which holds, actually, that there are no neutral acts, since every action we do has some marginal effect on other beings capable of feeling emotion.
That's very nice to know, but this thread is about the D&D alignment system, in which there are Neutral acts. Helping someone in a way that requires no sacrifice, for example, would be Neutral by D&D standards.

[Breitheamh]

That's very nice to know, but this thread is about the D&D alignment system

Or, at least, it's supposed to be. I feel like a lot of posts have already discussed plenty of real-world morality and ethics, or at least are riding the fence pretty hard. In fact, I was guilty of that myself in my first post, which is why edited it.

[Darth Ultron]

Actually there are - they're just not in the main rulebook, but BoVD and FC2.

Well, if you want to sue them books.....then torture in D&D is only using an intimidate check to get information from a person. So, rules wise, only that is torture. Anyone can do anything else, and it's not torture.



Mask, God of Thieves in Faerun, for example, is NE. .

Well...

Brandobaris, halfling god of thieves is Neutral.
Erevan Ilesere, elven god of thieves is Chaotic Neutral
Hermes, the Olympian god of thieves is Chaotic Good
Vergadain, the dwarven god of thieves is neutral

[Gritmonger]

You know what's really hilarious? The Trope "Knight Templar" isn't anything like the Knights Templar, who were deliberately maligned when the papacy was moved to Lyon and controlled by the French monarchy because the lands many of these people owned were donated to the order, and no longer taxable by the monarchy.

And after being tortured into confessing to false charges, some recanted, even though it meant their deaths. Their biggest crime was in not being immediately reportable to the French monarchy which controlled the papacy. And so, either as confessed apostates, or as martyrs, their land could be quietly repossessed.