How and Why Cosmic Alignment?

[goto124]

I personally view alignment to work best as a roleplaying guideline: Helping newbies with playing out their characters, and no more. What got me to start this thread, however, was this:


I've seen some really great arguments on these boards for why the D&D alignment system is already arbitrary, and each alignment being described as "Good" or "Evil" is more in-setting propaganda than anything approaching real-world ethics. I wish I could find some to pull them up, but the main point is, I think that if the DM is taking one set of arbitrary values that goes by a particular name and changes it to another set of arbitrary values that goes by the original name, the worst thing you can accuse him of is being confusing. His defense that "that's how the book does it" is untrue to say the least, but Good and Evil aren't truly good and evil anyway, they're just a result of doing or feeling certain things that cause you to have a particular cosmic glow. (One thing I remember reading on these boards was somebody pointing out that the alignments being called Good and Evil in the first place probably only came about because most living beings would agree that one of those cosmic energies is more pleasant to live around and have in power than the other.)

What you have here is basically a super totalitarian setting with a cosmos that is extremely sensitive to things that don't support rigid societal rules. So you have the light yellow glow like everyone else when you support "society" and the dark red glow when you decide to run away with your magic items instead of turning them over. And people in these societies have been conditioned to believe that people with the dark red glow should be killed on sight; some even have the ability to hurt people more for having the dark red glow (Paladins).

The in-setting morality system centering around these alignments is still arbitrary, it's just enforced by a cosmic color-marker for particular actions and thoughts. What things go into setting off these cosmic color markers makes much less difference than whether or not they exist.

Which also makes me wonder: What is cosmic alignment even for? What's its purpose? If it's for mechanics such as Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and Helm of Opposite Alignment... connecting roleplay to mechanics so closely seems rather problematic. It's one of the issues I have with alignment.

How can cosmic alignment be done well?

[Lord Raziere]

By having a God of All Alignments be running the show, give him stats then allow the option for the PC's to kill him and take his place.

and if they take that option, thats when the real fun begins. now they have perfect control over how cosmic alignment makes you glow. what do you with it? what actions will you say is evil, which ones will you say is good? you are now the judges of all morality. Furthermore: what morals can you be held to....when your the one that determines morality itself?

:smallbiggrin:

[AceOfFools]

What is cosmic alignment even for? What's its purpose? If it's for mechanics such as Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and Helm of Opposite Alignment... connecting roleplay to mechanics so closely seems rather problematic. It's one of the issues I have with alignment.

How can cosmic alignment be done well?

It comes down to theme.

A huge part of Dungeons and Dragon's inherit mechanical theming is the battle between good and evil. Evil isn't some passive force, or moral judgement, it is a cosmic force that spawns horrors and corrupts otherwise moral people.

If you deliberately play a game that pursues that theme, alignment is great. It provides hordes (via fiends and followers of evil deities) and dark powers to those who take up the role of the villian and the tyrant, while at the same time giving those that stand in direct opposition to that Evil the power to resist and overcome.

It allows members of either side in the cosmic conflict to identify their allies and strike against their enemies.

By inclusion of the Law-Chaos axis, it allows for conflicts that are every bit as cosmic and meaningful as that depraved defieler vs shiny knight without falling into monolythic cosmic forces, allowing for greater nuance, and more than that one, essentially meaningless non-choice between monster and hero.

To use it well, build setting and scenario with the idea of exploring, not "what does it mean to be good?" but "how does this group/faction/event/location exemplify Chaotic/Good/Evil/Lawful?"

Don't let it be some cosmic glowy, let it Good v Evil and Lawful v. Chaotic be the only lenses through which a setting can be viewed.

In this strongly themed version of DnD neutral alignments allow for one to either place greater or emphasis on one of the two lenses, or to make the choices REAL.

Evil isn't just not Good, or the converse. It is a real choice that only fully rewards those that devote themselves towards whichever cause they embrace.

It actually does help the strong Good/Evil theming, and is a huge positive for the system.

The problem is, that's a very specific theme with very limited appeal, and it is incredibility entrenched in the mechanics. There is only really one core fantasy: "The hero who stands up for what is right in a world full of horror" with just different definitions of "right" and "horror" depending on which alignment you take on, and which you oppose.

If you want to play anything with moral nuance and shades of moral gray; a story where good people sometimes have to do bad things to succeed against a worst fate, cosmic alignment actually hinders you.

It resolves all moral dilemmas with a quick "you went to far, and are no longer Good" or "your action is totally justified, and you still completely good". Fine if you want to play a childish hero fantasy (as I often do), but pointless if you want to play something that explores actually realistic experiences.

That's how I see one can correctly use cosmic alignment and why I think not using it is the more correct, more generic choice.

[goto124]

It resolves all moral dilemmas with a quick "you went to far, and are no longer Good" or "your action is totally justified, and you still completely good".

I've often felt alignment to be shackles on characters. If I'm playing an adventurer who does anything to fight the Evil Faction... I'm fighting the Evil Faction, why am the good people pinging me as Evil and hurting me with Smite Evil? Especially in the case of a simplistic Good-vs-Evil story where cosmic alignment actually works well? If the former happens at all, doesn't it change the campaign completely, and should be avoided unless everyone at the table's discussed and agreed? If 'does anything to fight Evil' has somehow extended to really horrible things, it should be handled OOCly. IC punishment only means more friction.

In this case, Neutral means 'not participating in the cosmic Good-Evil battle'. Oridinary citizens, people who just want money, etc.

[dream]

Alignment is a rule. It's no less a rule than what Strength is & how it works. Most TTRPGs allow groups to change the rules to make the game more enjoyable. D&D has always been that kind of a game, in terms of how one's local group decides to play. If you don't like D&D's Alignment system, don't use it.

Here's what E. G. Gygax had to say about alignment,

From the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide, First edition:

"Alignment describes the broad ethos of thinking, reasoning creatures -
those unintelligent sorts being placed within the neutral area because they
are totally uncaring. Note that alignment does not necessarily dictate
religious persuasion, although many religious beliefs will dictate alignment.
As explained under ALIGNMENT LANGUAGES (q.v.) this aspect of
alignment is not the major consideration. The overall behavior of the
character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player
characters, behavior determines actual alignment. Therefore, besides
defining the general tendencies of creatures, it also groups creatures into
mutually acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions. This is not to say that
groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal
enemies. Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment
can be at war. Bands of orcs can hate each other. But the former would
possibly cease their war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs. just as the
latter would make common cause against the lawful good men. Thus,
alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what
their actions, reactions, and purposes will be. It likewise causes a player
character to choose an ethos which is appropriate to his or her profession,
and alignment also aids players in the definition and role approach of
their respective game personae ...."

In terms of Gygax's original concept of alignment, there was no restriction of behavior. Instead, alignment was used to translate PC behavior into D&D terms. It didn't stop players from doing what they wanted, because that wasn't its function. What alignment has become since AD&D 1e is another issue.

[Karl Aegis]

You use it as a valid reason to call in allies in a war against enemies trying to reclaim their ancestral lands from you which you took without just cause because they just so happen to ping as evil now. They didn't ping as evil before you forced them into lands that cannot support life in any large quantity. They ping as evil now because they had to spend several generations sending their young and weak into hostile lands to find food enough to keep themselves alive. It's your fault they're evil now, but you have moral high ground killing them because you don't ping as evil.

[Duke of URRL]

How can cosmic alignment be done well?

I love cosmic alignment and always use it in my games. I really hate the idea that anyone can just do anything and slap any alignment on it by whatever they feel at that second.

It works great. The DM sits down and defines the alignments. Then tells the players. The players can have a character act any way they want, but how they act determines their alignment.

For a normal game I will start every character out as true neutral. As the game goes on, I'll make notes when they do something alignment worthy. At the end of a game, I'll see if the character has shown a set alignment. It might take a couple games. Eventually I will tell the player the characters alignment.

For the couple characters, like clerics, that start with an alignment as close to neutral as possible for their god, I'll give the player a God Rule Card(you must follow a god to be a cleric). The card will have the basic rules of the faith. The cleric must follow them, and as the rule will match the alignment of the god, they character will fall into one of the accepted alignments of the god eventually.

[goto124]

I guess part of it is feeling you have to be a certain alignment or suffer from it. Even when not a cleric/paladin/whatever, if I'm Evil I'm going to get whacked over the head with Detect Evil and Smite Evil. You could say restricting your actions is fair exchange for not getting Smited. But when I restrict my actions in the sense of 'instead of murdering that person in broad daylight in a city, I trick the guy into entering a forest and quietly backstab him and bury his corpse', still pinging Evil seems to be.. I dunno, unfair?

'Alignment should not be used to restrict players' actions' seems to be agreed on. However, the line between 'fair consequences for actions' and 'giving consequences such that it's effectively restricting the players' is blurry.

@Karl: :smallbiggrin:

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Without the context of the other thread, I think some people are misapplying my point. I'm not trying to say people should be able to do whatever and then hide behind "but my sheet says LG so if the Paladin hits me for burning down that orphanage he's a bad person and I'm roleplaying more nuance." Though, to illustrate my point, it's important to note that characters in the setting might well believe the first part of that.

See, the problem is that some people see it as something other than a cosmic force defined via a game mechanic. As it was so eloquently put, it's a rule just like how Strength works. The names Good and Evil and Law and Chaos might have been chosen in the mythos because people who light up that way tend to be described with words like "decent" or "wicked" or "honorable" or "anarchic," but that isn't why they are what they are. The cosmos is not an intelligent thing, it can not make value judgements. D&D alignments are laws of physics, like inertia or gravity, and because this is fantasy, they can react to things like thoughts and metaphysical consequences for actions rather than direct physical stimuli. But that doesn't mean there's anything actually "moral" about them.

If you want to use the same basic mechanics but try new alignments, you could make your alignments "quizfish," "hackmaster," and "yoloswag77," where fishing is a quizfish act and curiosity is a quizfish trait, where coming up with random names is a yoloswag77 act and being reckless is a yoloswag77 trait, and starting arguments for no good reason is a hackmaster act and being verbose is a hackmaster trait. And that would have exactly the same amount of true moral authority as the standard D&D alignment system.

It's just the names and associated actions that change.

[Karl Aegis]

You can break into someone's homes, drag them out into the street and execute them publicly and still ping as chaotic good. Alignment is weird like that.

[Seto]

This is mostly my homebrew solution, but here's how I do it.

Alignments are just not cosmic principles, they're cosmic matter. Some beings are made of it, Devils for example are composed by Evil and Law. Other beings "merely" have the ability to produce that matter. By a process much akin to a chemical reaction, it is produced when you do certain things. For example if you stab an innocent child, it creates some Evil. If you forgive a heinous act committed against you, it eliminates some Evil. If you feed a starving family, it creates some Good. The amount of alignment matter created depends on the act. One of the proprieties of alignment matter is that it clings to your soul. The act does not have to be unambiguous, that's how you respond to this :
It resolves all moral dilemmas with a quick "you went to far, and are no longer Good" or "your action is totally justified, and you still completely good".
A morally ambiguous, or "greater-good" act, can create both Good and Evil matter. Thus, assuming the act was really a minor Evil for a greater Good (that's not always the case), you have helped Good, but you got some Evil in your soul. That also fits in perfectly with Atonement : what the spell does is exert its cleansing power to remove some recently introduced Evil in your soul. (you can say that you need to be remorseful, which in practice is like giving a push from the inside of your soul to help the spell work).

Beauty is, most everyone is unaware of this. Not necessarily of the existence of principles (at least Clerics know), but of their exact material nature. So, this does not impede in any way the search for morality : you can be moral, you can make your own choices, and the creation of alignment matter is essentially a byproduct of this process. But every kind of matter, in its own mindless way, wants to expand and fill the world. That's why it spontaneously forms Exemplars (from the Outer Planes, which are the principal stock of alignment matter), who are their agents in that regard.

[Necroticplague]

If alignment is a cosmic force, it makes sense to not attach moral judgement to it, and a good system takes that into account. DnD kinda muddles this up by trying to make alignment both a moral judgement and a cosmic force. A good starting point is to change the names and definitions so that they don't have a moral connotation to them. So instead of good vs. evil and law vs. chaos, you can have cooperation vs. independence and order vs. freedom.

[Vitruviansquid]

Imagine, briefly, that we lived in a world in which Call of Cthulhu was the first tabletop RPG to become immensely popular and gain mainstream recognition, much like how DnD is in our world. In that world, everybody's first experience with RPG's is probably in Call of Cthulhu (much in the same way DnD is now), you would see people often write posts with titles like "how do you portray Deep Ones?" in the general roleplaying forum, as if a question kind of specifically about Call of Cthulhu applied to all RPGs (much in the same way we treat DnD now). In this other world, everyone would struggle to make sense of the insanity mechanics. Alice will make the post, "it's kind of simplistic that the game's designers say you'd gain insanity every time you saw every time you saw beyond the veil, because what if there are also good things beyond the veil?" And Bob will post, "My character is a sociopath and it's ridiculous that my GM says I gain insanity from realizing the old gods will destroy everyone. He shouldn't care!" And then, of course, come the rationalizations and explanations. Carol posts, "Look guys, you're doing it all wrong. In Call of Cthulhu, insanity is not like how insanity in our world, it's more like a cosmic force" and Daniel posts "What the rule book says about 'insanity' you can really just say is 'magical brain damage.'"

To return to the topic, the DnD alignment system is fairly perfect as a representation of a certain tradition of medieval European heroism. In this tradition, the medieval European hero is responsible for carrying out "crusade," which used to mean, in its earliest days, the armed pilgrimage to secure certain specific places of religious importance for pilgrims, but has since in history and the popular imagination come to mean the literal battle between good and evil. In the perspective of that certain medieval European tradition, "good" and "evil" are not extremely complicated; if you worship the same deity we worship, you are Good. If you worship a different deity, you are evil. If you do X things that our deity finds agreeable, you are Good. If you do X things that our deity finds abominable, you are evil. Unfortunately, this alignment system designed to immerse players within that certain tradition of medieval European heroism often gets used for unintended purposes because DnD is so often picked by default for whatever campaign the players want, which is where the alignment system runs into trouble. People trying to figure out the alignment system when they are playing with the understanding of a more modern idea of heroism will find that DnD's alignment system is kind of racist. Of course. It's supposed to make you think like athat tradition of medieval European hero, who can be kind of racist.

[theNater]

The cosmos is not an intelligent thing, it can not make value judgements.
This is entirely wrong. The D&D universe does make value judgments. You know how the Good afterlives are more pleasant than the Evil ones? That's because they are rewards and punishments based on what the cosmos wants people to be doing.

That's the beauty of cosmic alignment; the universe is a living thing, and has its own (inhuman) wants and goals. You can get to know the universe; make friends with it, do each other favors. You can also feud with it, and have it turn its back on you. This is the key to using cosmic alignment well; treating the cosmos as a character, and remembering that it has a mind. Paladins and Clerics are going to see the impacts of this more strongly than other characters, because the nature of their powers is a direct connection to the cosmos. One of the lesser-used rules is that Clerics pray for the spells they want, but they get the spells they are given. You, as the DM, know the players are going to be facing a lot of fire damage today? Tell the Cleric that they get a Protection from Elements instead of that Continual Flame; this is the universe helping them out. A Cleric of the god of healing hasn't been doing any healing? Tell them that today all their spell slots are filled with the level-appropriate healing domain spells; this is a little note from the universe saying "hey, remember that thing I asked you to do?" This is why a Paladin falling can be such a moving story; it's a couple of really, really close friends having a messy falling-out.

Do be sure your players are in for it before you go this route, of course. It does mean a little loss of control on their parts, especially for those divine characters.

[Draken]

If alignment is a cosmic force, it makes sense to not attach moral judgement to it, and a good system takes that into account. DnD kinda muddles this up by trying to make alignment both a moral judgement and a cosmic force. A good starting point is to change the names and definitions so that they don't have a moral connotation to them. So instead of good vs. evil and law vs. chaos, you can have cooperation vs. independence and order vs. freedom.

While this is true, the attached moral judgement can and probably should be read as mere author bias. The books are written under the rather explicit point of view that players will take the good side nearly all the time and the lawful side a decent majority of it.

[Premier]

To answer the OP: it all comes from the early history of D&D.

Originally, the alignment system had a single axis: Law - Neutrality - Chaos. (The whole Good-Evil thing was only added later. As far as D&D is concerned, Law and Chaos predate Good and Evil.)

The concept was essentially taken wholesale from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, where Law and Chaos (and the Cosmic Balance) are objectively existing cosmic forces. As for why Gary Gygax decided to lift this element into the game? Well, for the same reason he took trolls from the same work, or why he took Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits from Lord of the Rings, or a whole bunch of other things from other sources: because he thought it was a good idea.

On a practical level, it's an easy-to-use tool for the DM to generate instant and easily recognisable conflict: Law and Chaos are two opposing teams, so you can always whip up some good ol' conflict and the attendant adventure and ultraviolence without getting into the philosophical morass of "Why are we killing these dudes, anyway?"

Then of course later the system was expanded to include Good and Evil, and the whole concept just sort of shifted into new forms, which I for one think did more harm than good. The alignment system was originally an admittedly narrow but crystal-clear design element that was easy to utilise as written, tweak a bit to make more interesting or just outright ignore; which later got watered down into a muddled thing where people can no longer even agree on what it's supposed to mean and represent.

[Jay R]

If morality means anything, it must be cosmic. When I say that saving lives is good and random killings are bad, I'm not merely stating a preference. I'm stating that these facts are true whether I or anybody else believes them.

But because morality is cosmic, our finite minds cannot contain or understand all of it, just as we will never understand all of physics. We try to grasp as much of it as we can, knowing that our understanding of it is flawed.

The unsolvable problem of alignment in D&D comes from the fact that our finite minds wrote and interpreted the rules. A group of people are trying to create a cosmic understanding of morality, when we can't even usually figure out who started an argument, or who should get the last piece of cake.

How can it be done well? The first step is that the DM needs to recognize that he isn't perfect on the subject of morality, and that many moral choices are more complex than we know. Next, the DM and the players need to recognize that no simulation is perfect, and the alignment system is as inaccurate as the combat system. Both are inadequate tools for the purpose of creating a limited simulation of a fantasy world. Then it becomes much easier to handle.

[Necroticplague]

This is entirely wrong. The D&D universe does make value judgments. You know how the Good afterlives are more pleasant than the Evil ones? That's because they are rewards and punishments based on what the cosmos wants people to be doing.

No, I don't know. The Evil afterlives are unpleasant when you're at the bottom because of the other beings there. And when you think about, if you subscribe to the philosophy of evil, the lower planes aren't that bad. You can get practically any amount of power, should you have the skill, cunning, and courage. Remember, orcus started out as a larva, just like everyone else in the pit. So literally, the only thing between you and godhood is the multitude of others fighting for it.And what's a reward without a challenge in getting it? So get to it.

Evil is, above all else, a meritocracy. Those in power deserve to be there. If they fail to be worthy, they find themselves soon replaced by someone who is. Asmodeous remains on top not because of inertia, but because he is clever, wise, and powerful enough to come out the ridiculous tangle of plots ahead of everyone else.

Or think of someone like Belkar. His psychopathic manchild of a mind would grow bored with the Upper planes in relatively short time. The Pits? Much more suiting to his tastes.

[Vrock_Summoner]

think of someone like Belkar. His psychopathic manchild of a mind would grow bored with the Upper planes in relatively short time. The Pits? Much more suiting to his tastes.

Are you kidding? The Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands and the Dungeon of Precisely Challenging Monsters are right up Belkar's alley. :smallwink:

[Beta Centauri]

No, that isn't how D&D alignment works (at least not anymore), but I wish it did. I wish "Good" and "Evil" and the rest were just teams, rather than reliable modes of behavior. Each team is trying to gain power (even Neutrality, which is most powerful when everyone else's power is balanced), and they each resort to roughly the same means to acquire it.

There would be Good torturers and Evil torturers. Good healers and Evil healers. Good saints and Evil saints. Lawful criminals and Chaotic criminals. Everyone is just folks and no one is ultimately any "better" than anyone else

The way I can see this working is that everyone would suffer less and benefit more from effects related to their own alignment. Some game effects already do this, but this would be for everyone even if that source is not otherwise magical. This would simulate the innate cooperation and sympathy members of the same alignment have for each other, and the innate hostility and distaste opposite alignments have for each other. The behavior of character would have little actual bearing on alignment, because the player chose upfront who they would, deep down, be friendly with. A character's "goodness" would be mechanically represented by their affinity for other "good" things, just as a character's "fighterness" is mechanically represented (ideally) by their affinity for fighting.

There would also be bigger rewards for performing tasks that harm or diminish one's opposing alignments. Every quest could be aligned (though any kind of quest could have any kind of alignment) which would result in groups wanting to share alignments. There would be less incentive to kill NPCs of the same alignment, not because of the risk of imprisonment, but because there are just fewer rewards in it.

Effects from animals and the environment would be Neutral, which would lead to Neutral people being more willing and able to work with and preserve natural things, since they are harmed less by it and benefit more from it.

If a group was fighting a Chaotic foe, their Chaotic party member would have trouble harming it, because they share the same alignment, and the Chaotic PC can't easily wield

This wouldn't address in-party fighting, since there aren't really rewards for that anyway, and the effect would be balanced between any two opponents. Still, I think it would end a lot of the issues about morality, since alignment would still work, no matter what the character's behavior was.

[theNater]

No, I don't know. The Evil afterlives are unpleasant when you're at the bottom because of the other beings there.
Do you really think Orcus and Asmodeous are happy? Living with the knowledge that everyone around them is just looking for the opportunity to betray them? Being unable to relax, even for a moment, because they know that if they get knocked off the top rung, they'll never, ever have a chance to climb back up because everyone else knows how dangerous they are and will keep them ground down forever out of simple self-preservation?

Evil is, above all else, a meritocracy. Those in power deserve to be there. If they fail to be worthy, they find themselves soon replaced by someone who is. Asmodeous remains on top not because of inertia, but because he is clever, wise, and powerful enough to come out the ridiculous tangle of plots ahead of everyone else.
Evil is a meritocracy as long as you consider those abilities, and those abilities only, to be merits. I consider loyalty and the ability to form genuine friendships merits, and Evil power structures actively select against those.

Heck, there's merit in being a good chef, but that's not going to help you in The Pits.

Or think of someone like Belkar. His psychopathic manchild of a mind would grow bored with the Upper planes in relatively short time. The Pits? Much more suiting to his tastes.
Panel 11 of strip #890 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html) would beg to differ.

[AceOfFools]

To return to the topic, the DnD alignment system is fairly perfect as a representation of a certain tradition of medieval European heroism. In this tradition, the medieval European hero is responsible for carrying out "crusade," which used to mean, in its earliest days, the armed pilgrimage to secure certain specific places of religious importance for pilgrims, but has since in history and the popular imagination come to mean the literal battle between good and evil. In the perspective of that certain medieval European tradition, "good" and "evil" are not extremely complicated; if you worship the same deity we worship, you are Good. If you worship a different deity, you are evil. If you do X things that our deity finds agreeable, you are Good. If you do X things that our deity finds abominable, you are evil. Unfortunately, this alignment system designed to immerse players within that certain tradition of medieval European heroism often gets used for unintended purposes because DnD is so often picked by default for whatever campaign the players want, which is where the alignment system runs into trouble. People trying to figure out the alignment system when they are playing with the understanding of a more modern idea of heroism will find that DnD's alignment system is kind of racist. Of course. It's supposed to make you think like athat tradition of medieval European hero, who can be kind of racist.

Vitruviansquid nails it.

Tip of the hat to you.

[Beta Centauri]

In the perspective of that certain medieval European tradition, "good" and "evil" are not extremely complicated; if you worship the same deity we worship, you are Good. If you worship a different deity, you are evil. If you do X things that our deity finds agreeable, you are Good. If you do X things that our deity finds abominable, you are evil. In the Basic D&D set I had, there was only Law, Neutrality and Chaos, the axis that really doesn't seem to spark as much debate. There was still a protection from evil spell, but "evil" was defined as an alignment other than yours.

This would have been perfect, except that this definition was only part of that spell, and Chaos was pretty clearly described, explicitly and implicitly via monster descriptions, as malevolent and not really meant for players.

[Necroticplague]

Do you really think Orcus and Asmodeous are happy? Living with the knowledge that everyone around them is just looking for the opportunity to betray them? Being unable to relax, even for a moment, because they know that if they get knocked off the top rung, they'll never, ever have a chance to climb back up because everyone else knows how dangerous they are and will keep them ground down forever out of simple self-preservation? Certainly more so then when they were 'nameless celestial/lemure #54765" whose only purpose was to fight and die for the cause of others.


Evil is a meritocracy as long as you consider those abilities, and those abilities only, to be merits. I consider loyalty and the ability to form genuine friendships merits, and Evil power structures actively select against those.

Heck, there's merit in being a good chef, but that's not going to help you in The Pits.


No, there are plenty of other things that are meritorious under Evil's hierarchy if you know how to leverage it. Loyalty tends to bring its own rewards easily, because leaders prefer there followers loyal. Not exactly sure what you mean by 'genuine' friendship, but having people who would be willing to help you out is always a useful thing, and the ability to make others such will be rewarded in any system composing of other people.

That's more related to the fact that everyone in The Pits is an outsider, and doesn't have to eat, then anything related to Hell itself. There wouldn't be much merit for a chef in a necropolis, either.

[theNater]

Certainly more so then when they were 'nameless celestial/lemure #54765" whose only purpose was to fight and die for the cause of others.
That's not exactly setting a high bar. Remember, "it's nice at the top" was your defense of the Evil afterlives as compared to the Good afterlives, so the real comparison is to characters who have earned a spot in a Good afterlife; do you think Asmodeus and Orcus are happy compared to them? Keep in mind that Good souls are not forcibly recycled into celestials the way Evil ones are into lemures.

No, there are plenty of other things that are meritorious under Evil's hierarchy if you know how to leverage it. Loyalty tends to bring its own rewards easily, because leaders prefer there followers loyal. Not exactly sure what you mean by 'genuine' friendship, but having people who would be willing to help you out is always a useful thing, and the ability to make others such will be rewarded in any system composing of other people.
That's why Orcus and Asmodeus are always surrounded by their dear and loyal friends...um...which dear and loyal friends hang out with Orcus and Asmodeus again?

[veti]

That's not exactly setting a high bar. Remember, "it's nice at the top" was your defense of the Evil afterlives as compared to the Good afterlives, so the real comparison is to characters who have earned a spot in a Good afterlife; do you think Asmodeus and Orcus are happy compared to them? Keep in mind that Good souls are not forcibly recycled into celestials the way Evil ones are into lemures.

You raise, sorta, a question that's been bothering me for a very long time...

Within this D&D cosmology, why would anyone be evil?

Traditionally, the number one reason for "being evil" is because it gives you power. People do deals with devils in exchange for magical power of some sort. But D&D allows you to gain just as much, if not more, magical power by working for good gods (clerics) or none at all (wizards), so why would you commit to having your soul ground down into tasty treats for demons, in exchange for something you could just as easily get without making that trade?

Sometimes it's framed as to achieve some very specific aim that can only be met in one very specific way (Anakin Skywalker's fall). But again, in the D&D world, there are very, very few problems that fall into this category. With vanishingly few exceptions, anything a demon lord can credibly offer you, a good god or neutral wizard can offer you just as easily.

Sometimes there's an uncontrollable craving to do evil. You'd think, if you fell into that category, you'd go see a good cleric and put your name on the waiting list for a Greater Restoration or whatever it takes to cure insanity.

Sometimes the rage within is so powerful that you just want revenge on the world, regardless of consequences to yourself. (I'm thinking Aribeth, here.) I can empathise with that, but again it's a rare case. Lots of people have moments like that in their lives, and yet shooting sprees and serial killings are still fairly uncommon, because they get over it. (See also "insanity", above.)

[theNater]

Within this D&D cosmology, why would anyone be evil?
Lots of reasons. Some people just aren't thinking that far ahead(Belkar). Some think they'll manage to find a way around it(Xykon). Some have convinced themselves that it's all propaganda from the forces of Good(Redcloak, Tarquin). And some are just trying to be edgy(Nale).

Traditionally, the number one reason for "being evil" is because it gives you power. People do deals with devils in exchange for magical power of some sort. But D&D allows you to gain just as much, if not more, magical power by working for good gods (clerics) or none at all (wizards), so why would you commit to having your soul ground down into tasty treats for demons, in exchange for something you could just as easily get without making that trade?
If you work for the Good gods, they're going to ask you to do things you may not want to do, like fasting, tithing, and being nice to people you don't like. Wizards have to work, study, and research-often to the point of not having time to tend to their physical health. Evil gods will generally give you the power without such requirements; you pay after you die, instead of while you're alive.

[Beta Centauri]

You raise, sorta, a question that's been bothering me for a very long time...

Within this D&D cosmology, why would anyone be evil? Excellent question. In some real world religious concepts no one is inherently "evil" (though they may be flawed and undeserving). "Evil" is thought to stem from beings that are inherently evil, or at least whose role it is to tempt people into doing evil. Those so tempted are not evil, just weak and ignorant about the "fact" that there is, ultimately, no upside to evil.

The idea of "weakness" also plays into the idea that while, sure, you can get rewards from good gods, and a wonderful everlasting reward, you have to put yourself through hell to gain them. In the real world, this means forgoing luxuries to "show" that you are deserving. In certain editions of D&D (and in Star Wars), that mainly means giving up certain paths that might make things easier in the short term. Paladins can't lie, even when doing so might save their lives (or they'd better be regretful and have an atonement handy). Good clerics can't cast certain power words. In theory, it's just a harder row to sow, and deserving of more power and reward down the road.

In practice, it tends not to be. Maybe GMs are supposed to really put the screws on good clerics and tempt them to cast evil spells or whatever, but I don't ever really see that, nor advice for making it fun. Paladins, of course, are famous for getting put in moral dilemmas, but outside of that they're not significantly harder to play than other characters.

[theNater]

In certain editions of D&D (and in Star Wars), that mainly means giving up certain paths that might make things easier in the short term. Paladins can't lie, even when doing so might save their lives (or they'd better be regretful and have an atonement handy). Good clerics can't cast certain power words. In theory, it's just a harder row to sow, and deserving of more power and reward down the road.

In practice, it tends not to be. Maybe GMs are supposed to really put the screws on good clerics and tempt them to cast evil spells or whatever, but I don't ever really see that, nor advice for making it fun. Paladins, of course, are famous for getting put in moral dilemmas, but outside of that they're not significantly harder to play than other characters.
The afterlife is a reward for the character, not the player. So inflicting hardship on the player for the afterlife reward is inappropriate. It's certainly manageable to inflict hardships on the character that are not hardships for the player, such as fasting or adventuring.

Ideally, those editions which are restricting the player's options are providing rewards to the player in exchange. A paladin in those editions is supposedly strictly more powerful than a fighter or wizard of the same xp total. Many point-buy systems make that explicit, with things like codes of behavior giving the player additional points they can spend on benefits.

[Beta Centauri]

The afterlife is a reward for the character, not the player. So inflicting hardship on the player for the afterlife reward is inappropriate. Mostly agreed, but you'll find players who are gratified to be told that their dead character receives their earned reward.


It's certainly manageable to inflict hardships on the character that are not hardships for the player, such as fasting or adventuring. Yes, but if the character is somehow better off in life for enduring those hardships, then the character is more powerful for no real tradeoff.


Ideally, those editions which are restricting the player's options are providing rewards to the player in exchange. A paladin in those editions is supposedly strictly more powerful than a fighter or wizard of the same xp total. Ideally yes, in practice no. In D&D 3.5, they're more powerful than a fighter (but what isn't) and nowhere near as powerful as a wizard, at least at moderately high levels. And in a game that isn't really focused on alignment (such as D&D where alignment doesn't matter for most classes), additional power due to alignment isn't really appropriate.


Many point-buy systems make that explicit, with things like codes of behavior giving the player additional points they can spend on benefits. True. I find that flaws like that are of questionable effectiveness. In D&D, the paladin would be able to do a bunch of extra damage with the flaw that it only works against evil opponents. Yeah, neat, unless evil opponents are the only ones the paladin will ever encounter.

[Draken]

That's why Orcus and Asmodeus are always surrounded by their dear and loyal friends...um...which dear and loyal friends hang out with Orcus and Asmodeus again?

Orcus has his best friend, his wand. Asmodeus has his most beloved consort and daughter.

Hmm...

Asmodeus has his most beloved consort and daughter.

[Necroticplague]

Do legions of cultists who would do absolutely everything you say in hopes of earning your favor count? I'm pretty sure both of them have plenty of those in mortal realms. All the advantages of loyal friends, without any of that exhausting emotional attachment.

[Darth Ultron]

But when I restrict my actions in the sense of 'instead of murdering that person in broad daylight in a city, I trick the guy into entering a forest and quietly backstab him and bury his corpse', still pinging Evil seems to be.. I dunno, unfair?


That is a perfect evil action, why would you think it ''unfair'' to be detected as evil? So what if your detected as evil.....you are evil, after all. It's not restricting any actions, you chose to do an evil act. There are neutral and even good ways to kill someone, and you could have done one of them.

You might be stuck in the view that ''Good and Lawful are the right way to live'' and ''everything else is wrong.'' Even in D&D, it does not work like that.

Just take any published D&D world, they are full of evil places. An evil person can live a ''normal'' life with out the good people attack them.

[theNater]

Do legions of cultists who would do absolutely everything you say in hopes of earning your favor count?
No. Those are less "loyal friends" and more "creepy stalkers".

[Duke of URRL]

Within this D&D cosmology, why would anyone be evil?


Same reason anyone would be any alignment: they want too.

Just take the basic commoner life of ''kinda like Earth of 1000 AD. You only get two choices:

1) You can work yourself to exhaustion 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week and maybe, just maybe, make a couple sliver coins and make a living.

2)You can just take and steal and kill for what you want. You only need to 'work' for a couple minutes a day, and you can otherwise relax 24/7.

Now of course number one is the good way: work yourself to death and be good. The second way is the evil way. Is there any wonder why people pick the evil way?

Or take the tradesman living in a city ruled by a lawful good king:

1) You work 10-12 hours a day crafting your items. You happily pay the good king taxes, tolls, fees and duties. You are happily forced to join a guild of your craft(''or else''), where you have to pay dues, licenses, and expenses. And both the king and guild micromanage your craft telling you what, how, when, where and how much you can sell anything for. The tradesman struggles to even keep a couple gold coins.

2)You avoid the taxes and all other fees as much as possible...any way possible, Blackmail works great: get a little dirt on anyone and you can sure lessen your burden. You can let everyone think they have control, but make much more money ''under the table'' and free of any and all charges. The tradesman is rolling in gold coins.

Again 1 is good and 2 is evil.

And sure, there are a couple of ''good ones'' that make it, despite all the massive good obstacles , but they are rare...not the norm. Most good folks are struggling to survive has all the other ''good folks'' take 75%+ of their money for ''good '' things. Yet, the evil folks have tons of money.....

[Vrock_Summoner]

Defunct understanding of what a Lawful Good monarch actually constitutes aside, I do agree with Duke of URRL's point. A lot of people are like "OMG why would anybody be evil like seriously you can just plane shift over and see that the afterlife is real."

Cool, except almost everybody is a 1st-level Commoner struggling for day-to-day needs. :smallconfused:

I mean, it's not like they get to Plane Shift over and see how wonderful and amazing their paradise will be if they're good and righteous. They just have to take your word that when you poof away and then come back and tell them amazing things that you're being honest. Which is a rather tenuous expectation in a world where Plane Shifting (and, really, meeting Outsiders, for a lot of people) is extremely rare and high-level stuff, while your typical street wizard or sorcerer-passing-through can probably emulate that for the exact same amount of worth visually just by turning invisible for a while.

And once you're getting to higher-level characters, it becomes pretty easy to imagine yourself (whether this is true or not) as being somebody who would benefit from the Abyssal sort of environment anyway in terms of becoming more powerful and achieving status.

[goto124]

IMHO alignment was made that way to reward Good, otherwise the question would be 'why be Good'?

So now the question's more of 'how to make Good and Evil equally enjoyable choices'...

[theNater]

IMHO alignment was made that way to reward Good, otherwise the question would be 'why be Good'?

So now the question's more of 'how to make Good and Evil equally enjoyable choices'...
This is along the lines of 'how do you make vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream equally tasty'? Different people are going to enjoy different things, and that's okay. That said, there are ways to make things a touch more palatable for players who aren't enjoying one alignment or another.

As a player, the quickest way to make an alignment enjoyable is to pick a fictional character you like who has that alignment, and emulate them. OotS is a great resource for this: not sure how to be Chaotic Good? Be Elan!

As a DM, you can help make the alignment more enjoyable by playing into the fantasy. As with everything, how best to do this is going to vary from player to player, but there are some common(not universal) fantasies attached to the alignments. The classic Good fantasy is the beloved hero; give your Good characters chances to rescue people in very clear-cut ways, and have people show their gratitude. This can be as little as a thank you, or as much as the town throwing a feast in their honor. On the flipside, the classic Evil fantasy is the dark overlord; give the Evil character minions they can violently punish for screw-ups, and have people cower in fear in their presence. Again, this can be as subtle as putting a quaver in your voice when NPCs are talking to them or as extreme as entire villages fleeing from their sight.

Players playing divine characters may also enjoy having you play up the cosmic angle. Good characters often like to "bathe in the warm glow of the knowledge that you have done right this day", while Evil characters might enjoy knowing "your dark gods smile upon you".

[veti]

Same reason anyone would be any alignment: they want too.

Just take the basic commoner life of ''kinda like Earth of 1000 AD. You only get two choices:

1) You can work yourself to exhaustion 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week and maybe, just maybe, make a couple sliver coins and make a living.

2)You can just take and steal and kill for what you want. You only need to 'work' for a couple minutes a day, and you can otherwise relax 24/7.

Now of course number one is the good way: work yourself to death and be good. The second way is the evil way. Is there any wonder why people pick the evil way?

Or take the tradesman living in a city ruled by a lawful good king:

1) You work 10-12 hours a day crafting your items. You happily pay the good king taxes, tolls, fees and duties. You are happily forced to join a guild of your craft(''or else''), where you have to pay dues, licenses, and expenses. And both the king and guild micromanage your craft telling you what, how, when, where and how much you can sell anything for. The tradesman struggles to even keep a couple gold coins.

2)You avoid the taxes and all other fees as much as possible...any way possible, Blackmail works great: get a little dirt on anyone and you can sure lessen your burden. You can let everyone think they have control, but make much more money ''under the table'' and free of any and all charges. The tradesman is rolling in gold coins.

Again 1 is good and 2 is evil.

And sure, there are a couple of ''good ones'' that make it, despite all the massive good obstacles , but they are rare...not the norm. Most good folks are struggling to survive has all the other ''good folks'' take 75% of their money for ''good '' things. Yet, the evil folks have tons of money.....

But that's exactly the reasoning that *doesn't* work in a D&D world. There are lots of evil people who work every bit as hard as the good ones. Look at the hobgoblins in Redcloak's army - you think that looks like an easy life?

And by the explicit letter of RAW, good people are on average just as rich as evil ones. The WBL rules have no Alignment dimension.

[theNater]

But that's exactly the reasoning that *doesn't* work in a D&D world. There are lots of evil people who work every bit as hard as the good ones. Look at the hobgoblins in Redcloak's army - you think that looks like an easy life?
The life of your average hobgoblin soldier in Gobbotopia is probably very slightly easier than the life of your average human soldier was in Azure City, because the hobgoblin is more likely to have a slave do something for them that a human would have had to do for themselves.

And by the explicit letter of RAW, good people are on average just as rich as evil ones. The WBL rules have no Alignment dimension.
The WBL rules are assuming adventurers(whether they explicitly say it or not), and there aren't a lot of ways looting a dungeon is going to become more lucrative if you're Evil(although you may be looting different "dungeons").

[Darth Ultron]

A lot of people are like "OMG why would anybody be evil like seriously you can just plane shift over and see that the afterlife is real."


It does really depend on what ''afterlife'' your talking about. The 3X rules and fluff are a bit vague. The 2E Planescape rules have lots of fluff, flavor, rules and detail. The Forgotten Realms has tons and tons of fluff for every edition before 4th.

In the Cosmic Wheel D&D, with one outer plane per alignment, a person goes to the plane of the alignment they were in life. Unless they worshiped a god, then they get to go to the gods realm. And once a soul gets to an outer plane...well things can get interesting. For example, a great and powerful lawful good paladin might, just might get the ''reward'' in the afterlife of being a lantern archon. I guess that is a goal for some....




So now the question's more of 'how to make Good and Evil equally enjoyable choices'...

Well, you can't. Good is default for too many reasons. No one wants to think or talk about evil, except for the ''funny'' and ''light'' evil.

[Duke of URRL]

But that's exactly the reasoning that *doesn't* work in a D&D world. There are lots of evil people who work every bit as hard as the good ones. Look at the hobgoblins in Redcloak's army - you think that looks like an easy life?

''Hard work'' and ''evil'' don't mix much, even more so ''good, honest work'' and ''evil''. If you see a farmer working 12 hours a day on a farm, they are more often good or neutral then evil. And sure, an evil person might ''work hard'' to rob a bank or commit murder.




And by the explicit letter of RAW, good people are on average just as rich as evil ones. The WBL rules have no Alignment dimension.

Only for the baseline. Just take a good and evil commoner. They are a lot the same...except the evil commoner takes some ranks in the bluff skill and takes the persuasive feat. So the evil commoner will be able to bluff all the good commoners without too much problem. And evil commoner will have very little problem cheating, swindling and hoodwinking others out of coins or anything else. And this does not take into account the evil commoner lying, stealing and committing all sorts of crimes to get rich. With a nice set up or trap, an evil commoner can ''get rich quick''. So while good commoner works his 11th hour in the corn field just to make a couple silver by the end of the week, the evil commoner sneaks into someones home and steals all their gold.

[Jay R]

You raise, sorta, a question that's been bothering me for a very long time...

Within this D&D cosmology, why would anyone be evil?

We fill out a character sheet, and so we decide what alignment we want to play. But the characters don't. They don't choose their wisdom, or their race, or their alignment. Their thoughts and actions determine their alignment, but they didn't decide to play a Chaotic Evil character, and therefore start murdering people.

Nobody decides that they "want to be evil". They decide to take money that belongs to somebody else, or to coerce people to do their bidding, or to murder people.

But they don't do it to be evil. They do it to have money, to have people do their bidding, to get somebody out of their way.

[goto124]

Why would anyone be evil?

Because Detect Evil isn't that common among non-adventurers, thus people aren't flinging them about. Evil people in the universe aren't much more likely to get caught than people doing evil acts in real life (Heck, it might even be easier!). Then the usual reasons for doing evil IRL kick in.

Does that work?

[Karl Aegis]

A good reason to be evil is Corellon Larethian, chief deity of the elves. He murders his own devout followers who don't even challenge him. He turns against his own dynasty and curses his own people. He's generally the worst thing you could possibly worship and needs to die. He's so bad he's got entire dynasties of deities trying to kill him, many of whom are evil and many of whom are still not as bad as him. He's worse than the Githyanki Lich-Queen who devours anyone who could possibly challenge her. I would be evil just for a shot to kill him.

[Darth Ultron]

Nobody decides that they "want to be evil". They decide to take money that belongs to somebody else, or to coerce people to do their bidding, or to murder people.


Yes they do. Your still thinking of ''good is normal and evil is when people are lead astray.'' Like if someone becomes evil it's just an ''accident'' and some goodness and cookies can make them good again.


Because Detect Evil isn't that common among non-adventurers, thus people aren't flinging them about. Evil people in the universe aren't much more likely to get caught than people doing evil acts in real life (Heck, it might even be easier!). Then the usual reasons for doing evil IRL kick in.


True. Though even if someone did detect as evil, so what? ''Evil'' can mean lots of things. If you walk into a shop and get an evil detection from the shopkeeper, so what? Just as he is evil, does not say he will cheat his customers...at least not any more then a good business does. He might do unspeakable acts of evil every weekend, but he runs a fair and decent shop.

The vast majority of people that will detect evil are the people that anyone with an intelligence of over three knows are evil anyway: criminals, thugs, loan sharks, horse traders, bankers, politicians, tax collectors, and monsters.

[Jay R]

Yes they do. Your still thinking of ''good is normal and evil is when people are lead astray.'' Like if someone becomes evil it's just an ''accident'' and some goodness and cookies can make them good again.

Simply untrue. I've never thought of it that way. In fact, if anything, I'd put it the other way. Evil is far more normal, because it's useful. Being good is hard, because it means denying your self-interest for somebody else.

Being evil is a result or your actions, not a conscious choice.

The schoolyard bully doesn't say, "I want to be evil." He says, "I enjoy seeing the little kid cry."
The bank robber doesn't say, "I want to be evil." He says, "I want more money."
The murderer doesn't say, "I want to be evil." He says, "I want that person gone."

By contrast, the person who stands up to the bully doesn't say, "I want to get hit by the bully." He says, "Somebody has to stand up to him. It's the right thing to do, even if it hurts."
The person who donates money to a cause doesn't say, "I want less money." He says, "We need to feed those people. It's the right thing to do, even if it costs me."
The policeman doesn't say, "I want to get shot by that murderer." He says, "People need to be protected. It's the right thing to do, even if I die doing it."

But let's not get philosophical. People choose characters with an evil alignment to give them freedom to do selfish things that hurt others. That's also why characters "choose" to be evil.

[Frozen_Feet]

"Why evil?"

Because some people are born with urges that are incompatible with Good alignment, or common sense for that matter.

And some people are smart or (un)wise enough to jump through all the philosophical hoops required to claim Cosmic Good is actually evil, and needs to be rebelled and fought against no matter what the consequences are.

Now, back to the thread title:

"Why cosmic alignment?"

It's an easy way to create a reference frame and over-arching conflict for a long-running game. As cosmic good and evil (and other things) make appearance in many human myths, it also creates an easy tie-in for those existing things. Depending how it's implemented, it can serve as a backbone for a whole game. Outside pen & paper games, ADOM is a good example (though there's a tabletop version too). So let's get to the second part:

"How cosmic alignmet?"

First, you need a list of acts, places or whatever aligned with cosmic things. Second, you need a list of consequences related to transgressing, completing, visiting etc. those acts/things/places. Think magical. Putting on a shirt of a murderer makes you more murderous. Praying to chaotic gods makes your face grow tentacles. Invoking the name of good gods will drive away ringwraiths. So on and so forth. D&D is already stocked full of good examples.

In ADOM, to dissect the example case, doing chaotic deeds (stealing, lying, murdering etc.) aligns you religiously with chaotic gods. Spending time in chaotic places or championing the cause of chaotic gods will slowly corrupt you, giving you some nifty and a lot of nasty mutations. Get too corrupted, and you turn into primal goo of chaos and that's the end of you. This creates an incentive to either avoid chaos, or at least to hurry the eff up in your efforts to become a god of chaos. It's a high-risk-high-reward thing that works to keep the player on the move.

Warhammer as a setting has a similar mechanic. In the game, it also handily serves as an excuse to have multiple warring armies of wondrous critters, which was much of the reason for having alignment in early D&D too. :smallamused:

[Jay R]

Spending time in chaotic places or championing the cause of chaotic gods will slowly corrupt you, giving you some nifty and a lot of nasty mutations. Get too corrupted, and you turn into primal goo of chaos and that's the end of you.

This was an overall very nice discussion.

Also, I note that this gives a possible justification for tribes or races to be mostly chaotic that does not imply racism, if they are being acted upon by the place they live.

It also makes them the victims of the chaotic force, rather than its masters. There could be a whole campaign running around finding this out, and then half of human society wants to eradicate such races, while the other half wants to rescue them and let/make them settle in safer climes.

[Frozen_Feet]

Sure. Can't think of a tabletop example off the top of my hat, but Legend of Zelda series contains numerous examples of just that happening. People who enter the Dark World are usually twisted into a shape reflecting their inner self and hidden shames. People who get lost in the woods turn into skeletal undead. So on and so forth.

[YossarianLives]

IMHO alignment was made that way to reward Good, otherwise the question would be 'why be Good'?

So now the question's more of 'how to make Good and Evil equally enjoyable choices'...
You don't need to. People have different definitions of what is fun.
Personally I like pretending to be a hero who helps and saves people.

I've tried to play evil characters but being a jerk just doesn't do it for me.

[Darth Ultron]

Simply untrue. I've never thought of it that way. In fact, if anything, I'd put it the other way. Evil is far more normal, because it's useful. Being good is hard, because it means denying your self-interest for somebody else.

Being evil is just as hard as being good is. All people start neutral, and it's hard for a lot of people to change either way. A lot of people, who could take the evil way out of a problem, will have a ''hard time'' doing so.




Being evil is a result or your actions, not a conscious choice.

The schoolyard bully doesn't say, "I want to be evil." He says, "I enjoy seeing the little kid cry."
The bank robber doesn't say, "I want to be evil." He says, "I want more money."
The murderer doesn't say, "I want to be evil." He says, "I want that person gone."

The ticket happy cop does not say ''I want to be good'', he says ''I'm just upholding the law.''
The banker does not say ''I want to be good'', he says ''I want more money''.
The lawyer does not say "I want to be good, he says ''I want to put that guy away in prison for life.''



By contrast, the person who stands up to the bully doesn't say, "I want to get hit by the bully." He says, "Somebody has to stand up to him. It's the right thing to do, even if it hurts."
The person who donates money to a cause doesn't say, "I want less money." He says, "We need to feed those people. It's the right thing to do, even if it costs me."
The policeman doesn't say, "I want to get shot by that murderer." He says, "People need to be protected. It's the right thing to do, even if I die doing it."

And the evil person can stand up to the bully too. Not for any good reason, just as they don't want to be a victim. The evil person donates to causes that benefit them, as the vague good causes do nothing. The criminal does not say ''i want to get caught'', they say ''I want to be rich!''


Both good and evil are a choice.

[veti]

OK, let's narrow down the question:

Why are evil people not richer, more powerful or generally better off than good ones?

[Envyus]

But that's exactly the reasoning that *doesn't* work in a D&D world. There are lots of evil people who work every bit as hard as the good ones. Look at the hobgoblins in Redcloak's army - you think that looks like an easy life?

And by the explicit letter of RAW, good people are on average just as rich as evil ones. The WBL rules have no Alignment dimension.

Another thing in D&D after lives is that Gods can reward their followers regardless of Alignment. None of the Hobgoblins are going to be punished in their afterlife. They are going to Acheron to serve in their God's great army. Culture matters a lot when it comes to alignment.

[Frozen_Feet]

Think of it as a relationship between predators and prey. If the predator is just flat-out better, they have a tendency to overhunt until the predator population gets too big to sustain itself. Fierce internal competition ensues and predators die until there are few enough to allow for recovery of prey animals. Repeat ad nauseam. It may not be balanced at a given point of time, but it has a tendency to balance itself out overtime. If it doesn't, the whole ecosystem goes belly-up.

[Envyus]

Being evil is just as hard as being good is. All people start neutral, and it's hard for a lot of people to change either way. A lot of people, who could take the evil way out of a problem, will have a ''hard time'' doing so.

The ticket happy cop does not say ''I want to be good'', he says ''I'm just upholding the law.''
The banker does not say ''I want to be good'', he says ''I want more money''.
The lawyer does not say "I want to be good, he says ''I want to put that guy away in prison for life.''



Both good and evil are a choice.

Some people don't start neutral. Some are just scum. Be it how they are raised or just something mentally wrong with them. Likewise with good.

None of your examples were examples of good anyway. They were examples of a person doing their job. Depending on weather the guy is guilty and if the Lawyer knows which he is that example could fit near anything.

[Envyus]

A good reason to be evil is Corellon Larethian, chief deity of the elves. He murders his own devout followers who don't even challenge him. He turns against his own dynasty and curses his own people. He's generally the worst thing you could possibly worship and needs to die. He's so bad he's got entire dynasties of deities trying to kill him, many of whom are evil and many of whom are still not as bad as him. He's worse than the Githyanki Lich-Queen who devours anyone who could possibly challenge her. I would be evil just for a shot to kill him.

Could you explain this because this really does not make much sense with what i know of Corellon.

[Envyus]

You don't need to. People have different definitions of what is fun.
Personally I like pretending to be a hero who helps and saves people.

I've tried to play evil characters but being a jerk just doesn't do it for me.

Some for me. I can play a neutral character at worst.

[Envyus]

Why would anyone be evil?

Because Detect Evil isn't that common among non-adventurers, thus people aren't flinging them about. Evil people in the universe aren't much more likely to get caught than people doing evil acts in real life (Heck, it might even be easier!). Then the usual reasons for doing evil IRL kick in.

Does that work?

This is right and the fact that Paladins are not supposed to just murder a guy who detects as evil. For one they needed to have done something wrong and they would be arrested instead unless nothing could be helped.

There is also the fact that lots of evil people don't think of themselves as evil.

[theNater]

OK, let's narrow down the question:

Why are evil people not richer, more powerful or generally better off than good ones?
The specific situations and reasons for those situations of people in the world is a setting detail, and will vary from setting to setting. But I've gotta say, in many settings the Evil people are better off.

Sauron's Evil army has the Good peoples of Middle Earth vastly outnumbered and outmatched. The Empire has a freaking Death Star, while the Rebels have a few dozen X-wings. Even in OotS, we see Bozzok's murderous enforcement strategies leveling him up well past Haley, Malack's vampirism and treachery letting him overcome Belkar and Durkon simultaneously, and Team Evil regularly crushing part or all of the Order without apparent effort. Maybe that's just a coincidence of level disparity, but we've seen no indications of active Good characters at levels similar to those villains. I'm not sure they're out there at all.

[Karl Aegis]

OK, let's narrow down the question:

Why are evil people not richer, more powerful or generally better off than good ones?

"Good" people band together to deny access to resources to "evil" people. "Evil" is the designated proletariat that has to work hard just to make ends meet and rarely sees the fruits of their labor. "Good" are the designated bourgeoisie who get everything handed to them and only have to put effort into denying "evil" access to resources. It's why you see elves in treetop cities with plenty of access to food, wood, clothing and trade goods and you see orcs in barren wastelands with no access to iron, farmland, or cloth, drow in sunless caves with no access to cotton, linen and wood, and sahuagin owning more than half the world, but not trading with anyone.

Also "good" people develop spells to make evil people murder their children, parents and siblings.

[Jay R]

Why are evil people not richer, more powerful or generally better off than good ones?

First, prove they're not.

[Darth Ultron]

Why are evil people not richer, more powerful or generally better off than good ones?

Most of them are. Why would you think evil was not richer, more powerful and better off?

Take two shop owners is a city. Adam is good. He obeys all the laws, rules and customs of his city. He pays his taxes, is guild dues, fees, and all other costs forced upon him and his business. He follows all the laws and guild rules, even when they make no sense or even cost him money. For example guild law says he must buy his materials from an approved guild merchant. As there is only one approved merchant in the city, that merchant can charge whatever he wants and he knows good people like Adam have to pay up. At the end of the day, Adam just barley makes a couple gold coins to survive.

Zeno is evil. He only pretends to obey anything...enough to not be caught. He will use any method, like blackmail, to avoid paying anything. He ignores any rule or law or whatever if he feels like it. He buys his materials cheap from the black market. At the end of the day Zeno is swimming in gold coins.


None of your examples were examples of good anyway. They were examples of a person doing their job. Depending on weather the guy is guilty and if the Lawyer knows which he is that example could fit near anything.

It's hard to give good examples of good as very few people are good and most good people are wrong.

[theNater]

It's hard to give good examples of good as very few people are good and most good people are wrong.
If you're having troubles coming up with examples of Good, why not use Roy, Haley, Durkon, and Elan? Very convenient, with the added bonus that everybody here will know who you're talking about.

[Darth Ultron]

If you're having troubles coming up with examples of Good, why not use Roy, Haley, Durkon, and Elan? Very convenient, with the added bonus that everybody here will know who you're talking about.

How do you use comic characters(and not that kind of comic, I mean funny ha-ha) as examples. The characters do things for laughs and to be funny, and that does not make more good examples.

[veti]

First, prove they're not.

In three letters: WBL. Wealth is related to level. Not alignment.

Ditto power. A 10th level NG wizard is every bit as powerful, and rich, as a 10th level LE wizard.

Nor, per rules, does the evil wizard advance quicker.

So if the good guy is always making sacrifices and putting others first, how come he never falls behind?

[Vrock_Summoner]

Adam is good. He obeys all the laws, rules and customs of his city. He pays his taxes, is guild dues, fees, and all other costs forced upon him and his business. He follows all the laws and guild rules, even when they make no sense or even cost him money. For example guild law says he must buy his materials from an approved guild merchant. As there is only one approved merchant in the city, that merchant can charge whatever he wants and he knows good people like Adam have to pay up. At the end of the day, Adam just barley makes a couple gold coins to survive.

None of this really has to do with Good. Lawful, sure, but nothing about this character makes me think he's Good. Granted, somewhat of a moot point, since we're just arguing whether certain people are likely to be richer than others based on alignment, so you can just say that Lawful people are usually poorer... But, y'know, I'm willing to make this argument anyway, just for the sake of clarifying the difference between Good and Law.


Zeno is evil. He only pretends to obey anything...enough to not be caught. He will use any method, like blackmail, to avoid paying anything. He ignores any rule or law or whatever if he feels like it. He buys his materials cheap from the black market. At the end of the day Zeno is swimming in gold coins.
Oh hello there, Chaotic. Fancy meeting you here, I swore this was the Evil section of the argument.



It's hard to give good examples of good as very few people are good and most good people are wrong.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

[NichG]

In three letters: WBL. Wealth is related to level. Not alignment.

Ditto power. A 10th level NG wizard is every bit as powerful, and rich, as a 10th level LE wizard.

Nor, per rules, does the evil wizard advance quicker.

So if the good guy is always making sacrifices and putting others first, how come he never falls behind?

Because even in the rules, WBL is a boundary condition and average of a distribution rather than a law of physics. WBL tells you how to approximate what wealth an average character should starts at. This is taken as a hard equality for the sake of metagame considerations - otherwise a player could unfairly write themselves in more wealth in their backstory. The thing is though that once a character is in play for awhile, they may deviate from WBL and can do so to arbitrary and extreme extent.

There's nothing in the rules saying what defines a character's starting level. There's nothing in the game itself stopping one from in principle running through all the past adventures and events of some new 10th level NPC's life in order to determine the wealth for that character rather than just looking on the WBL chart. The only thing which prevents that is the meta-game consideration of 'that takes a bloody long time and doesn't really matter!'. But in a forum discussion that isn't an issue. Since the rules don't specify what level a character 'starts' at, I can always assume that they all start at Lv1 and their wealth evolves through the consequences of the events of their lives - something which will depend on the setting, basically. In response to the counter that I could also assume that everyone starts at their level and there's no variation, then I'd say that any correlations between wealth and morality would in fact simply be correlations between character level and morality. Since the rules don't specify how level should be determined in general, the conclusion is that this again comes down to the setting.

[theNater]

How do you use comic characters(and not that kind of comic, I mean funny ha-ha) as examples. The characters do things for laughs and to be funny, and that does not make more good examples.
A fair amount of the humor in OotS comes from the interaction of the differing personalities of the characters; Lawful Roy trying to enforce fairness on Chaotic Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html), Evil Belkar describing his twisted plans to his mostly Good allies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html), Neutral Vaarsuvius just not caring (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0385.html). The jokes work precisely because the characters are good examples of their alignments.

In three letters: WBL. Wealth is related to level. Not alignment.

Ditto power. A 10th level NG wizard is every bit as powerful, and rich, as a 10th level LE wizard.

Nor, per rules, does the evil wizard advance quicker.

So if the good guy is always making sacrifices and putting others first, how come he never falls behind?
There's room for flexibility in "advancing quicker". A Good character needs the same amount of experience to level up, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same amount of time. Suppose a 10th level character with no pressing business comes across a village that is plagued by zombie kobolds. If they are Good, they're likely to take the time to rescue the village, even though they'll get very little experience and treasure. Meanwhile, if they are Evil, they may just say "not worth my time" and move on to something with a better xp/hour value. Similarly, it is feasible that Good characters may die more frequently(in the form of heroic sacrifices), which greatly slows down the advancement process for the vast majority of adventurers.

[goto124]

Erm, that's not how it works. At least it shouldn't.

You're assuming XP is based on monsters. It doesn't have to be, when you're playing a tabletop. XP can be given via the problems you solve. Thus, the Good PCs who solve the problem of the zombie kobolds will gain the same XP as the Evil PCs who went on to do other stuff. In a tabletop, levels and XP and treasure can all be adjusted by the DM, and how much of those you actually need can also be adjusted by the DM.

The whole Good paladin power and stuff is to make it rewarding to play a Good character.

[Maglubiyet]

Short answer: Gygax was a Christian.

[Jay R]

In three letters: WBL. Wealth is related to level. Not alignment.

Ditto power. A 10th level NG wizard is every bit as powerful, and rich, as a 10th level LE wizard.

Nor, per rules, does the evil wizard advance quicker.

So if the good guy is always making sacrifices and putting others first, how come he never falls behind?

First of all, not all versions of D&D have WBL, and not all DMs use WBL even in the games that have them.

But let's go ahead and assume WBL. If more Good characters risk their lives saving others, then more of them likely die at lower levels. There would therefore be more rich high-level Evil characters than rich, high-level Good characters, so the average Evil character is higher level, and therefore richer.

[I note with some amusement that we've come full circle on wealth and level. In original D&D and AD&D, most experience points came from gold, and so wealth led to level. Now level leads to wealth. We've just changed LBW into WBL.]

[D+1]

Which also makes me wonder: What is cosmic alignment even for? What's its purpose? If it's for mechanics such as Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and Helm of Opposite Alignment... connecting roleplay to mechanics so closely seems rather problematic. It's one of the issues I have with alignment.

How can cosmic alignment be done well?
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/alignments.htm

[theNater]

Erm, that's not how it works. At least it shouldn't.

You're assuming XP is based on monsters. It doesn't have to be, when you're playing a tabletop. XP can be given via the problems you solve. Thus, the Good PCs who solve the problem of the zombie kobolds will gain the same XP as the Evil PCs who went on to do other stuff.
Not all problems are equal. Most DMs make harder problems worth more xp than easier ones. Indeed, it would be super weird if a problem involving a handful of zombie kobolds was worth the same as a murder mystery involving a doppleganger, or resolving a long-standing feud, or rescuing a princess from an ancient dragon.

[Lord Raziere]

http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/alignments.htm

So wait.

as a Paladin, I'm not only allowed be a Judge/Jury/Executioner, but expected to be?

Best. Interpretation. EVER.

[Jay R]

So wait.

as a Paladin, I'm not only allowed be a Judge/Jury/Executioner, but expected to be?

Best. Interpretation. EVER.

... IF "legal codes, law enforcement organizations, or social norms fail to suffice."

This is not freedom from responsibility, but greater responsibility. A Paladin in the wilderness when there is no tribunal is similar to a captain of a ship. He isn't free to do what he wishes; he is charged to do what is right.

The difference between the paladin and the captain is that the captain will be judged by his superiors when he returns to port. The paladin is being judged by his superiors constantly.

[veti]

But let's go ahead and assume WBL. If more Good characters risk their lives saving others, then more of them likely die at lower levels. There would therefore be more rich high-level Evil characters than rich, high-level Good characters, so the average Evil character is higher level, and therefore richer.

Righto. So there's somewhere in the world-building fluff I've never read, is there, that suggests the alignment distribution of higher-level characters is skewed towards evil?


D&D and AD&D, most experience points came from gold, and so wealth led to level. Now level leads to wealth. We've just changed LBW into WBL.]

Gygax justified that in the AD&D books by pointing out that "wealth is power". I thought it was simultaneously an obvious ass-pull, and a really quite insightful and useful comment.

[Lord Raziere]

... IF "legal codes, law enforcement organizations, or social norms fail to suffice."

This is not freedom from responsibility, but greater responsibility. A Paladin in the wilderness when there is no tribunal is similar to a captain of a ship. He isn't free to do what he wishes; he is charged to do what is right.

The difference between the paladin and the captain is that the captain will be judged by his superiors when he returns to port. The paladin is being judged by his superiors constantly.

I find this funny, you assume that freedom and responsibility are different things. freedom always comes with responsibility.

thing is, a paladin is always adventuring out in the wilderness, for all intents and purposes he will be a JJE often. I don't see any problem.

[Jay R]

I find this funny, you assume that freedom and responsibility are different things. freedom always comes with responsibility.

Freedom and responsibility are different things. It is a moral principle that people ought to take on more responsibility with their freedom. They don't always do so.

Similarly, people should give more to charity as they get more wealthy. That doesn't mean that wealth and charity are the same thing.


thing is, a paladin is always adventuring out in the wilderness, for all intents and purposes he will be a JJE often. I don't see any problem.

Hope his God doesn't see any problem either, or he will soon be an ex-paladin.

[theNater]

Righto. So there's somewhere in the world-building fluff I've never read, is there, that suggests the alignment distribution of higher-level characters is skewed towards evil?
No more than there world-building fluff that suggests the alignment distribution of higher-level characters is balanced. That's going to be setting-specific, and many settings do have the skew towards Evil.

[Lord Raziere]

Freedom and responsibility are different things. It is a moral principle that people ought to take on more responsibility with their freedom. They don't always do so.

Similarly, people should give more to charity as they get more wealthy. That doesn't mean that wealth and charity are the same thing.

Hope his God doesn't see any problem either, or he will soon be an ex-paladin.

I don't let the fact that concepts are separate get in the way of being moral. silly things like keeping such concepts separate are why people don't think more morally. you have to think they are the same thing or you won't get anywhere morally and won't hold yourself to morality, thinking its a just a possibility rather than a logical conclusion. a person who squanders their freedom by using it irresponsibly is not living up to freedom in its ideal state and is therefore going against freedom by say taking freedom from others, and therefore not truly free, as they are no longer free from punishment. you imprison yourself with crime.

any god that goes against the code that I agree with him beforehand is no god I would follow.

[Karl Aegis]

Laziness and hedonism also make their home in the evil alignment. Evil does not automatically mean more motivated. They can do less of their job and squander their wealth on drugs if they really wanted to.

[Darth Ultron]

None of this really has to do with Good.

Ok, a better example might be:

Good person uses whatever money they have to help others. They never save any money and never have any extra money. They give up all their extra money for good, charitable deeds to help others.

The evil person uses the money for themselves.



I don't even know what you mean by this.

The above gives a great example. A good person should help others, is very basic. Most D&D books that mention good alignment even say good people should help others. But the question is how much? The obvious good answer is ''as much as they can''. But what does that mean? If a good person has 100 gold, should they spend it all helping others? How much can they keep and still be good? Say they spend 10 gold feeding some hungry people, but there are still five more hungry people. If they decided ''I've spend enough gold on others today'' can they turn their backs on the five hungry people and go home? A lot of the folks that pretend to be good will say that is fine and you can't help everyone. Then they will all go home to their mansions and let people suffer. It's seems odd that many would say that person is ''good'', but it's widely accepted.

But this does not work with Cosmic Good. As soon as the person does the Chaotic Evil act of selfishness and greed, they would no longer be a good person.

[Karl Aegis]

Charity isn't exclusive to Good. You can be Evil and still be charitable.

If your charitable activities don't have a positive return on investment you aren't being Good, you're being Stupid Good.

[theNater]

Ok, a better example might be:

Good person uses whatever money they have to help others. They never save any money and never have any extra money. They give up all their extra money for good, charitable deeds to help others.

The evil person uses the money for themselves.



The above gives a great example. A good person should help others, is very basic. Most D&D books that mention good alignment even say good people should help others. But the question is how much? The obvious good answer is ''as much as they can''. But what does that mean? If a good person has 100 gold, should they spend it all helping others? How much can they keep and still be good? Say they spend 10 gold feeding some hungry people, but there are still five more hungry people. If they decided ''I've spend enough gold on others today'' can they turn their backs on the five hungry people and go home? A lot of the folks that pretend to be good will say that is fine and you can't help everyone. Then they will all go home to their mansions and let people suffer. It's seems odd that many would say that person is ''good'', but it's widely accepted.

But this does not work with Cosmic Good. As soon as the person does the Chaotic Evil act of selfishness and greed, they would no longer be a good person.
Where are you getting your information? You keep coming up with these bizarre things that are not remotely how the D&D rules work.

Using your money for yourself is Neutral, not Evil. You have to actively hurt or oppress others to be Evil; Neutral characters are not obligated to help anyone.

On the flipside, Good characters aren't obligated to give all of their money, they are obligated to "make personal sacrifices to help others". Someone who lives in a mansion is, indeed, probably not making a sacrifice by spending 10 gold on one occasion to feed the hungry, so that's Neutral behavior again. However, a character who donates enough of their budget that they have to cut out something else they would like to buy is Good, even if it's not all of their disposable income.

[Karl Aegis]

You can still actively hurt and oppress others if you're Good. Paladins and Elves do it all the time.

[Darth Ultron]

Where are you getting your information? You keep coming up with these bizarre things that are not remotely how the D&D rules work.


I'd point out there are no ''alignment rules'', unless your just saying that ''everything written in the book is a rule''.

Ok, I will be all By-The-Book. Players Handbook 3.5E says good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. This is clear cut, with no vague wording. And the important part is the sacrifice bit, as in this context it means the act of giving up something that you want to have or keep in order to help someone else; Sacrifice of one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of others or for a cause. Again, very clear cut.

So this means, to be good in the D&D 3.5E edition, a good character makes personal sacrifices to help others.

[theNater]

Ok, I will be all By-The-Book. Players Handbook 3.5E says good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. This is clear cut, with no vague wording. And the important part is the sacrifice bit, as in this context it means the act of giving up something that you want to have or keep in order to help someone else; Sacrifice of one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of others or for a cause. Again, very clear cut.

So this means, to be good in the D&D 3.5E edition, a good character makes personal sacrifices to help others.
This is all correct. Notice that none of this implies that a Good character must "never save any money and never have any extra money", which is the bizarre claim you made earlier.

[Envyus]

You can still actively hurt and oppress others if you're Good. Paladins and Elves do it all the time.

Could you explain this better.

Also explain your problem with Correlon because you did not respond to my earlier question.

[Karl Aegis]

Could you explain this better.

Also explain your problem with Correlon because you did not respond to my earlier question.

What do you know of Corellon Larethian? Going into the details of how vile this thing actually is might be against forum rules, so I'm going to err on the side of safety. Better to be safe than to have the thread locked.

[goto124]

While we're at it: Does it really hurt the PC or player if the character is Evil? Does she suddenly get a lot more people trying to kill her, barred from a lot of places, etc?

I've read horror stories of DMs changing PCs' alignment, and I wonder if the players' negative reaction was due to the above, or simply because players don't like their idea of their own characters getting changed by the DM.

[Frozen_Feet]

It could be and has been either.

For example, let's take the alignment rules as written from AD&D. Choosing Alignment was less choosing something your character is, and more making a promise to play in a certain way. It was the DM's explicit job to rate how well the character did in that regard and reward and penalize the character accordingly. A player character's alignment was based on their actual actions, so in theory, you couldn't complain about the DM changing your character - it was the other way around, with the DM changing their rating to reflect your character! *)

Here, of course, we get to the negative consequences bit. In addition to character reactions (your allies trusting you less etc.), change in alignment could net your character negative levels, and even kill you if you were wiffly-waffly about it. Like with any game or sports, if the player is not 100% in agreement with the referee's ruling, getting a penalty is a good way to heat things up and cause arguments. It could be the player's wrong, it could be the referee is; the traditional way to handle is to say referee has the final word, and complaints are to be solved after the game.

*) co-incidentally, this is why I'm ambivalent to ideas like having a cleric's or paladin's player choose their own code or letting the player dictate when they fall. Sure, it works, but at the same time, it misses the point of cosmic alignment and external codes of conduct. The root idea is committing your life to service of a Higher Power and have to adhere to its rules and commandments. The Higher Power, in turn, is supposed to be roleplayed by the GM. It's a rules simulation of the in-game power dynamic.

[Karl Aegis]

Some places will deny suffrage, citizenship, property, the pursuit of happiness and life if you don't ping as the same alignment as the government. Other places won't even bother checking your alignment, as long as you don't have a funny face or a funny accent. If you're an orc living in orc lands chances are an elf will break into your house and murder your children while you're out trying to get enough food to feed yourself.

[goto124]

I do agree with 'complaints are to be solved after the game'.


co-incidentally, this is why I'm ambivalent to ideas like having a cleric's or paladin's player choose their own code or letting the player dictate when they fall. Sure, it works, but at the same time, it misses the point of cosmic alignment and external codes of conduct. The root idea is committing your life to service of a Higher Power and have to adhere to its rules and commandments. The Higher Power, in turn, is supposed to be roleplayed by the GM. It's a rules simulation of the in-game power dynamic.

If the code wasn't discussed beforehand and the game still runs smoothly, I'll say you're lucky. Not to mention all those stories in the Worst DM threads.

I'll leave the main argument to someone who has a better idea of why people like to play Lawful types though. For me, the whole point of playing is to get away from responsibility to society, family, etc, and being Lawful is like going right back to real life. Maybe the appeal is in actually having the power to fulfill those responsibilities, in the same way we like to be the knight in shining armor who rescues the damsel in distress?

[Envyus]

What do you know of Corellon Larethian? Going into the details of how vile this thing actually is might be against forum rules, so I'm going to err on the side of safety. Better to be safe than to have the thread locked.


A good reason to be evil is Corellon Larethian, chief deity of the elves. He murders his own devout followers who don't even challenge him. He turns against his own dynasty and curses his own people. He's generally the worst thing you could possibly worship and needs to die. He's so bad he's got entire dynasties of deities trying to kill him, many of whom are evil and many of whom are still not as bad as him. He's worse than the Githyanki Lich-Queen who devours anyone who could possibly challenge her. I would be evil just for a shot to kill him.

Just explain this. because it does not fit Corellon. Who is known as a cool dude for the most part. You just suddenly said he is evil.

[Envyus]

Some places will deny suffrage, citizenship, property, the pursuit of happiness and life if you don't ping as the same alignment as the government. Other places won't even bother checking your alignment, as long as you don't have a funny face or a funny accent. If you're an orc living in orc lands chances are an elf will break into your house and murder your children while you're out trying to get enough food to feed yourself.

Probably not. As pretty much no D&D cities have the resources to check the alignment of every citizen. Nor do they bother to check every person visiting.

The Orc thing is not even true as the Orcs that die are the for the most part the ones that are actively raiding and pillaging.

[Frozen_Feet]

If the code wasn't discussed beforehand and the game still runs smoothly, I'll say you're lucky.

In D&D and most similar games, codes of conduct are listed as something for the player to see, and it has to be, because it makes absolutely no sense to play a character archetype like that without knowing the code. So it is already discussed. I'm guessing what you're actually referring to is discussing interpretation of codes, which is frequently pointless because the character/player is supped to trust the Higher Power/GM in that regard, in "ineffable are ways of the Lord" sort of way.

[hamishspence]

Just explain this. because it does not fit Corellon. Who is known as a cool dude for the most part. You just suddenly said he is evil.

The Leraje incident from Tome of Magic is one of the things being referred to.

Basically, she's manipulated by (pre-Fall) Lolth, into challenging him to an archery contest, with him choosing the target. Winner is the first to hit the target (it's a quick-draw contest).

He nominated her heart. She bounced her arrow off his - so her arrow hit her own heart first.

She became a Vestige after death - instead of her spirit going to his realm.

Another is the Descent of the Drow at the end of the Crown Wars (in Faerun) - he transformed all Dark Elves - even the ones not involved in the war - and all green elf allies of the dark elves who were involved - into drow - giving them even darker skin, and extreme light sensitivity.

[Envyus]

The Leraje incident from Tome of Magic is one of the things being referred to.

Basically, she's manipulated by (pre-Fall) Lolth, into challenging him to an archery contest, with him choosing the target. Winner is the first to hit the target (it's a quick-draw contest).

He nominated her heart. She bounced her arrow off his - so her arrow hit her own heart first.

She became a Vestige after death - instead of her spirit going to his realm.

Another is the Descent of the Drow at the end of the Crown Wars (in Faerun) - he transformed all Dark Elves - even the ones not involved in the war - and all green elf allies of the dark elves who were involved - into drow - giving them even darker skin, and extreme light sensitivity.

Just read the story about Laraje.


Lolth praised Leraje for her skills, claiming that not even Corellon could fire an arrow as fast or as accurately as his herald. Leraje beamed under the compliment, and a bemused Corellon challenged her to an archery duel to settle the matter. When Leraje agreed, Corellon declared their target: her heart.
Corellon expected his servant to realize the error of her pride and yield the contest, but Leraje instead brought up her bow, aimed an arrow at Corellon, and pulled back the string. Surprised, he raised his own bow and fired at her. Leraje released her bowstring at that same moment, aiming not at the god but at the arrow that sped toward her heart. Leraje’s arrow met that of her deity in midair and ricocheted back, piercing her heart before Corellon’s arrowhead even touched her chest. As punishment for wasting her life for the sake of her stubborn pride, Corellon Larethian cast Leraje’s soul from heaven and earth.

I can't really see Corellon as being too much in the wrong here. He was mad that his servant wasted her life just to prove she was better then him with a bow.

On the Drow. Pretty much all of the Dark Elves helped Lolth and he banished them as punishment. I also doubt he was powerful enough to be able to pick which Dark Elves would not be turned into Drow.

[hamishspence]

On the Drow. Pretty much all of the Dark Elves helped Lolth and he banished them as punishment. I also doubt he was powerful enough to be able to pick which Dark Elves would not be turned into Drow.

It's left unclear how much of it was Corellon himself - and how much the elven kingdoms performing a ritual:

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Crown_Wars

[Karl Aegis]

Do note that Corellon Larethian murdered Leraje, one of his greatest warriors, after he put out Gruumsh's eye and started a feud between the elves and the orcs, when the elves needed great warriors the most. Corellon challenged Leraje because he was confused someone could possibly be as great as he was when it was Leraje's job to be as great as he was. Leraje couldn't back down on the challenge or else they would be considered a failure. Leraje didn't even claim she was good, it was Lloth who showed pride that there was someone capable of defending her people from the orcs.

The Drow were created because Lloth realized that after Corellon Larethian's repeated and severe divine screw-ups the elves needed an army just to survive. She tried having Corellon Larethian convince the rest of the elven dynasty that they needed an army because it was his fault they were in this situation to begin with. He agreed to speak to the dynasty, but betrayed Lloth and convinced them not to attempt to fix his debacle. Lloth wasn't blind, so in an act of desperation she started training elves in secret to defend her people from their enemies. Corellon Larethian, furious that it wasn't his army defending his people and too proud to admit his mistakes, banished Lloth and the elves devoted to defending elves from the surface and sunlight. The Drow hate their existence underground, and Lloth punishes those who fail to live up to her expectations exactly like Corellon Larethian would.

Somewhere along the way he mass murdered proto-humans and attracted the ire of the first real human: the greater deity known as Zarus, God of Humans.

[Milo v3]

Probably not. As pretty much no D&D cities have the resources to check the alignment of every citizen. Nor do they bother to check every person visiting.

A city could probably afford a detect evil magic item, but the real issue is that Detect Evil/Good/Chaos/Law doesn't do anything on average people. The average evil commoner wouldn't be detected anymore than a neutral one would.

[theNater]

A city could probably afford a detect evil magic item, but the real issue is that Detect Evil/Good/Chaos/Law doesn't do anything on average people. The average evil commoner wouldn't be detected anymore than a neutral one would.
I think that depends on the edition. I know that the 3.5 version will register an Evil commoner as faintly Evil. However, it will also register Neutral clerics of Evil deities as Evil, so it's still pretty useless.

[Darth Ultron]

While we're at it: Does it really hurt the PC or player if the character is Evil? Does she suddenly get a lot more people trying to kill her, barred from a lot of places, etc?

I've read horror stories of DMs changing PCs' alignment, and I wonder if the players' negative reaction was due to the above, or simply because players don't like their idea of their own characters getting changed by the DM.


It depends on lots of things like the game stlye, setting, and mood. A lot of game are ''hero'' type games, were evil does not fit in well. And lots of settings are heroic in nature. And lots of games are run very postive and good.

Lots of GM's don't like evil games as far too many players just go for Evil Stupid.

Otherwise, an evil person does have twice the enemies: both the good and evil people. And some good places, like temples, might not let them in.

A lot of games have each person in the game a player/DM, so the DM/DM has to ask a player/DM if they want to change anything about their character.

[hamishspence]

The Drow were created because Lloth realized that after Corellon Larethian's repeated and severe divine screw-ups the elves needed an army just to survive. She tried having Corellon Larethian convince the rest of the elven dynasty that they needed an army because it was his fault they were in this situation to begin with. He agreed to speak to the dynasty, but betrayed Lloth and convinced them not to attempt to fix his debacle. Lloth wasn't blind, so in an act of desperation she started training elves in secret to defend her people from their enemies. Corellon Larethian, furious that it wasn't his army defending his people and too proud to admit his mistakes, banished Lloth and the elves devoted to defending elves from the surface and sunlight. The Drow hate their existence underground, and Lloth punishes those who fail to live up to her expectations exactly like Corellon Larethian would.
Fanon - does not match up with any of the novels or sourcebooks I've read.


Somewhere along the way he mass murdered proto-humans and attracted the ire of the first real human: the greater deity known as Zarus, God of Humans.
Fanon, not canon. Never read anything that supports that.

[Milo v3]

I think that depends on the edition. I know that the 3.5 version will register an Evil commoner as faintly Evil. However, it will also register Neutral clerics of Evil deities as Evil, so it's still pretty useless.

Hmmm... Looks like it's only "commoners don't detect as evil" in PF. Nevermind then.

[D+1]

thing is, a paladin is always adventuring out in the wilderness, for all intents and purposes he will be a JJE often. I don't see any problem.

Hope his God doesn't see any problem either, or he will soon be an ex-paladin.
As I believe I indicated in the link it shouldn't be an issue for two reasons. First, both the player and PC would be choosing a deity who ALREADY agrees with the idea of the paladin acting as JJE all the time. Second, paladins don't fall by accident - at least not under 1E concept of the class. They fall when they INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY do something evil. If a player has a paladin doing something the DM thinks is either chaotic or evil then the DM would and should clarify whether it's intentional on the players part or just an oversight or misunderstanding of the agreed interpretations of what's allowed. The 1E PH says, "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins," which rather implies they are not ever ignorant of what's right or wrong for them to do nor why it's right or wrong. Borderline behaviors (whether because they're severe missteps or because they're minor but too frequent or consistent) can be given warnings or at worst can be atoned for. Deliberate evil alone is their genuine downfall. Everything short of that should be possible to atone for, or would have not been done in the first place because the DM wasn't playing stupid "Gotcha!" games with the class that the DM can most easily abuse in that fashion.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think that depends on the edition. I know that the 3.5 version will register an Evil commoner as faintly Evil. However, it will also register Neutral clerics of Evil deities as Evil, so it's still pretty useless.

The biggest problem with detection spells is that the most powerful servants of Cosmic alignments have the easiest time preventing detection. Trying to weed out evil people with Detect Evil will rid you of evil peasants and low-level servants of evil gods. It will not weed out the Blackguard or Assassin with Uknowable Alignment etc.