Check It Out, Another Alignment Thread... Sociopathy Precluding Goodness?

[Vrock_Summoner]

So, let's say you have a character. Let's say this character, in actions, does the Good things. He makes personal sacrifices to help others, fights against evil (whether literally, by taking up a sword against the invading orkoblin (???), or figuratively, by way of offering healing or help to those suffering), and at least presents himself as if he respects other peoples' rights and dignity. And his actions, while not out of a genuine feeling of altruism, are also not part of any malicious facade; his genuine goal is simply to do the right thing and help others.

However, there is a facade. The facade of true sympathy. The character, due to mental illness or simple personality flaw, is incapable of (or simply doesn't partake in) feeling genuine compassion for other beings. They pursue goodness not because they care, but because they know they're supposed to care. The reasons can vary. Maybe they just decided through a variant of the cold calculus mindset that even if they don't actually care about people or their plights, and feel no pride or joy in doing the right thing, they should do good anyway. Or maybe they got to mid-level being Evil/Neutral, and then realized thanks to any number of methods that the Afterlives are in fact a thing and decided to resist their natural self-serving urges and do Good for the sake of getting into a better afterlife. Or some other feasible explanation.

So you have a guy who by most definitions should be Good. Except when he fails, he goes through the effort of atoning and trying to do better next time, but doesn't feel true guilt for the failure. He works his hardest to protect every single other life he can, but if his best wasn't enough, he doesn't give more than a glance to the bodies he failed to keep alive, except insofar as to apologize to families and perhaps fulfill any dying wishes on their part. At the end of the day, he'd sacrifice himself to save others, but he'd be filled with feelings of disappointment rather than martyrdom.

Would this character be, in point of fact, Good? Or would their lack of genuine emotional goodness prevent their actions from reflecting on their alignment?

[BowStreetRunner]

Good can be measured so many different ways. Actions versus intentions. Self identification versus how others identify someone. Subjective perception versus some deity-level objective perception. Honestly, I feel the inclusion of an alignment system is one of the most frustrating aspects of Dungeons & Dragons. When my DM and I can't even agree on what conforms to a certain alignment, playing the game becomes a serious challenge.

My general feeling on these issues is to not make it any harder than in already is. Ultimately, alignment in the game is about choices. Regardless of the reason behind these choices, if a character decides to act as a good character, that should be considered a good character.

[Necromancy]

I played a paladin who often considered murdering people horribly, mainly party members

[Geddy2112]

In my view(and every time I DM), good, evil, law and chaos are very objective things. There are planes that are based on these very defined and concrete concepts. A character's intention and justification for action do not change what is objectively a good, evil, lawful or chaotic action. Because I see good as respecting sentient life, and doing things that help others, those are good actions. Regardless if the character believes, thinks or even understands this, that character is consistently acting as a good person, and therefore good.

A character who thinks they are doing the "right" thing and their actions are "good" but does not care about life and only acts in self interest is evil. Intent, ability to understand, etc does not matter, what you do is either good/evil and lawful/chaotic (but none of these are de facto "right" or "wrong"). Neutral exists for actions that cannot be called either of the 4, or for balance between the two. A character's actions are all that matters-2 letters on a character sheet do not.

[Telonius]

D&D's alignment system is much more action-based than motive-based. In D&D morality, it doesn't matter why you cast Deathwatch, doing so is an Evil act (however little sense that makes). If a person goes out of their way to end suffering, it doesn't matter that they're doing it because they really believe that suffering is a bad thing, or if they're doing it because doing so gets them societal approval; either way, it's Good. So if a sociopath really fakes their way through their entire life, doing good deeds and so on, just to avoid people knowing they're a sociopath ... well, that's typically going to be Good.

The other possibility would be that a true sociopath can be neither Good nor Evil, since they have no moral compass for choosing between the two of them. They can't feel any particular respect for life; so they couldn't really feel any particular disrespect for life either. They would be morally neutral on the good/evil axis.

[NecessaryWeevil]

The (prevailing?) school of thought which says alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive (i.e. decide how your character would act, and then we decide which label to slap on it) would have no problem calling it Good, I think. As a DM, I'd have no problem calling that character either Good or Neutral and would leave it up to the player.

One could even argue this way: my late Crusader was devoted to the Silver Flame. He tried to do good because he enjoyed doing good. It made him feel happy; fulfilled; purposeful. Your character does good but doesn't get the reward of warm fuzzies. Thus he is even more noble because he's Good without even a subjective reward.

[Naez]

DnD alignments are based entirely on actions. It doesn't matter how you feel or why you did something. The reason for this is because it's the only way to make the system make any sense without making everything a giant grey splotch.

[OldTrees1]

@OP
I have a feeling your description in the 2nd paragraph is different from your description in the 3rd paragraph.


The first description is merely a gulf than is inside everyone anyways to various degrees and lengths. We always do good things for some reason other than the thing itself. The idealized motive can be described as wanting to do good things because they(the good things) are good and we want to be good. This sociopath(right word?) is only one more step removed in that they are wanting to do good things because they(the good things) are good and he(the sociopath) wants to want to be good.

While the length of this gap might have moral relevance (yes, I am operating under the good/evil alignment rather than the [Good]/[Evil] alignment), it is not a simple binary switch and on closer observation one will find that everyone has a chain of rationalizations from "want what is pleasing" to "want to be good(based on their image of what goodness is)".

So if the length of chain is not what differentiates sociopaths, does anything uniquely identify their chains? Well no, while sociopaths don't have spontaneous empathy, they can exert willful empathy so they can still use rationalizations from empathy even if less frequently.

So I guess we could ask another question to gain more insight:
"Is it more/less/equally moral to do good because someone will feel positive vs doing good because it is correct."

[Elder_Basilisk]

So I guess we could ask another question to gain more insight:
"Is it more/less/equally moral to do good because someone will feel positive vs doing good because it is correct."

I think you will come up with a different answer depending on which philosopher you ask:

Kant: it is more good to do something because it is right than because you will feel positive about it. (Some interpretations would go so far as to say that there is no moral significance to doing right because you will feel positive about it).

Aristotle and probably Aquinas: If doing right does not feel good, that is a sign that your affections are disordered. The act is still good, but you might not be. But, keep it up. As a man becomes brave by doing brave things, you will probably become virtuous by doing admirable things.

Modern utilitarians: The motivation doesn't matter--either way, the act is right, if and only if there is no action that leads to better consequences. (Though presumably, it would be better if you did feel positive since most utilitarians think positive feelings are generally a good thing even if their concept of the good is not completely hedonistic).

[Troacctid]

And generally, I'd argue the Aristotelian model syncs up the best with D&D's alignment system in most cases.

[OldTrees1]

I think you will come up with a different answer depending on which philosopher you ask:

Quite true. Good quick analysis.


And generally, I'd argue the Aristotelian model syncs up the best with D&D's alignment system in most cases.

I think you have a strong case there. Especially with the major influence of western mythology which in turn focused on virtues(and thus Virtue Ethics).

[Duke of Urrel]

Amazingly, this seems to be an alignment thread with very little disagreement!

I agree with Bow Street Runner. Don't make alignment any more complicated than it already is. If a character behaves as a Good character, then he or she is Good; it doesn't matter what the character feels about it.

It's a different matter when a character does something Evil. In this case, it is important to know whether the character did the Evil deed willingly or unwillingly, such as under some kind of magical compulsion. After you do Evil willingly, Atonement is costly for the cleric who grants it and therefore harder to get, but after you do Evil against your will, Atonement is less costly and easier to get from a sympathetic cleric.

I suppose Evil clerics and blackguards may also need Atonement after they do something egregiously Good, and in this case, I believe it also matters whether an Evil cleric or blackguard did this Good deed willingly or unwillingly. But this is the only case I can imagine in which it makes a difference what a character's inner motivation is when he or she does Good.

[goto124]

DnD alignments are based entirely on actions. It doesn't matter how you feel or why you did something. The reason for this is because it's the only way to make the system make any sense without making everything a giant grey splotch.

I was thinking of playing with this, the biggest hurdle being that very few DMs would want such a character.

Basically, a paladin who retains his powers purely due to loopholes in the Code. I've yet to even flesh out the Code, but it has to be loose for these purposes.

I'm not sure how exactly it works yet, but 'Actions not Intentions' help a lot here. For example, he has an annoying Niece in Distress, and he's constantly rescuing her. Which he complains about. Not going for 'Tough Love' situation here- uncle and niece can't stand each other. (As does said paladin and the BBEG, his dad).

If he comes across an orphan begging him for money, he'll wonder why the gods are setting up such a lame situation for him to 'retain the goodness', and give a few coins/little bit of food anyway.

This paladin really pushes the line on what makes one Good, as to make party members gawk at him and say, 'How are you still a paladin?'

It's pretty much why I imagine most DMs wouldn't want to run a world for such a not-paladin.

[Duke of Urrel]

I was thinking of playing with this, the biggest hurdle being that very few DMs would want such a character.

Basically, a paladin who retains his powers purely due to loopholes in the Code. I've yet to even flesh out the Code, but it has to be loose for these purposes.

I'm not sure how exactly it works yet, but 'Actions not Intentions' help a lot here. For example, he has an annoying Niece in Distress, and he's constantly rescuing her. Which he complains about. Not going for 'Tough Love' situation here- uncle and niece can't stand each other. (As does said paladin and the BBEG, his dad).

If he comes across an orphan begging him for money, he'll wonder why the gods are setting up such a lame situation for him to 'retain the goodness', and give a few coins/little bit of food anyway.

This paladin really pushes the line on what makes one Good, as to make party members gawk at him and say, 'How are you still a paladin?'

It's pretty much why I imagine most DMs wouldn't want to run a world for such a not-paladin.

Moaning, whining, and complaining about your duties as a paladin counts as an action, I think, and it is at best a Chaotic action. At some point, I think this kind of griping goes too far, and the DM is justified in saying that the paladin must fall and seek Atonement.

Of course, there's a distinction to be made here between the player and the PC. If it's only the player who complains, but the PC never utters a word, then the PC still has a perfect record. Only maybe the player isn't much enjoying this PC and would rather play a character of some other class!

[hiryuu]

I always try to just keep myself mindful of this:

King Kaius truly cares for his people and wants what's best for them and the country; he's glad the war is over, and wants to make sure that Karrnath has a true and glorious future. He wants Karrnath to be the utopia he dreams of it becoming, and doesn't want the citizens to have to work to make that happen - his methods include imprisoning his son, mind-controlling anyone who disagrees with him, and keeping a blood harem, not to mention torture, kidnapping, blackmail, and animating vast legions of undead to serve in the military or perform manual labor. He is evil.

Queen Aurala ir'Wynarn wants to restart the war, conquer the world, and give everyone makeovers - but she's not willing to hurt anyone to get it, and she wants to do it because she genuinely thinks she could do a better job. She's listed as Neutral Good.

So, my guess? It's always that it's the means, not the ends. Which is honestly a little more freeing to know - you can want to free the world from the insane grip of the necromancer king, but if you're willing to torture and mind control people to do it, you're evil. It doesn't matter why you're doing it, which, honestly, is very similar to several real-world morality systems.

But don't forget about the law/chaos axis. You can be a good person and still not follow the rules, and that, believe it or not, is the most subversive and difficult part of the alignment system.

[Maglubiyet]

Couldn't the OP's hypothetical apply to the case of a LN (or LE) living in a LG land that has very solidly-established codes about personal conduct? He's just following the rules, that include tithing, charity work, respectful interactions, etc. He might not like it, but it's the law of the land. So it's not the good-evil axis that dictates his actions, but the law-chaos.

The opposite could also happen: say a LG slave who's appointed to be taskmaster over his fellow slaves. Per the law, he is required to whip, torture, and even kill those who step out of line. The consequences for not doing his job could be harsh for not only him, but his family and peers. He may act more leniently than others in his position, but at the end of the day he's still the one swinging that lash.

This is why alignment gives me a headache.

[Troacctid]

Slavery is a form of coercion, so the slave in that scenario could still be good.

As for laws that mandate good actions, well, that's why lawful good characters like laws. They push people to be good. If you spend all day rescuing puppies and small children, it's probably going to shift your alignment toward good, even if you're just doing your job.

[hiryuu]

Couldn't the OP's hypothetical apply to the case of a LN (or LE) living in a LG land that has very solidly-established codes about personal conduct? He's just following the rules, that include tithing, charity work, respectful interactions, etc. He might not like it, but it's the law of the land. So it's not the good-evil axis that dictates his actions, but the law-chaos.

The opposite could also happen: say a LG slave who's appointed to be taskmaster over his fellow slaves. Per the law, he is required to whip, torture, and even kill those who step out of line. The consequences for not doing his job could be harsh for not only him, but his family and peers. He may act more leniently than others in his position, but at the end of the day he's still the one swinging that lash.

This is why alignment gives me a headache.

Law of the land does not equal elemental Law. If the law says the second son of every noble must be put to death at age ten and you're a paladin, you know what following that law is going to get you?

Some dead levels and no spells, that's what. But then, paladins are held to a higher standard because they are the high bar. Being a paladin means making decisions like "this law is unjust and I will justice the hell out of it."

Lawful just means you play by a set of rules - they might be byzantine and seemingly arbitrary, but they are rules. Animated series Batman is Lawful. He's a vigilante that isn't obeying the city's laws, but he has a strict set of rules and methodologies he follows, so much so that the rules can be used against him and often are.

Good means you look out for other people. The whipping slave is lawful neutral at best, fulfilling dictates simply to do what he needs to do in order to get to the next day of work (but he's willing to torture people to get to the next day, so that'd probably qualify as evil). That's not a bad thing, though - most people are neutral to some degree. Neutral people look out for themselves, maybe a few people around them, but they really don't care that much about the people around them.

Note that while evil is like neutral, in that it looks out for itself, it's the methodology involved - it looks out for number one by stepping on number two. Evil doesn't just not care about the people around it, it goes out of its way to make life terrible for them. That doesn't mean it can't be selfless, just that it's willing to do awful things to maintain itself - in the Kaius example, he's using mind control, torture, blackmail, and extortion to make sure his people don't have to do any work. Also note that this makes evil seem like it's more proactive. Evil people have goals and they reach for them regardless of the consequences to those around them. It's a mistake to think that good people are reactive. They have goals and they reach for them, but pay attention to how the people around them are reacting.

Also, don't forget that anyone of any alignment can do things that seem outside their alignment. The chaotic good guy might be racist or classist or sexist, or he might worship Zarus. Remember, alignment is the approach, not the end result.

Yes, this leads to some weird alignment applications - But, hey. It's the world of the kinds of moral dilemmas that alignment was originally supposed to create.

[goto124]

Moaning, whining, and complaining about your duties as a paladin counts as an action, I think, and it is at best a Chaotic action. At some point, I think this kind of griping goes too far, and the DM is justified in saying that the paladin must fall and seek Atonement.

Of course, there's a distinction to be made here between the player and the PC. If it's only the player who complains, but the PC never utters a word, then the PC still has a perfect record. Only maybe the player isn't much enjoying this PC and would rather play a character of some other class!

Another idea: Demon possess a paladin, and demon wants to retain control over the special holy powers. Guess who's doing the whining :P joke suggestion

I've been mostly computer games, and computers can't hear you when you complain about whatever goes on in the game. But DMs can. Which is probably why it's no good...

[Strigon]

Does this character behave as a Good being in private? Because I can't actually see that happening; if he/she knows they won't get caught, and causing someone else pain will benefit them, I see no real reason why they should still obey those ideals.
As long as this situation doesn't happen, or if you can find a workaround, I think Good suits this character best.
I could see a case for Neutral, though, as animals get away with their Evil behaviour for a very similar reason. But that would only be if the character gave up the facade.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Does this character behave as a Good being in private? Because I can't actually see that happening; if he/she knows they won't get caught, and causing someone else pain will benefit them, I see no real reason why they should still obey those ideals.

I was assuming for the sake of the argument that there was already a reason for this; either they logic'd their way to the decision to be a Good actor in the world (not as impossible as it sounds, I've recently realized), or they consider themselves to never have a "won't get caught" moment because their end goal is to get to a Good afterlife, or something else along those lines.

[JeenLeen]

I think they would ping as Good and could be a Paladin. It actually makes sense from a philosophical point of view in D&D, if alignment is truly objective. In a reality like this, there wouldn't (to some senses) be any 'better' between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos. Each are cosmological forces of equal standing, so it's an absurd statement to say it's better to be Good than Evil. Essentially, having a truly objective moral alignment of equal forces makes it a morally neutral choice as to which you follow, since all are equally valid.

Sure, the afterlife for Good is more pleasant than being demon/devil food like you get for being Evil, but why should a person value what is more pleasant? Perhaps the character simply decides to be Lawful Good for the challenge, or because they tried evil (as their tendencies lean towards) and it gave no satisfaction, so they are trying good and figure they might as well go with the more pleasant if it's neutral otherwise. Or maybe mom & dad told them to be good when they were a kid and they want to live up to that expectation, even if it doesn't make sense, so they become a paladin to do the most good that they can.
For reasons like this, the "won't get caught" isn't a problem, since the motivation comes from within (or from the view of omniscient gods), so just by it happening he is 'caught' by his own knowledge (or the gods know.)

I played a 'good' sociopath in a Mage: The Ascension game. Believed the world was a video game and only supernaturals were real people (PCs), and that if he did well enough in the game he would Ascend and become a real person. He didn't care about killing random people because they were just data, but he reined it in because he was part of the good guys and wanted to follow that path to Ascension.
(Side note: if building it, maybe dip Grey Guard if you want a bit of freedom of action, but freedom of action probably goes against the rp experience of playing this.)

[Elder_Basilisk]

Discussing whether it is possible to be a paladin under this kind of condition is a lot more extreme than the original question. It does, of course, depend on what your idea of a paladin is, but for a lot of the source material such as Sir Galahad of King Arthur's court (the only undisputed paladin on the Round Table though some source material depicts Percival, Bors, Gawaine, and Lancealot in similar ways), and a lot of gamers, a paladin requires more internalization of the code than is possible under the sociopathic premise.

Going back to my Aristotelian/Thomistic analysis, a lot of people would probably think that a paladin needs to have rightly ordered affections in addition to simple right actions. The paladin is not just someone who appears to be lawful good, they actually are a paragon of lawfulness and goodness. That includes internal thought processes and emotions as well as external actions. (Thinking about it, that could be why they are immune to fear).