PDA

View Full Version : The Problem of Evil



Piggly Wiggly
2007-05-23, 06:02 AM
I think a crucial aspect for any successful D&D campaign is a definition of "Evil" that everyone agrees on

I've seen a lot of games where it doesn't occur to anyone that this needs to be thought out in advance, as everyone thinks "good" and "evil" are pretty straight forward, and as a result arguments ensue.

Here are some examples of different kinds of good and evil and their in-game repercussions.

Traditional Black and White fantasy:
Good is your standard altruism. righting wrongs, fighting evil, and rescuing damsels
Neutral is apathetic or not altruistic but at the same time not going to hurt people to get their way, or possibly only hurts people for a reason.
Evil actively seeks to hurt and destroy others just for the sake of hurting

Game effect- simpling registering as evil would justify encarceration until they could be "fixed" PC's will almost certainly activily pursue anyone found guilty of being evil.

The more realistic option:
Good people are the altruistic people.
Neutral people are not altruistic, but won't hurt others just to get their way.
Evil People are Selfish to the point where, if need be, they will hurt others to get what they want.

Game effect?
The weasly innkeeper who charges for the fleas is evil, the mud slinging polititian who destroys the reputations of his enemies is evil (even though it may not be lies), ALL thieves would be evil (bearing in mind that "rogues" don't necessarily steal) and as such, evil people would be MUCH more common, and inherently killing them simply because they are willing to step on peoples toes would be evil, as killing is the worst form of steping on someone's toes.
This enables the VERY evil people some room to hide, so a GM doesn't have to worry about his villan being jumped just because there is a paladin in the party, or resort to every villian having alignmenet obscuring doohickies.

All that said, each set of definitions will have its own style of play that may or may not be what your players are looking for, so it is important that EVERYONE knows what is what ahead of time.

Hopefully people reading this will take some of this to heart so when I get back into gaming I can avoid some problems.

Saph
2007-05-23, 06:08 AM
I think a crucial aspect for any successful D&D campaign is a definition of "Evil" that everyone agrees on

I've seen a lot of games where it doesn't occur to anyone that this needs to be thought out in advance, as everyone thinks "good" and "evil" are pretty straight forward, and as a result arguments ensue.

I guess all those D&D games I've played in where we never bothered to define good and evil were "unsuccessful", then. Who knew? :P

Most people don't really care for huge moral debates, so as long as you have a sorta-kinda consensus, a campaign works fine. I haven't bothered to define good and evil for my current campaign, and it hasn't been an issue yet - and I don't expect it to become one.

- Saph

Last_resort_33
2007-05-23, 06:25 AM
People cannot be catagorised, it is therefore the opinion of the DM to decide "on the fly" what is good and evil and not tell the players. That means that each character can create his own idea of morality that cannot be "right" or "wrong". that's the most realistic, and the easiest manner to go about things.

If the paladin asks "Why did I lose my powers. I killed the evil thing!" that is not a question for the DM to answer, but one to which the character must find an answer in game.

Bender
2007-05-23, 06:30 AM
This enables the VERY evil people some room to hide, so a GM doesn't have to worry about his villan being jumped just because there is a paladin in the party, or resort to every villian having alignmenet obscuring doohickies.

The 'villain' doesn't even have to be evil, he might just be opposed to the PC's for some reason.

I like gradations in evilness: a common thief who only steels what he needs is neutral, a simple commoner who likes to laugh with other peoples misfortune can be slightly evil, a thief stealing more than he needs and who is prepared to kill when caught is more evil. And the typical lich archvillain is so evil commoners can even feel it, and everything that comes in contact with him might even get some evilness on it.

Good acts might cancel out evil acts: a merchant who cheats now and then to gain higher profits, but who cares about his family is neutral. Some local hero might kill the rich, sometimes even getting cruel, but give his profits to help a large community of poor people; he can be neutral (but chaotic of course)

In the end it is the DM who decides, and not every PC should know possible implications of good and evil. You could say e.g. that someone without knowledge(religion) doesn't have a clue that alignment really has an effect on anything, and possibly only the paladin knows how evil works in the campaign. In that case the player should just ask the DM what the paladin knows.

There are as many versions of good vs evil as there are DM's

Theodoxus
2007-05-23, 07:31 AM
In a current game I'm in, this very debate is starting to unfold. The majority of the party is chaotic, and other than the paladin, only one is markedly good. There are a couple of halfling rogues who are wondering where to take their career - and we're currently in Mulmaster (a decidedly evil town in the Forgotten Realms setting.)

The halfling twins are arguing amongst themselves; they're currently chaotic neutral, but one is considering entering the assassin class and the other wants something more altruistic - though is completely unable to ascertain what that would be.

The question of evil specifically came up because the Paladin has a knack for rushing to the aid of anyone who's being mugged in Mulmaster - a very common occurance, and pulling the rest of the party into the fray. The bard got so annoyed with his behavior, he actually attacked the paladin, hoping to incapacitate him and leave him for the authorities. The paladin isn't using diplomacy, or even detect evil! before rushing into the fight - most of the players have questioned when the DM is going to have the pally fall - for chaotic, if not actual evil, behavior.

Email conversations have clarified where the DM stands on things like Detect Evil, and he has a definite gradient when it comes to alignment in general - hence his light hand when dealing with falling. Unfortunately, he's hinted that he's gotten to the end of his patience with the majority of the party, and that our actions will have dire consequences. It seems his evil, while patient, has limits too - and will come out in force.

The players are all good people, though the paladin is new to gaming (and the DM has said if he'd known how new to gaming he was, he'd never of allowed him to play something as complex as a paladin.) We all seem to have the same idea about alignment...

There was a thread a while back that described alignment as simply another attribute - like your race or class - and its something I've wholy embraced. It doesn't dictate my actions or how I react to a situation, it provides mechanics that affect in game effects - alignment detection, aligned weapons, etc. As such, I can still do whatever I want, as long as my actions aren't tied to a class (hence, being a LG Paladin must behave LG because he looses his abilities if he doesn't. A LG Rogue could behave chaotically on occasion and not face any problems- though if it becomes continual, the DM should sit down and explain to the player that he is not behaving lawfully, and should change their alignment or clean up their act.)

When it comes to PCs, evil should be played like Belkar - you mess up the enemy, but you don't mess up the party. Directed evil, so to speak.

When it comes to NPCs though, evil should have no bounds. Kill, cheat, lie, steal, make a mess of the world - just be prepared to pay for it.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-23, 07:46 AM
Alignments are as important as you make them be.

B!shop
2007-05-23, 07:46 AM
Paladins killing kobold villages are evil for the humanoids even if they are LG.
A LG citizen of a nation where slavery is legal won't think of it as an evil act.
Even CE individuals have loved one.

It's just a matter of point of views in the campaign.
Something totally different from alignment rules that can't - imho - manage this complexity.

Serenity
2007-05-23, 08:38 AM
The LG slavery example perhaps a little extreme...as a DM, I'd only allow that combination if the LG character tried to promote the best possible conditions for slaves. Perhaps something like Louisiana's Code Noir...

Talya
2007-05-23, 09:00 AM
I'd make a change to your "traditional" definitions:



Traditional Black and White fantasy:
Good is your standard altruism. righting wrongs, fighting evil, and rescuing damsels. An "active" alignment.
Neutral is apathetic or not altruistic but at the same time not going to hurt people to get their way. May agree with "good," but not enough to fight alongside them. A "passive" alignment. (Exceptions: Those committed to a balance between good and evil are active, as well as those who prioritize adherence to law, or freedom, without regard to tenets of good or evil.)
Evil occasionally will actively seek to hurt and destroy others just for the sake of hurting, although merely being willing to hurt and kill others for their own goals is still evil, even if they regret having to do so and avoid it if possible. An "active" alignment.

Sergeantbrother
2007-05-23, 09:25 AM
Good people are the altruistic people.
Neutral people are not altruistic, but won't hurt others just to get their way.
Evil People are Selfish to the point where, if need be, they will hurt others to get what they want.

That is how I see alignment and how I have always approached it. Though usually in the games I have played in we were very laid back about alignment.




[The question of evil specifically came up because the Paladin has a knack for rushing to the aid of anyone who's being mugged in Mulmaster - a very common occurance, and pulling the rest of the party into the fray. The bard got so annoyed with his behavior, he actually attacked the paladin, hoping to incapacitate him and leave him for the authorities. The paladin isn't using diplomacy, or even detect evil! before rushing into the fight - most of the players have questioned when the DM is going to have the pally fall - for chaotic, if not actual evil, behavior.

Maybe there is something I am not understanding here, but exactly what is wrong with the paladin comming to the aid of people being mugged? How is that non-good, chaotic, or illegal?

Mr the Geoff
2007-05-23, 09:29 AM
2, no 3, examples spring to mind here.

One is a paladin in a game I am playing in the Kalamar setting. The nation he is from practices institutionalised slavery, and the Paladin is all for that. For one it is legal, and the other thing is that he honestly believes and can argue that being sold into slavery is a just and fitting punishment for criminals, enemies of the state etc and is in fact quite compassionate considering the alternative would probably be the death penalty. Also he considers it is kinder to make a peasant a slave than to let him starve.

Thus the Paladin can still be LG while having a world view that (by modern western standards) is evil.

The other example is a Lawful Evil character (with 16 int) I play in a pbp game. She is selfish, xenophobic and sadistic but she is not stupid. SHe recognises the value of allies and of not screwing over your party, partly because if the party ganged up on her she knows she would be dead pretty quick, and partly because she realises her personal goals are more easily accomplished with help.

This doesn't make her any less evil, but it does make her still a useful team player in most cases.

The 3rd example is a rogue I used to play who actually spent most of her time doing good deeds, usually for powerful people. This was for the sole purpose of being owed favours by as many powerful people as possible so she could pull strings to get out of prison or have her enemies executed by the authorities or in one extreme case she used her connections to start a war between a city state and a mercenary outfit who had found out what her game was. Again definitely evil but on the way there she had done plenty of damsel in distress rescue missions, evil monster killing etc for pure selfish reasons, so everyone would think she was a Hero.

Psiwave
2007-05-23, 09:30 AM
There is always the 'sack of puppies' approach.
Lock the target in a room with the aforementioned sack, a red rubber ball and a set of nutcrackers. return twelve hours later. the degree of evil and the state of the puppies are inversely preportional.

hewhosaysfish
2007-05-23, 09:37 AM
Warning: May Contain Traces of Opinions.

Last Resort:

If the paladin asks "Why did I lose my powers. I killed the evil thing!" that is not a question for the DM to answer, but one to which the character must find an answer in game.

To my mind, it is a question the GM should provide an answer to - but the answer should come before the start of the campaign, not after it becomes relevant.
To use the OP's categories, if the GM is running with the realistic alignments then the PC will fall eventually fall if the stab anything that detects as evil. If however, the GM is playing with traditional alignments, the PC will fall for not stabbing anything that pings on the evil-dar.
To Smite or not to Smite: if it isn't set out clearly from the beginning then everyone playing a paladin has a 50-50 chance of falling. Surely someone must have mentioned this a Paladin School?


Piggly Wiggly:


Good acts might cancel out evil acts: a merchant who cheats now and then to gain higher profits, but who cares about his family is neutral. Some local hero might kill the rich, sometimes even getting cruel, but give his profits to help a large community of poor people; he can be neutral (but chaotic of course)


I don't accept that good acts cancel evil ones: If you burn down an orphanage on one side of the city, then go do voluntary work at one on the other side then that's Evil.
I like to think of the alignments as:
Good "Prepared to to Good deeds and not prepared to do Evil ones, in general"
Neutral "Not prepared to do either Good or Evil, in general"
Evil "Prepared to do Evil deeds"
Yes, this does make Good a stricter condition than Evil.
Oh and caring for your family and friends does not count as a Good deed, it's Neutral; caring about complete strangers is (D&D) Good.

Theodoxus:

The question of evil specifically came up because the Paladin has a knack for rushing to the aid of anyone who's being mugged in Mulmaster - a very common occurance, and pulling the rest of the party into the fray. The bard got so annoyed with his behavior, he actually attacked the paladin, hoping to incapacitate him and leave him for the authorities. The paladin isn't using diplomacy, or even detect evil! before rushing into the fight - most of the players have questioned when the DM is going to have the pally fall - for chaotic, if not actual evil, behavior.

WTF?! Defending people who are being mugged is neither Chaotic nor Evil! Quite the opposite! OK, if the paladin was just going to chop the mugger in half, rather than drive-off/capture him that would be stepping into CE But defending and innocent (we must assume) member of the public from the predations of a dangerous criminal? LG all the way!

B!shop:


Paladins killing kobold villages are evil for the humanoids even if they are LG.
A LG citizen of a nation where slavery is legal won't think of it as an evil act.
Even CE individuals have loved one.

It's just a matter of point of views in the campaign.
Something totally different from alignment rules that can't - imho - manage this complexity.


If the Paladins are killing kobolds just because they're kobolds then yes, they rapidly become ex-paladins, just the same as killing of a bunch of humans just because they're foreigners and they talk funny.
If, on the other hand, the kobolds are... I dunno... stealing human children to sacrifice to Tiamat, then killling them is not Evil (so long as they spare the wyrmlings and arguably the females) - even if the kobolds don't like it or think it's unfair.


EDIT:

Talya:


(Exceptions: Those committed to a balance between good and evil are active, as well as those who prioritize adherence to law, or freedom, without regard to tenets of good or evil.)


I've never got the whole "actively balance good and evil" thing. Like, if evil is stronger than good you go out and try to spread good deeds to restore balance? And if good is stronger you do evil? It's the latter case that flummoxes me: anyone willing to do something deliberately an unquivocable evil (specifically because it is evil!) for the sake of some abstract concept is Evil (imho) even if that cause is "balance" (or Good....)

Mr the Geoff:


One is a paladin in a game I am playing in the Kalamar setting. The nation he is from practices institutionalised slavery, and the Paladin is all for that. For one it is legal, and the other thing is that he honestly believes and can argue that being sold into slavery is a just and fitting punishment for criminals, enemies of the state etc and is in fact quite compassionate considering the alternative would probably be the death penalty. Also he considers it is kinder to make a peasant a slave than to let him starve.

Thus the Paladin can still be LG while having a world view that (by modern western standards) is evil.


Kudos to you for this intriguing character concept... however: are the children of slaves slaves in this setting? If so how does he justify that? And if it's just criminals being enslaved then how does a starving peasant become a slave? And if there are jobs that need done and food to feed the people doing it then why is a starving peasant starving? Why does he have to be enslaved rather than just doing the job normally, retaining his freedom to leave if he finds something better?

B!shop
2007-05-23, 09:44 AM
The LG slavery example perhaps a little extreme...as a DM, I'd only allow that combination if the LG character tried to promote the best possible conditions for slaves. Perhaps something like Louisiana's Code Noir...

Where slavery is a normal thing (i.e. Ancient Greek/Roman Empire) that's not so extreme, as slaves aren't considered even human, but... well, slaves.

By the way, Miko in OOTS is a great example for being LG according to her own culture, belief and point of view (at least before she fell)

Narmoth
2007-05-23, 09:59 AM
A LG citizen of a nation where slavery is legal won't think of it as an evil act.
y.
No, slavery would still be evil. The law that allowed it would be perceived as evil and undlawfull by LG characters.
My argument is a bit old, but it's still good:

Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the paladin to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The paladin's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can. Note, though, that time constraints, inadequate resources, and other commitments may limit his involvement. While a paladin might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc. The Complete Players Handbook

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-23, 10:04 AM
Who said the slaves suffer?

They may be perfectly happy. You could have a whole slave class that has been indoctrinated for generations to like their role as servants.

They may not suffer at all.

So the paladin is goign to come in and start kidnapping people who are perfectly happy just because he thinks slavery is bad?

Renegade Paladin
2007-05-23, 10:06 AM
The question of evil specifically came up because the Paladin has a knack for rushing to the aid of anyone who's being mugged in Mulmaster - a very common occurance, and pulling the rest of the party into the fray. The bard got so annoyed with his behavior, he actually attacked the paladin, hoping to incapacitate him and leave him for the authorities. The paladin isn't using diplomacy, or even detect evil! before rushing into the fight - most of the players have questioned when the DM is going to have the pally fall - for chaotic, if not actual evil, behavior.
How is this a problem? He's witnessing a mugging unfolding right in front of him; there is absolutely no need to try and talk with the criminal scum while there is a violent crime in progress. It is not at all evil, nor even chaotic, to come to the defense of a victim of an ongoing violent crime, and I have no idea where you got the idea that it is.

Mr the Geoff
2007-05-23, 10:16 AM
Warning: May Contain Traces of Opinions.

Mr the Geoff:


Kudos to you for this intriguing character concept... however: are the children of slaves slaves in this setting? If so how does he justify that? And if it's just criminals being enslaved then how does a starving peasant become a slave? And if there are jobs that need done and food to feed the people doing it then why is a starving peasant starving? Why does he have to be enslaved rather than just doing the job normally, retaining his freedom to leave if he finds something better?

Actually it is neither my character nor my setting. My character is a CG Barbarian who worships a god who is all about freeing slaves, and has to be frequently reminded by said paladin that any side trips to the slave market to go break open the cages will result in blowing our cover and bringing the law down on his head when we have more important problems, and in fact the Paladin would happily turn him in personally.

The paladin's world view is based on living in a state with a LN ruling dynasty with 3000 years of institutionalised slavery. The argument vis a vis the starving peasants is pretty much that a fair number of slaves in this setting, if offered their freedom, wouldn't give up the 3 meals a day and guaranteed roof over their head that they have now, in favour of becoming a subsistence farmer that could be wiped out by one crop failure or even a late frost.

While the paladin does not keep slaves himself, he has served in the military and quoshed rebellions where the entire rebel army was enslaved (well, those that surrendered were anyway). While it may be a good act if the paladin denounced slavery and tried to free as many as possible, in this setting it would be a chaotic act.

hewhosaysfish
2007-05-23, 10:42 AM
The paladin's world view is based on living in a state with a LN ruling dynasty with 3000 years of institutionalised slavery. The argument vis a vis the starving peasants is pretty much that a fair number of slaves in this setting, if offered their freedom, wouldn't give up the 3 meals a day and guaranteed roof over their head that they have now, in favour of becoming a subsistence farmer that could be wiped out by one crop failure or even a late frost.
*boggles at the concept*

So Farmers A, B, C and D live in Vally #1; growing wheat in the dirt. Slaves E, F, G, and H belong to Lord I; they live in Valley #2 under Overseer J.
One year there is a drought, a late frost, a plague of locusts, whatever, and the crops in both valleys fail.
A-D can scrape together enough to feed themselves and their wives but half of their children starve to death. Meanwhile, E-H can find enough bread to feed I and J and their families and for themselves and their families too?

Or under this institutional slavery is it legally required to give E-H 3 squares a day? If so, we get this ridiculous situation (a la Discworld's Ephebe... or was it Tsort?) were a crop failure means that I has to fire J and then work a 16 hour day himself to feed his slaves or risk being arrested and... sold into slavery.

EDIT: spelling

Talya
2007-05-23, 10:44 AM
Who said the slaves suffer?

They may be perfectly happy. You coudl have a whole slave class that has been indoctrinated for generations to like their role as servants.

They may not suffer at all.

So the paladin si goign to come in and start kidnapping people who are perfectly happy jsut because he thinsk slavery is bad?

Yeah, my character background gives her conflicting views about this. She's a former harem slave, but was pampered like royalty other than being a slave.

Being a free, CG sunite now, she has strong views about freedom, but her previous owner is not an evil man, despite having slaves, and her old harem doesn't want to leave, so what can you do?

hewhosaysfish
2007-05-23, 11:13 AM
Yeah, my character background gives her conflicting views about this. She's a former harem slave, but was pampered like royalty other than being a slave.

Being a free, CG sunite now, she has strong views about freedom, but her previous owner is not an evil man, despite having slaves, and her old harem doesn't want to leave, so what can you do?

What if one of the other girls DID want to leave? Would her owner let her? What would happen to her if she tried to leave anyway? Or just said "no".

What happens when one of the girls gets old and ugly and the owner doesn't want her any more? What happens if his fortunes taike a turn for the worse and he can't afford to keep her?
Does he sell her? Where too? Does she get a say in where she goes? Will she be happy there?

I don't care if you say "All the slaves are well treated and happy and wouldn't want to leave even if they could ever, ever, ever, in the whole country for 300 years".
They're only happy because it been raining milk and snowing cookies for the last 3 millenia. If, one day, it rains rain and snows snow they're the ones who're going to get cold and wet, keeping their masters warm and dry. And if they don't they'll be flogged or executed or sold to a brothel. Because thats what slaves are.

lillitheris
2007-05-23, 11:37 AM
Good and evil in real life isn't black and white. Why should it be in the game?

Good and evil should be for the individual characters to decide. Slavery might be evil to one party member who grew up in a place where there was no slavery but to someone who grew up in an area like Rome, it would never cross their mind that some people wouldn't like it. Even the people who were the slaves themselves might never think to question it.

How many people who are generally viewed by the world at large as evil, actually think themselves evil?

I think it adds far more to the actual roleplaying in the game for there to be conflicts like this. If one character thinks that an evil being needs to be slayed and another character doesn't think that the being has done anything particularly evil, then that's a chance for them to roleplay out their differences.

Somethings, most people can agree on as being evil. Randomly walking down the street and kicking a child playing in the face, yeah, that's an act probably not done out of the goodness of ones heart.

However, even things generally abhorrent to most, like cannibalism, aren't seen as evil to all. Some, even in history, did it as acts of honor, protection, attempts to exorcise evil.

Just my two cents worth.

You might even owe me change for what it's worth :)

Mewtarthio
2007-05-23, 11:53 AM
But Evil people rarely consider themselves Evil. An amoral bastard who is willingly causing others to suffer, sabotaging those above him and opressing those below, generally believes that he is entitled to whatever he wants, and those who oppose him either outright deserve their fates or simply don't deserve what they already have. Even a genocidal madman believes that, say, the existence of Elves is causing something bad (eg All Elves are Evil, My god Killthelves finds them abhorrent, Half-Elves are a pretty lame race and it's not fair to allow them to be born, etc), and therefore killing all the Elves is a Good act to him.

Mr the Geoff
2007-05-23, 12:11 PM
*boggles at the concept*


Or under this institutional slavery is it legally required to give E-H 3 squares a day? If so, we get this ridiculous situation (a la Discworld's Ephebe... or was it Tsort?) were a crop failure means that I has to fire J and then work a 16 hour day himself to feed his slaves or risk being arrested and... sold into slavery.

EDIT: spelling

Actually slaves are so expensive only the wealthy own them, so you don;t get the discworld analogy problem. If it helps the setting is Kingdoms of Kalamar and the nation in question is Kalamar, which is pretty loosely modelled on Imperial Rome

bosssmiley
2007-05-23, 03:21 PM
My personal take on it is very heavily influenced by WFRP's rather dark ethical code. As they would have it the vast majority of humans, from the price-gouging, ale-watering innkeeper to the kindly old local alchemist to the mercenary in the corner nursing a beer, are Neutral. Not Good. Not Evil. Neutral, just with lighter or darker shades.

Good? That was the province of pacifist priests of the Goddess of Mercy, jolly halfling bakers, the shinier-armoured Bretonnian Grail Knights and...err...yeah. Well, it was WFRP. :smallredface:

Evil as a marked-on-the-character-sheet alignment? That was traditionally reserved for necromancers, highwaymen, bandits, slavers, footpads, protagonists (professional fight-pickers) and the non-Chaos malignancies in the world (Dark Elves, Orcs+Gobs, the undead). Anyone who prospered on the pain and sorrow of others.

And that was in a dark fantasy world. Since playing WFRP my take on Good-Neutral-Evil even in D&D has been; "you know it when you see it". Know Alignment? That's just confirming your suspicions before you smite.

Bender
2007-05-23, 03:28 PM
Even a genocidal madman believes that, say, the existence of Elves is causing something bad (eg All Elves are Evil, My god Killthelves finds them abhorrent, Half-Elves are a pretty lame race and it's not fair to allow them to be born, etc), and therefore killing all the Elves is a Good act to him.

Replace 'Elves' with 'goblins' and you have a very common situation, which doesn't mean all goblins are allways evil. Yet often a PC with this opinion isn't considered evil...

Piggly Wiggly
2007-05-23, 06:51 PM
So this is demonstrates my point.

The real world and most other games "alignment" is subjective and largely irrelavent. However in D&D the assumption is that there are Gods some other power dictating what is good and evil. There is no subjective view. So that your character could THINK he's evil but actually be good, or more likely the other way, think he's good but really be neutral (see the slavery example).

So as long as all the players know what the 3 definitions ARE, then everything is cool. Or everyone just sort of understands that know alignment spells and effects aren't to be used.

....
2007-05-23, 07:26 PM
The evil ones are the guys in the black robes sacraficing the virgins to Tiamat.

Or if you want some gray: The evil ones are the demi-humans you're slaughtering and robbing because they have red eyes and fangs.

Ardantis
2007-05-23, 08:02 PM
The problem is that the vagaries of the individual situation determine whether or not a certain action is taken by a PC on account of their individual moral code.

If Mittens the Cat takes actions to save his penguin friend from an oncoming boulder, and his actions are motivated by his beliefs, and his beliefs are not under his direct control, does Mittens really have free will?

We're now discussing deep philosophical matters which have puzzled mankind since the dawn of civilization.

If a good character has the MOTIVATION to take actions towards helping others, then he can justify actions in any way he wants to fulfil that motivation. A secret druidic council working to protect their people from themselves by capturing and torturing thieves to figure out how to stop other thieves, and then killing them so that there are no more thieves, COULD be classified as "good," according to certain readings of the alignment outlook. Stupid, and shortsighted, but good nonetheless, in the way Miko is "good."

Then there's Objectivism. Ayn Rand thought that everyone was looking out for their own self interest all of the time anyways, even with actions perceived as altruistic. In fact, slightly altruistic actions done for others can result in a net return that is greater (in terms of energy and time) than the initial expenditure. The only problem tends to be "taking a bullet," which always has more cost than benefit (because you can't reap the benefits.)

However, if life were to be more unbearable than death if that person were to die, then "taking the bullet" for them could be useful to YOU, and of a stronger net benefit. If Objectivism is right, then really we're all evil anyways and always looking out for our own net benefit.

Not that I'm an Objectivist, mind you.

EvilElitest
2007-05-23, 08:19 PM
2, no 3, examples spring to mind here.

One is a paladin in a game I am playing in the Kalamar setting. The nation he is from practices institutionalised slavery, and the Paladin is all for that. For one it is legal, and the other thing is that he honestly believes and can argue that being sold into slavery is a just and fitting punishment for criminals, enemies of the state etc and is in fact quite compassionate considering the alternative would probably be the death penalty. Also he considers it is kinder to make a peasant a slave than to let him starve.

Thus the Paladin can still be LG while having a world view that (by modern western standards) is evil.

The other example is a Lawful Evil character (with 16 int) I play in a pbp game. She is selfish, xenophobic and sadistic but she is not stupid. SHe recognises the value of allies and of not screwing over your party, partly because if the party ganged up on her she knows she would be dead pretty quick, and partly because she realises her personal goals are more easily accomplished with help.

This doesn't make her any less evil, but it does make her still a useful team player in most cases.

The 3rd example is a rogue I used to play who actually spent most of her time doing good deeds, usually for powerful people. This was for the sole purpose of being owed favours by as many powerful people as possible so she could pull strings to get out of prison or have her enemies executed by the authorities or in one extreme case she used her connections to start a war between a city state and a mercenary outfit who had found out what her game was. Again definitely evil but on the way there she had done plenty of damsel in distress rescue missions, evil monster killing etc for pure selfish reasons, so everyone would think she was a Hero.


The second and third example are fine, but hte first is not i'm afraid, in D&D morals are not relative and so slavery is always evil, so yes LG character could do it, but not a Paladin
from,
EE

EvilElitest
2007-05-23, 08:23 PM
Who said the slaves suffer?

They may be perfectly happy. You could have a whole slave class that has been indoctrinated for generations to like their role as servants.

They may not suffer at all.

So the paladin is goign to come in and start kidnapping people who are perfectly happy just because he thinks slavery is bad?

Slaves do suffer by default, hence slaves rather than peasents. If you are a slaver, you are denied an undenyable right, freedom in some manner. A prisoner who is forced to work or an indentured servent are different than a slave. Slave and some sort of suffering go together, i notice many of the justifications the paladin uses are the same the southern states of American (one of my two homelands, other being Brooklin) used to justify slavery, and look how that worked out

from,
EE

Edit, Sorry for double post

PinkysBrain
2007-05-23, 08:29 PM
If you want to use it BoED hammers down a lot of the grey spots into black and white. Slavery? Evil. Ends justify the means? Never. Paladin knowingly fighting another paladin? Two fallen paladins.

EvilElitest
2007-05-23, 08:37 PM
Good and evil in real life isn't black and white. Why should it be in the game?

Good and evil should be for the individual characters to decide. Slavery might be evil to one party member who grew up in a place where there was no slavery but to someone who grew up in an area like Rome, it would never cross their mind that some people wouldn't like it. Even the people who were the slaves themselves might never think to question it.

How many people who are generally viewed by the world at large as evil, actually think themselves evil?

I think it adds far more to the actual roleplaying in the game for there to be conflicts like this. If one character thinks that an evil being needs to be slayed and another character doesn't think that the being has done anything particularly evil, then that's a chance for them to roleplay out their differences.

Somethings, most people can agree on as being evil. Randomly walking down the street and kicking a child playing in the face, yeah, that's an act probably not done out of the goodness of ones heart.

However, even things generally abhorrent to most, like cannibalism, aren't seen as evil to all. Some, even in history, did it as acts of honor, protection, attempts to exorcise evil.

Just my two cents worth.

You might even owe me change for what it's worth :)

What about Demons and Angles? morals arn't relative in D&D, ethics are however. A goblin raider thinks he is perfectly justified by an ethical stance, but he is evil by a moral one. Most people are not aware of aligments
from,
EE

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-23, 08:39 PM
Slaves do suffer by default, hence slaves rather than peasents. If you are a slaver, you are denied an undenyable right, freedom in some manner. A prisoner who is forced to work or an indentured servent are different than a slave. Slave and some sort of suffering go together, i notice many of the justifications the paladin uses are the same the southern states of American (one of my two homelands, other being Brooklin) used to justify slavery, and look how that worked out

from,
EE

Edit, Sorry for double post
Slavery is, by definition, defined only by the owning of one person by another, mistreatment and suffering are likely results, but not automatic. In the spectrum of D&D, it is a Lawful, Nongood enterprise (as it favors societal structure and legal order over individual freedom);
The primary examples of slave-taking races in D&D are the Mind-Flayers and the Formians. Both are lawful, but only one is evil.

Because it does infringe on individual rights, it is nongood, but Evil requires (in the D&D spectrum) slavery out of a feeling of inherent superiority over the enslaved group (Racism), doing so for the purposes of self-aggrandizement (Cultural Arrogance), or another such abusive purpose.

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 08:44 PM
Slavery is, by definition, defined only by the owning of one person by another, mistreatment and suffering are likely results, but not automatic. In the spectrum of D&D, it is a Lawful, Nongood enterprise (as it favors societal structure and legal order over individual freedom);
The primary examples of slave-taking races in D&D are the Mind-Flayers and the Formians. Both are lawful, but only one is evil.

Because it does infringe on individual rights, it is nongood, but Evil requires (in the D&D spectrum) slavery out of a feeling of inherent superiority over the enslaved group (Racism), doing so for the purposes of self-aggrandizement (Cultural Arrogance), or another such abusive purpose.

Exactly.

Also, much as I hate to defend the practice, slavery is not a homogenus event. Most romans would have been appalled by the slavery of the Southern united states, even if they themselves owned slaves. Slavery in the US was the most pernicuous, evil kind of slavery, chattel slavery, in which the enslaved person was no different than property, in many cases having fewer rights than an animal.

Roman slavery was more of a social class, which carried with it certain rights as well as heavy obligations and sumptuary regulations. Rife for abuse yes, but orders of magnitude different from the horror of European colonial slavery.

EvilElitest
2007-05-23, 08:48 PM
Slavery is, by definition, defined only by the owning of one person by another, mistreatment and suffering are likely results, but not automatic. In the spectrum of D&D, it is a Lawful, Nongood enterprise (as it favors societal structure and legal order over individual freedom);
The primary examples of slave-taking races in D&D are the Mind-Flayers and the Formians. Both are lawful, but only one is evil.

Because it does infringe on individual rights, it is nongood, but Evil requires (in the D&D spectrum) slavery out of a feeling of inherent superiority over the enslaved group (Racism), doing so for the purposes of self-aggrandizement (Cultural Arrogance), or another such abusive purpose.

You don't need Racism to make slavery evil, to make it slavery and not serfdom (and that is possible to be neutral). Slavery, by definition is taking away a persons freedom, and that is causing them suffering by definition.
Even slavery where the victim might be "better off", to make it slavery it must be done without the victim's consent.

So this is demonstrates my point.


The real world and most other games "alignment" is subjective and largely irrelavent. However in D&D the assumption is that there are Gods some other power dictating what is good and evil. There is no subjective view. So that your character could THINK he's evil but actually be good, or more likely the other way, think he's good but really be neutral (see the slavery example).

So as long as all the players know what the 3 definitions ARE, then everything is cool. Or everyone just sort of understands that know alignment spells and effects aren't to be used
In my games, the players have two aligments. When hte make their characters, they make an aligment and write that down on their character sheet. I then write it down in my notes. When they commit actions i judge not fitting to their aligment, i change their aligment, but they think they are whatever aligment they want. So a ex-paladin may have LG written down, but he will suddently not have his powers and in reality he is LE. I normally warn them first subtly
from,
EE

Poppatomus
2007-05-23, 08:55 PM
In my games, the players have two aligments. When hte make their characters, they make an aligment and write that down on their character sheet. I then write it down in my notes. When they commit actions i judge not fitting to their aligment, i change their aligment, but they think they are whatever aligment they want. So a ex-paladin may have LG written down, but he will suddently not have his powers and in reality he is LE. I normally warn them first subtly
from,
EE

interesting mechanic, I may use that myself, if you don't mind.

Gavin Sage
2007-05-23, 08:56 PM
Regard disscussion of slavery. In a homebrew world where slavery is endemic to the setting then it is unreasonable to expect even a something as up there as a paladin to stridently opposed to it. They would still have to show kindness, work for good treatment of all slaves when possible, but slavery is simply too big to be resolved into personal morality

This is why when I think about it, official D&D settings tend not to have it broadly. Its too big if applied to everywhere, you can't expect PCs and especially lawful ones to change the world. A land here or there (like Thay in FR) that are outright evil anyways, where a paladin would be on the outs as it was anyways. Not even the highest codes requires somehow to be of stupid alignment, so if slavery is truly a part of the entire setting then taking a paladin to task for it is bad DMing for either allowing the paladin in the first place or expecting too much of the PC.

Sergeantbrother
2007-05-23, 08:57 PM
Slavery in the US was the most pernicuous, evil kind of slavery, chattel slavery, in which the enslaved person was no different than property, in many cases having fewer rights than an animal.

There were actually times and places where it was a lot worse, but that may be straying too far off topic.

EvilElitest
2007-05-23, 09:28 PM
Regard disscussion of slavery. In a homebrew world where slavery is endemic to the setting then it is unreasonable to expect even a something as up there as a paladin to stridently opposed to it. They would still have to show kindness, work for good treatment of all slaves when possible, but slavery is simply too big to be resolved into personal morality

This is why when I think about it, official D&D settings tend not to have it broadly. Its too big if applied to everywhere, you can't expect PCs and especially lawful ones to change the world. A land here or there (like Thay in FR) that are outright evil anyways, where a paladin would be on the outs as it was anyways. Not even the highest codes requires somehow to be of stupid alignment, so if slavery is truly a part of the entire setting then taking a paladin to task for it is bad DMing for either allowing the paladin in the first place or expecting too much of the PC.

why should i expect PCs to change the world?


interesting mechanic, I may use that myself, if you don't mind.
No, it is copyright......
just kiding, help your self

What i do is call the characters aligment his ethical aligment, and taht can be whatever he wants
The aligment hte DM has is the moral aligment, and that is not debatable, though not often known
from,
EE

Gavin Sage
2007-05-23, 10:31 PM
why should i expect PCs to change the world?

Allow me to rephrase, cause a fundamental cultural shift that took a couple of centuries in America to actually happen. When it isn't the main focus of the campaign too.