PDA

View Full Version : Shades of Evil



endur
2015-12-09, 12:03 PM
One of the issues with the D&D alignment system is it doesn't do a good job of differentiating between different shades of evil.

For example, the following could all have the same alignment:
1) A thief that has never killed, just stolen from others;
2) A bank robber that will kill if necessary in order to steal;
3) An assassin who is paid to kill;
4) A serial killer who kills for fun;
5) A demon worshipping cultist who sacrifices others;
6) A vampire that drinks blood in order to survive;
7) A demon that slaughters humans because it is bored.

Rakoa
2015-12-09, 12:13 PM
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Just that this is a thing that exists?

Nobot
2015-12-09, 12:13 PM
I always thought thieves could be neutral. I would even consider the bank robber who is willing to kill and the assassin who is paid to kill to be candidates for neutral, depending on who they rob and kill and what they do with the proceeds. Perhaps even good in a Robin Hoodish way...

But I agree, no shades of evil. I'm not a big fan of the alignment system...

Geddy2112
2015-12-09, 12:13 PM
This is why there is a law/chaos axis. I will agree there are small e characters, big E characters, and then completely and utterly irredeemable monsters.
#1 is probably not evil, as stealing is a chaotic act, not an evil one.
#2 and #3 are not hard evil, probably a lowercase e.
#6 might not be evil at all(if you put aside the undead/vampires are inherently evil). What if they don't kill, or feed on willing subjects/buy the blood. What if they live on animal blood?

DireSickFish
2015-12-09, 12:15 PM
I think 3.5 did the best with Shades of Evil. They had the Nightstalker and Shadows as well as a few other shades. In 5e they only have the Shadow so far that I'm aware of. Hopefully the release a Nightstalker in MM2. With the Shadovar having lived in the shadow plane it would be nice to do a Nethril plot involving evil Shades of Evil.

Aetol
2015-12-09, 12:23 PM
This is why there is a law/chaos axis. I will agree there are small e characters, big E characters, and then completely and utterly irredeemable monsters.
#1 is probably not evil, as stealing is a chaotic act, not an evil one.
#2 and #3 are not hard evil, probably a lowercase e.
#6 might not be evil at all(if you put aside the undead/vampires are inherently evil). What if they don't kill, or feed on willing subjects/buy the blood. What if they live on animal blood?

On the small-e / big-E thing : shouldn't that be reversed ? Alignments are usually capitalized, so those who fall under the broad Evil alignment are "Evil", while the true psychopaths are "evil". A professional killer might be Evil (he kills for money) but not evil (he's a good person otherwise).

@DireSickFish : you didn't read the discussion at all, did you ? :smallamused:

Thisguy_
2015-12-09, 12:36 PM
I think 3.5 did the best with Shades of Evil. They had the Nightstalker and Shadows as well as a few other shades.

Does a Wight not count?



On-subject, I'd say a Vampire who actively chooses not to kill but also doesn't reveal his or herself and takes blood as needed without consent is a True Neutral character (and I would rate most vampires as such), because their motivations are non-destructive and entirely self-serving. They drink to survive, and killing their food supply would be self-destructive. Therefore, they have a motivation from the self both to not kill and to steal the life partially, carefully, and calculatedly from their cattle. Depending on whether they are sadistic about it, they could fall to evil, and if they particularly enjoy living outside of the law of man or nature, they could win a Chaotic tag. It really all depends.

Alignment is all about subjectivity in the end. Objective evil is a mechanical definition so much as objective good is, and neither fits our definition in the real world, which is a subjective one. After all, summoning and binding evil outsiders to do deeds (good or otherwise) is seen as an inherently evil act in D&D-likes.

wumpus
2015-12-09, 01:28 PM
The only real issue I see is that "smite evil" [and other evil/good bane] hits all "evil" equally.

In the beginning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0644.html) the World was modified from a wargame. This made a lot of PCs and NPCs unhappy and has widely been regarded as a bad move. Alignments were originally "red" and "blue" in the wargames. This was changed to "lawful" and "chaotic" in 0e D&D (and BECMI) and evolved into "good" and "evil".

Note that there exist rules for "Exalted" and "Vile". My suggestion, remove the standard alignments (expect to either drop Paladin or perhaps buff "smite evil" in some way) and make "Exalted" and "Vile" a bit more common: paladins are exalted at level 1. Grab the old "spells come from gods" rules from AD&D and expect clerics to be exalted/vile before receiving certain spell levels. Make resurrecting such alignments "complicated" (gods have to consent to losing the soul).

nedz
2015-12-09, 01:34 PM
I expected a list of types, or degrees, of evil — 50 of them.

Segev
2015-12-09, 02:23 PM
Utterly irrelevant tangent, but when I was in a theater and first saw a trailer for 50 Shades of Gray, my initial thought on seeing "Gray Industries" and the smartly dressed but sinister individual looking quite young and handsome was, "Are they making a 'Portrait of Dorian Gray' movie? That'd be awesome!"

Imagine my disappointment when I realized. Though I did lean over to my friend and whisper, "Twilight fanfiction."

Which I got to top with the next trailer, which was for the Dracula movie, by leaning over to my friend and AGAIN saying, "Twilight fanfiction." We may have laughed a little loudly for a theater at that. >_> <_<

I STILL think a Portrait of Dorian Gray movie could be very cool, if done well.

Red Fel
2015-12-09, 02:26 PM
I STILL think a Portrait of Dorian Gray movie could be very cool, if done well.

It was (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037988/).

Ooh, Angela, you never age, you simply become more regal.

*ahem* But I digress... What's this about Evil?

Segev
2015-12-09, 02:28 PM
What's this about Evil?

Something about how being willing to kill to steal versus killing for hire versus killing for kicks are different "kinds" of evil.

I think it's adequately covered by the nuances of applying the ethical axis, myself, though there ARE "degrees." They just aren't granularly defined.

nedz
2015-12-09, 02:31 PM
Utterly irrelevant tangent, but when I was in a theater and first saw a trailer for 50 Shades of Gray, my initial thought on seeing "Gray Industries" and the smartly dressed but sinister individual looking quite young and handsome was, "Are they making a 'Portrait of Dorian Gray' movie? That'd be awesome!"

Imagine my disappointment when I realized. Though I did lean over to my friend and whisper, "Twilight fanfiction."

Which I got to top with the next trailer, which was for the Dracula movie, by leaning over to my friend and AGAIN saying, "Twilight fanfiction." We may have laughed a little loudly for a theater at that. >_> <_<

I STILL think a Portrait of Dorian Gray movie could be very cool, if done well.

The Picture of Dorian Gray I think you mean ?

It's been done: 24 times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray) :-
1910, 1913, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1945, 1961(twice), 1969, 1970, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1983, 2001, 2003, 2004(twice), 2006, 2007, 2009(twice) and 2014

Red Fel
2015-12-09, 02:34 PM
Something about how being willing to kill to steal versus killing for hire versus killing for kicks are different "kinds" of evil.

I think it's adequately covered by the nuances of applying the ethical axis, myself, though there ARE "degrees." They just aren't granularly defined.

While I agree that there are layers of Evil, I question whether they should have so distinct a mechanical impact as to require labeling.

Because that's the thing - the difference between "I murder people for money" and "I murder people because I like it" is so nuanced that it may as well be "I have red hair with dark highlights" versus "I have brown hair with black highlights" or however highlights in hair work. I wouldn't know, jet black and horns pretty much work themselves out.

The point is, there is a distinction between, say, "I steal to live" and "I murder for fun," sure. And there is a difference between "I kill at the order of my king" and "I killed my king," obviously. As has been mentioned, the ethical axis takes care of a lot of it. But the subtle, nuanced levels, while infinitely entertaining, aren't important enough in terms of what needs to go on a character sheet, for the most part.

endur
2015-12-09, 04:57 PM
The point is, there is a distinction between, say, "I steal to live" and "I murder for fun," sure. And there is a difference between "I kill at the order of my king" and "I killed my king," obviously. As has been mentioned, the ethical axis takes care of a lot of it. But the subtle, nuanced levels, while infinitely entertaining, aren't important enough in terms of what needs to go on a character sheet, for the most part.

I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, whereas the demon summoning cultists want to over throw the current king. And the Demons want to destroy everything.

The Axis might make the Assassins Guild ne, the Cultists ce, and the Demons CE.

But I think maybe we need at least two CEs or a degree of CE, just like you might have two LGs (LG regular and LG Exalted).

This might be more important in situations where Good and Evil are working together against opposing forces, as opposed to a traditional all goods vs. all evils.

Red Fel
2015-12-09, 05:51 PM
I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, whereas the demon summoning cultists want to over throw the current king. And the Demons want to destroy everything.

The Axis might make the Assassins Guild ne, the Cultists ce, and the Demons CE.

Well, let me ask you this: What's the difference, mechanically, between ce and CE? Because if there's not one, then it's a distinction without a difference, like when I put "six and a half feet, green eyes, tattoos," as opposed to "five foot nothing, blue eyes, bald," on a character sheet.

Strigon
2015-12-09, 06:04 PM
I'm assuming we're talking about D&D here, as that's the only system I know of with that particular alignment system. (Right there at the top of the page...)

The thing is, in D&D, Good and Evil are very real forces. An individual who is Evil has some magical/mystical difference from someone who is not. As such, something is either Evil or it is not, just as an object can either be metal or not, red or not, and biological or not, and how you can be guilty of a crime or not.
Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense to have varying degrees of evil/good, but I am saying that, D&D cosmology being what it is, the all-or-nothing approach does make a certain amount of sense as well. Is Evil emanating from this person? Yes? They're Evil! Same goes for Good, Lawful and Chaotic.

Slipperychicken
2015-12-09, 07:30 PM
We shouldn't have rules manuals trying to tell us right and wrong in the first place. That's a job for your mind, not a game book. What the books should do instead is convey the arguments and attitudes of people and groups in-universe, highlight disagreements and their impact on the world, and create potential to use those conflicts in the game. That gives guidelines for portraying characters with different viewpoints, and doesn't use word of god to shut down all dissent.

For one example of a game that does a pretty good job weaving these things in alongside rules, we have Shadowrun. Even for the most unambiguous black-and-white judgements, like that of blood magic, it suffices to describe the general moral outrage toward practitioners, the near-universal illegality of its practice, and arguments for why some people do it anyway. At no point is it necessary for the game to declare it evil.

Strigon
2015-12-09, 07:47 PM
We shouldn't have rules manuals trying to tell us right and wrong in the first place. That's a job for your mind, not a game book. What the books should do instead is convey the arguments and attitudes of people and groups in-universe, highlight disagreements and their impact on the world, and create potential to use those conflicts in the game. That gives guidelines for portraying characters with different viewpoints, and doesn't use word of god to shut down all dissent.

For one example of a game that does a pretty good job weaving these things in alongside rules, we have Shadowrun. Even for the most unambiguous black-and-white judgements, like that of blood magic, it suffices to describe the general moral outrage toward practitioners, the near-universal illegality of its practice, and arguments for why some people do it anyway. At no point is it necessary for the game to declare it evil.

Well this goes right back to the thing about Evil and Good being real things in D&D; they physically exist; they have a discernible presence. In order for that to be true, living beings have to be actually objectively Good or Evil, and in order for that to be true, actions have to be objectively good or Evil.

goto124
2015-12-09, 07:48 PM
But this is a fantasy world where Good and Evil are literal cosmic forces and produce magical effexts that are seen and felt.

I have not seen how it can be done without turning the world into a black and white thing.

Slipperychicken
2015-12-09, 07:56 PM
Well this goes right back to the thing about Evil and Good being real things in D&D; they physically exist; they have a discernible presence. In order for that to be true, living beings have to be actually objectively Good or Evil, and in order for that to be true, actions have to be objectively good or Evil.

That is indeed the case in prior D&D editions, and I am saying that it should not be so.

Even D&D 5th has begun to move away from that paradigm, minimizing the impact of alignment and making it harder to observe.

goto124
2015-12-09, 07:59 PM
That is indeed the case in prior D&D editions, and I am saying that it should not be so.

So black & white morality is required in a world of objective good/evil, and the players and GM will have to run along with it in such a system?

Is there really no room for nuance?

Strigon
2015-12-09, 08:08 PM
That is indeed the case in prior D&D editions, and I am saying that it should not be so.

Even D&D 5th has begun to move away from that paradigm, minimizing the impact of alignment and making it harder to observe.

Why is it you believe that?
I've never felt anything was wrong with the alignment system I can't believe I wrote that whole sentence before stopping myself...

I've never felt that the alignment system overstepped its bounds in saying that these things are objectively Evil in this world, and these things are objectively Good. As far as I can tell, it's never force-fed you any moral beliefs, and even the Evil acts can be the right thing to do at some points.

Besides, undoing that alignment system would require a massive overhaul of the planes and outsiders; without objective Evil, Devils and Demons can't be made of Evil. If they aren't made of Evil, then either you have to give them no free will, or find a way around that issue to make them still serve as a major villain/bad guy; the same is true with Angels and the like.

Malifice
2015-12-10, 04:10 AM
1) A thief that has never killed, just stolen from others;

CN.


A bank robber that will kill if necessary in order to steal;

NE


3) An assassin who is paid to kill;

C, N or LE


4) A serial killer who kills for fun;

CE


5) A demon worshipping cultist who sacrifices others;

CE


A vampire that drinks blood in order to survive;

NE


7) A demon that slaughters humans because it is bored.

CE

Malifice
2015-12-10, 04:13 AM
I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, whereas the demon summoning cultists want to over throw the current king. And the Demons want to destroy everything.

The Axis might make the Assassins Guild ne, the Cultists ce, and the Demons CE.

But I think maybe we need at least two CEs or a degree of CE, just like you might have two LGs (LG regular and LG Exalted).

This might be more important in situations where Good and Evil are working together against opposing forces, as opposed to a traditional all goods vs. all evils.

Doing evil things for the greater good still makes you an evil person.

nedz
2015-12-10, 05:29 AM
I think it depends on the environment you are trying to simulate. For example, we might agree that Assassins are evil. But the assassins guild works to keep the kingdom stable, ...

Ah, Machiavelli.
This is LN — the ends justify the means, it's for the greater good, and other clichés.

Red Fel
2015-12-10, 09:53 AM
So black & white morality is required in a world of objective good/evil, and the players and GM will have to run along with it in such a system?

Is there really no room for nuance?

It's not that there is no room for nuance; it's that there is no point.

In a system without alignment, or one where there is no mechanical impact of alignment whatsoever, whether a character is Good or Evil or Purple is a matter of academics. It matters as much as hair color. So whether you're mildly Evil, generally Evil, hideously Evil, or me, it really makes no difference. It's a nice personal touch, and impacts how you play your character, but the label doesn't matter.

In a system with hard-coded, arbitrary alignments with clear mechanical impact, you have your choice of those provided. In D&D 3.5, that means you have nine choices. So while there is a difference between LG and LE, or TN and CN, there is no real mechanical difference between LE, lE, Le, and le. They're all Lawful, all Evil. It may influence, again, how you play the character, but about as much as your ability to provide an accent or your character's perfectly reasonable genocidal hatred of Kender.

That's the point. There is nuance, and room for nuance, from an RP perspective. You can always layer complexity in how you play your character. But the label doesn't matter, because it has no mechanical impact. It's like trying to describe the particular shade of green of your Orc's skin. He's an Orc, he's green, we get that; what unique shade has no impact on the game.

Segev
2015-12-10, 10:39 AM
I will preface this by saying that I do not actually think this is a good idea, certainly not with D&D as written.

However, if you really wanted to make the nuances notable, you would probably have to institute some sort of "alignment points" system whereby actions move you along granulated tick marks on the moral and ethical axes. Then, to give that mechanical teeth that make being 75% good different from being 80% good, you'd have those points be factors in damage codes, save bonuses and penalties, etc. when exposed to magics and other effects which interact with alignment.

Blasphemy, for example, might do damage based on how many Good Points a target creature has, hurting more the more Good you are.

This seems way too complicated for how D&D uses alignment, but it's a potential system to give nuance more mechanical meaning. It would then be worth keeping track of whether you were Fagin, Sykes, Asmodeus, Red Fel, or your average used politician salesman in terms of HOW evil you are. Because holy word would actually affect each of those differently.

As it stands, since all of them (except maybe, arguably, Fagin) are evil, it'd affect them all the same way (barring (un)successful saves).

CharonsHelper
2015-12-10, 10:56 AM
Frankly - I can see and argument for making it more nuanced... if the system was more focused upon alignment than it is. But really - going too detailed would break KISS too hard.

Do you really want to keep track of how much more evil the assassin is who enjoys his work vs. the assassin who feels guilty and donates 1/2 his $ to an orphanage - but not guilty enough to stop being a killer for anyone with the coin.

Both are evil. Enough said.

Segev
2015-12-10, 11:06 AM
Oddly, one COULD make a case for an LN assassin. He's really a stealth executioner. He kills people who have been found guilty in absentia after having been given due process (and a chance to prove themselves innocent if they would have shown up). And he represents a mostly-LN system, not a corrupt LE one. (He might even represent an LG one.) He kills people because they are found guilty of capital crimes, but he does it as an assassin because those people elude the traditional arresting forces.

If he's a private citizen who does this for hire (perhaps as a bounty hunter), he still can be LN if he follows the law and does not do it for anything other than money and justice.

I could even make a case for it being possible to design him as an LG character. He does an unpleasant job, but when a paladin kills a bad guy, so does he.

goto124
2015-12-10, 11:16 AM
How about a Virtues/Vices system? Or too much bookkeeping still?

Geddy2112
2015-12-10, 11:30 AM
I see my groups nomenclature picked up a lot of interest, and I did not mean to derail the thread.

Yes, we use lowercase and capital letters, but Red Fel read it right. There is no mechanical difference in game, these are just for our own personal use to help roleplay our characters. If you use smite evil on the smallest e joe blow thug or the ruler of hell, it goes off. If you cast detect law, you pick up the most lawful stupid stickler and the person who just likes tradition all the same. It just helps us flesh out our character motivations. Some characters are more lawful than good, or more good than chaotic, or whatnot.

Shades of evil add depth to roleplay-it is the nuance between the ce cutpurse, the Ce has science gone too far alchemist, and the CE greater demon of the abyss. But it is mechanically all chaotic evil.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-10, 11:36 AM
Oddly, one COULD make a case for an LN assassin. He's really a stealth executioner. He kills people who have been found guilty in absentia after having been given due process (and a chance to prove themselves innocent if they would have shown up). And he represents a mostly-LN system, not a corrupt LE one. (He might even represent an LG one.) He kills people because they are found guilty of capital crimes, but he does it as an assassin because those people elude the traditional arresting forces.

If he's a private citizen who does this for hire (perhaps as a bounty hunter), he still can be LN if he follows the law and does not do it for anything other than money and justice.

I could even make a case for it being possible to design him as an LG character. He does an unpleasant job, but when a paladin kills a bad guy, so does he.

I agree - that's why in my above example I specifically called out that they do it for anyone with the coin.

Heck - at a certain point the line between assassin for a higher cause and a special forces team is pretty blurry. Neither are inherently evil. (though they both certainly could be)

Malifice
2015-12-10, 02:33 PM
I agree - that's why in my above example I specifically called out that they do it for anyone with the coin.

Heck - at a certain point the line between assassin for a higher cause and a special forces team is pretty blurry. Neither are inherently evil. (though they both certainly could be)

When your victim is sitting before you sobbing and wetting himself and vowing to reform and you stick the knife in his stomach, or when you bump into his children later on, you might realise that youre actually evil.

In my campaigns, killing someone for any reason other than self defence or the defence of others (when no other option reasonably presents itself) is evil. I dont care what your subjective justification is. Its amost certainly going to get a big fat 'E' placed on your character sheet, and (barring a period of introspection and atonement) get you sent to the lower planes on death.

Killing in self defence is neutral. This includes military actions against a foreign invader, slaying a dragon to protect a town from its rapacious attacks, and self defence, or the defence of others.

Mercy, compassion, kindness, charity, selflessness and forgiveness are acts of good.

This varies in other peeps campaigns for sure. Ive lost track of the amount of time Ive had people advance arguments for baby killing, genocide and brutal torture for 'the greater good' being 'good' acts. Always makes me chuckle (and cry) when I hear these arguments.

Segev
2015-12-10, 02:38 PM
Where do lawful executions for unrepentant monsters fall in that paradigm? You know they've killed, tortured, and maimed. You know they'll do so again. You have them at your mercy RIGHT NOW, but they can and will escape if you try to hold them prisoner, and they WILL do it again. But they're not doing it RIGHT NOW. They may even promise not to, but you are as certain as you can be that they're lying.

Geddy2112
2015-12-10, 03:05 PM
Ive lost track of the amount of time Ive had people advance arguments for baby killing, genocide and brutal torture for 'the greater good' being 'good' acts. Always makes me chuckle (and cry) when I hear these arguments.
I absolutely despise this. In every single campaign I have played in, some player has tried this cutesy BS and tried to explain how it is chaotic neutral to cackle with glee as you strangle innocent sapient life with its own entrails. It is right up there with my pet peeve of people(normally the same "Im CN cause I won't put CE on my sheet) who name their weapons "diplomacy" and "intimidate" so they can be the party face, aka kill anybody who gets in their way. However, I don't care what you put on your sheet-when I am DM the world will treat you as you treat it. Act evil, get treated as that alignment for all mechanical purposes.

However, it can and should be embraced. That the world needs heroes who are willing to get their hands dirty. People who do dark things may be evil, but the greater good needs this. Die the hero, or live long enough to become the villain. I love an evil character who serves as the martyr-they do the dark things that damn them to a lower plane, so the rest of the world does not have to. That is evil done right.


Where do lawful executions for unrepentant monsters fall in that paradigm? You know they've killed, tortured, and maimed. You know they'll do so again. You have them at your mercy RIGHT NOW, but they can and will escape if you try to hold them prisoner, and they WILL do it again. But they're not doing it RIGHT NOW. They may even promise not to, but you are as certain as you can be that they're lying.
This is usually defense of others and self. People you can reasonably lock away can stay there and rot, but it is certainly evil to allow a monster to continue to take life. If I knowingly open a portal from the abyss and let demons out, the blood they spill is on my hands. If I seal them away knowing they will come right back out, it is not much better.

Malifice
2015-12-10, 03:08 PM
Where do lawful executions for unrepentant monsters fall in that paradigm? You know they've killed, tortured, and maimed. You know they'll do so again. You have them at your mercy RIGHT NOW, but they can and will escape if you try to hold them prisoner, and they WILL do it again. But they're not doing it RIGHT NOW. They may even promise not to, but you are as certain as you can be that they're lying.

You dont know they will do it again. A good person doesnt murder someone in those circumstances. Good people avoid killing. Imprisonment to attone for their crimes is OK though. Killing them doesnt stop the killing, it just creates another killing.

Execution (killing a helpless person who is at your mercy) is an evil act. No LG person could say otherwise. A LE or LN person could do it however.

If the murderer was caught in the act and you had to kill him to save an innocent life, then its fair game to a good person. If he surrenders, or is captured and you kill him anyway, thats an evil act.

Your campaign might contain a different view on this. Thats just how it is in my campaign.

Segev
2015-12-10, 03:17 PM
You dont know they will do it again. A good person doesnt murder someone in those circumstances. Good people avoid killing. Imprisonment to attone for their crimes is OK though. Killing them doesnt stop the killing, it just creates another killing.Point of order: "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing." Killing in war, in self-defense, and (yes) executions is not "murder."


Execution (killing a helpless person who is at your mercy) is an evil act. No LG person could say otherwise. A LE or LN person could do it however.

If the murderer was caught in the act and you had to kill him to save an innocent life, then its fair game to a good person. If he surrenders, or is captured and you kill him anyway, thats an evil act.

Your campaign might contain a different view on this. Thats just how it is in my campaign.Fair enough for your campaign; I will state that I disagree in real life and thus, obviously, am not a good-aligned person in your campaign's view.

(This shouldn't be surprising, I suppose. Now, let me get back to animating the corpses of the fallen in that last major battle...)

Malifice
2015-12-10, 03:19 PM
I absolutely despise this.

You and me both brother.

I have no issue with Punisher type antiheroes who employ murder, torture and intimidation to achieve 'good' ends. They are (of course) LE in alignment.

The world is full of people who do bad things for (what is to them) a good cause, and are assured in the righteousness of their cause.

I had a 'CN' PC engage in the murder of an NPC (he was caught breaking into the guys house). I immediately placed a CE on his character sheet. That guy had a wife and kids for gods sake. The use of non lethal force didnt even cross his mind. Thats as evil a thing to do as it is IRL. If the player objects (he briefly did until the other players explained to him how abhorrent an act it was) he can undertake a lengthy period of attonement and hopefully redemption. That might be enough to get him into an upper plane on death.


Point of order: "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing." Killing in war, in self-defense, and (yes) executions is not "murder."

Point of order; it changes definiton by jurisdiction (as a legal term). The beheadings you see on the news are all 'lawful executions' (of apostates). Does that make them any more morally right?

Just because the State legallises killing defenceless people in certain instances, doesnt make them any more morally OK (although it could make the killings 'lawful').

Im not using the term 'murder' in its legal sense. Im using it to describe any killing (lawful or otherwise) that is done not in self defence or the defence of others when no other option reasonably presents itself.

If we set an objective standard, then subjective justifications for the act go out the window. While context may be important; the subjective justifucation of the person who pulls the trigger never is.


Fair enough for your campaign; I will state that I disagree in real life and thus, obviously, am not a good-aligned person in your campaign's view.

Most people arent. Even evil monsters think they are good people.

I deal with murderers all the time (im a lawyer IRL). And even people who have done unspeakable crimes that really leave you wondering. People engage in all sorts of horrific acts all the time, remaining convinced in the righteousness of thier cause.

Turn on the news if you dont believe me.

Being a good person is hard work. Mercy, compassion, charity and self sacrifice for others is difficult in the extreme. Most people are neutral (they dont go out of their way to help others, but nor do they go out of thier way to harm them).

Geddy2112
2015-12-10, 03:29 PM
You and me both brother.

I have no issue with Punisher type antiheroes who employ murder, torture and intimidation to achieve 'good' ends. They are (of course) LE in alignment.

The world is full of people who do bad things for (what is to them) a good cause, and are assured in the righteousness of their cause.

I had a 'CN' PC engage in the murder of an NPC (he was caught breaking into the guys house). I immediately placed a CE on his character sheet. That guy had a wife and kids for gods sake. The use of non lethal force didnt even cross his mind. Thats as evil a thing to do as it is IRL. If the player objects (he briefly did until the other players explained to him how abhorrent an act it was) he can undertake a lengthy period of attonement and hopefully redemption. That might be enough to get him into an upper plane on death.

I don't even care if they are CE monsters. I have played in a group with a great CE character. He liked to kill and eat people, he enjoyed tasting the flesh of sentient races and said it was more exotic since they could know fear and pain. He was CE as they come, but he was open about it and managed to work with the party fine. If you want to do evil things, that is 100%, but don't lie that it is good or try and argue that you can be neutral but engage in cold blooded murder. Also, be ready to accept any and all consequence for your actions(good, evil, lawful, chaotic, none of the above).

I would argue that killing somebody breaking into your house is neutral, as somebody who is breaking into your house is unlikely to be doing anything besides trying to steal from you, kill you, or worse. Somebody breaking in is threatening your life, liberty, and/or property, so acting with lethal force is justified to a good character. If I read you wrong, and you meant he broke into somebody's house and then killed them, then yeah, that is flat out evil.

wumpus
2015-12-10, 03:37 PM
How about a Virtues/Vices system? Or too much bookkeeping still?

I'm pretty sure AD&D expected the DM to keep track of each character's actions. There was even a handy chart in the DMG to be photocopied [I'm guessing, it was simple enough to hand draw]. Woe to the player that didn't act the "proper" alignment (in the DM's hallowed opinion) in that game.


Execution (killing a helpless person who is at your mercy) is an evil act. No LG person could say otherwise. A LE or LN person could do it however.

I'm curious how many places didn't have a death penalty before the 20th century. I've heard that while the Torah has plenty of "shall be put to death" penalties, actual Jewish courts that put more than one defendant to death in a century were considered "hanging courts". Still, these courts had the death penalty. I'd expect that few PCs would be given the "High Justice" (i.e. ability to judge and execute) and would be expected to drag the miscreants off to a higher court.

One big advantage of D&D is that if you want to get rid of the death penalty (as a DM) in a world with teleport and knock spells you can just claim a "[court] wizard did it" with regard to magical escape-proof prisons (with lawful good guards that never abuse the prisoners and keep the prisoners in a semblance of LG society).

Elan wasn't offended by V's execution of Kubota (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html) because of the legality (Elan is CG) but because of his goodness. Personally, I think Elan and V might as well swap official ethics (put Elan at NG and V at CN), but that is because the ethical side is so poorly defined. If the penalty was death, then V's action made all kinds of sense from a CG point of view. Best guess is that the Paladins *didn't* have a death penalty (although now their not-so-escape-proof prisons are in the hands of goblins).

Malifice
2015-12-10, 03:39 PM
I don't even care if they are CE monsters. I have played in a group with a great CE character. He liked to kill and eat people, he enjoyed tasting the flesh of sentient races and said it was more exotic since they could know fear and pain. He was CE as they come, but he was open about it and managed to work with the party fine. If you want to do evil things, that is 100%, but don't lie that it is good or try and argue that you can be neutral but engage in cold blooded murder. Also, be ready to accept any and all consequence for your actions(good, evil, lawful, chaotic, none of the above).

Extreme example of CE. I wonder how the other PC's were able to adventure with such a monster.

I certainly cant imagine a situation where I would be comfortable going on a camping trip with such a depraved serial killer.

A great example of a CE protagonist is Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome. Murderer, rapist and torturer. Also one of the main protagonists of the series.

His good mate Lucius Vorenus is LN.


I would argue that killing somebody breaking into your house is neutral, as somebody who is breaking into your house is unlikely to be doing anything besides trying to steal from you, kill you, or worse. Somebody breaking in is threatening your life, liberty, and/or property, so acting with lethal force is justified to a good character. If I read you wrong, and you meant he broke into somebody's house and then killed them, then yeah, that is flat out evil.

He was the home intruder.

And i disagree. Gunning down a home invader (who is unarmed) is evil (however lacking in any other context, It likely wouldnt trigger an alignment change). If that home invader was armed, or ran at you (while you were) and no other option reasonably presented itself other than shooting him to save your life or someone elses, then it's fair game (and not an evil act).

Its no different from the police. They gun down an unarmed thief, theyre evil, If the thief was an armed robber and refused to put down the gun, and the officer formed the view that the person was going to use it causing the officer to have to shoot him (to save his own life or the life of others) then its a moraly neutral act.

Leaping in front of the armed robbers bullet to save someone elses life is morally good.

Geddy2112
2015-12-10, 03:45 PM
Extreme example of CE. I wonder how the other PC's were able to adventure with such a monster.

I certainly cant imagine a situation where I would be comfortable going on a camping trip with such a depraved serial killer.

He was a Hannibal Lecter style alchemist. He was very discreet about his special diet.



He was the home intruder.

Break into somebody's house and then kill them, no questions asked evil.



And i disagree. Gunning down a home invader (who is unarmed) is evil. If that home invader was armed, or ran at you (while you were) and no other option reasonably presented itself other than shooting him to save your life or someone elses, then it's fair game (and not an evil act).
Yeah, I can see some gray area. If it was bright, they were clearly unarmed and made no hostile moves towards you, I agree it would be evil to kill here. In darkness or other circumstances, I would lean towards a neutral self preservation, not an evil killing.

Malifice
2015-12-10, 03:48 PM
Yeah, I can see some gray area. If it was bright, they were clearly unarmed and made no hostile moves towards you, I agree it would be evil to kill here. In darkness or other circumstances, I would lean towards a neutral self preservation, not an evil killing.

For sure. A little like how friendly fire isnt evil either.

Context is important. Subjective justification never is.


He was a Hannibal Lecter style alchemist. He was very discreet about his special.


The PC still provides many difficulties. If the other PCs found out then I would expect them to not travel with him anymore under any circumstances (at the very least).

Also, where is his line of demarcation. If hes one of those dudes that only does evil against NPCs and never PCs, then that also annoys me.

Dude sounds like a chariacature of evil. Moustache twirling psychopath. Most evil people arent like that (think Walter White or Tony Soprano, or Stringer Bell or Magneto).

Segev
2015-12-10, 03:55 PM
Even evil monsters think they are good people.

I deal with murderers all the time (im a lawyer IRL). And even people who have done unspeakable crimes that really leave you wondering. People engage in all sorts of horrific acts all the time, remaining convinced in the righteousness of thier cause.

Turn on the news if you dont believe me.

Being a good person is hard work. Mercy, compassion, charity and self sacrifice for others is difficult in the extreme. Most people are neutral (they dont go out of their way to help others, but nor do they go out of thier way to harm them).

Allow me to rephrase, then: I think there are perfectly good people - kind, charitable, who want the best for others and will give of themselves to make it happen - who would be willing to condemn a man to death for his crimes, in order to prevent him from perpetrating them in the future.

It is noteworthy that an executioner by no means has to LIKE his work, only believe it necessary.


In fact, the only time I've had the displeasure of finding somebody who seems to hold to your moral standard was that samurai I mentioned before. We'd beaten to near-death the BBEG, who had ambushed us and was out to kill us before she surrendered. We KNEW she was lying when she said she'd come peacefully and that she would never hurt anybody again. She'd broken promises before. The only reason we didn't take her prisoner is that we couldn't hold her; if we had tried, she'd have killed us when any of us were sleeping (it was a combination of luck and action deficit that let us have her at our mercy, and she still nearly killed several of us).

But, because we couldn't hold her and the samurai was insistant that killing her would be evil and dishonorable despite her very clear and present danger and intent to break any promises we exacted to let her go, we...let her go. And she killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people in our hometown.

The paladin I played recently, in a totally different game, would have executed her rather than accepting her surrender, in exactly the same situation, and he was one of the most self-sacrificing, kindest people I've seen played in any game. He would give ANYBODY a chance to repent...but knowing what he would have about her in that situation, he wouldn't have spared her.

Geddy2112
2015-12-10, 03:59 PM
Context is important. Subjective justification never is.

Agreed



The PC still provides many difficulties. If the other PCs found out then I would expect them to not travel with him anymore under any circumstances (at the very least).

Also, where is his line of demarcation. If hes one of those dudes that only does evil against NPCs and never PCs, then that also annoys me.

Dude sounds like a chariacature of evil. Moustache twirling psychopath. Most evil people arent like that (think Walter White or Tony Soprano, or Stringer Bell or Magneto).
It was a campaign where all of us were evil. Sure, we were a little creeped out by him, but we all accepted from early on we were better off having each other alive, as a bunch of PC's who broke out of jail together. We built characters openly, and he made sure he had already sampled a member of every race in the party before we started the campaign. He wanted to sample other races. We all knew we were scumbags and were constantly skeptical around each other, but we had common enemies most of the campaign.

Peat
2015-12-10, 04:18 PM
Allow me to rephrase, then: I think there are perfectly good people - kind, charitable, who want the best for others and will give of themselves to make it happen - who would be willing to condemn a man to death for his crimes, in order to prevent him from perpetrating them in the future.

It is noteworthy that an executioner by no means has to LIKE his work, only believe it necessary.

I would agree with this. For me, it would be a neutral act - assuming the person is guilty of actual evil acts.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-10, 07:38 PM
One of the issues with the D&D alignment system is it doesn't do a good job of differentiating between different shades of evil.



So, a thief and killer are both evil, sounds right. D&D does have intensity of evil. The thief will only get a weak glow, compared to the bright glow of the serial killer.

But what is the point of shades of evil? Evil is evil. A guy steals to feed his hungry family is just as evil as the guy who steals for fun.

themaque
2015-12-10, 07:46 PM
So, a thief and killer are both evil, sounds right. D&D does have intensity of evil. The thief will only get a weak glow, compared to the bright glow of the serial killer.

But what is the point of shades of evil? Evil is evil. A guy steals to feed his hungry family is just as evil as the guy who steals for fun.

A guy who steals so he can eat is desperate. He can take little so that he doesn't hurt others. he doesn't WANT to hurt he just wants to not die. That's not evil.

A Guy who takes just because he can is hurting people for the thrill of things. Causing pain for your own enjoyment is evil. So this guy MIGHT be evil.

It's also why D&D has a Order/Chaos scale in addition to Good Evil.

In your listed example the first man is probably TN he might even be good but the second is either CN, NE, or CE.

Starbuck_II
2015-12-10, 08:25 PM
One of the issues with the D&D alignment system is it doesn't do a good job of differentiating between different shades of evil.

For example, the following could all have the same alignment:
1) A thief that has never killed, just stolen from others;
2) A bank robber that will kill if necessary in order to steal;
3) An assassin who is paid to kill;
4) A serial killer who kills for fun;
5) A demon worshipping cultist who sacrifices others;
6) A vampire that drinks blood in order to survive;
7) A demon that slaughters humans because it is bored.

1) Then if no evil act committed no evil. So you have a contradiction, they can't be same alignment.
2) So CN?
3) Evil according to motives. Psst: you have to pretend to have ulterior motives if a PC.
4) CE.
5) Evil due to sacrifices others unless have their permission.
6) Evil if he kills innocents to do so.
7) CE.

Explain why you thought them similar.

endur
2015-12-10, 08:41 PM
I'd expect that few PCs would be given the "High Justice" (i.e. ability to judge and execute) and would be expected to drag the miscreants off to a higher court.

This is an interesting comment. I think it would depend on the campaign. Some campaigns might have justice like the old west (one marshal for a territory, and a lot of self-help for justice).

Other campaigns might have adventurers as privateers with a grant from a higher authority to "Do Justice".

endur
2015-12-10, 08:48 PM
All of the examples could be chaotic evil under D&D alignment (they don't all have to be ce, but they could be ce).



1) Then if no evil act committed no evil. So you have a contradiction, they can't be same alignment.


The Joker in the 1960's tv show never killed anyone (nobody died on that TV show), but he was ce.



2) So CN?


Could be CE, could be another evil alignment. Killing in a robbery is not neutral alignment.


3) Evil according to motives. Psst: you have to pretend to have ulterior motives if a PC.
4) CE.
5) Evil due to sacrifices others unless have their permission.
6) Evil if he kills innocents to do so.
7) CE.

Explain why you thought them similar.

3-7 are pretty straight forward under D&D alignment. Assassins (#3) are evil. Sacrificing (#5) someone to summon a demon is evil whether or not the victim gave permission. #6 Vampires are CE by default in most versions of D&D.

endur
2015-12-10, 09:00 PM
I snipped some words from the quote below.


Im not using the term 'murder' in its legal sense. Im using it to describe any killing (lawful or otherwise) that is done not in self defence or the defence of others when no other option reasonably presents itself.

If we set an objective standard, then subjective justifications for the act go out the window. While context may be important; the subjective justifucation of the person who pulls the trigger never is.

Being a good person is hard work. Mercy, compassion, charity and self sacrifice for others is difficult in the extreme. Most people are neutral (they dont go out of their way to help others, but nor do they go out of thier way to harm them).

This line "killing (lawful or otherwise) that is done not in self defense or the defense of others when no other option reasonably presents itself" is close to the converse of the definition of a just war. That is, it is just to kill when it is done in self defense or defense of another and all other options have been exhausted and the force used is proportional.

Even still, killing in a just war is still a neutral act (in my opinion), whereas killing without a just cause would be an evil act (even if committed by the state).

That doesn't mean that the character's alignment would necessarily change, a neutral character can commit both good and evil acts. And for that matter, good characters can commit evil acts and vice versa without necessarily changing alignment.

In a fantasy realm where EVIL actually exists, evil gods, demons, devils, etc. slaying a creature that is pure evil could be a GOOD act. I'm uncertain how free choice impacts that (i.e. if the evil creature could repent, is it still good to slay them or would the good route be to not slay them?).

Malifice
2015-12-10, 09:13 PM
Allow me to rephrase, then: I think there are perfectly good people - kind, charitable, who want the best for others and will give of themselves to make it happen - who would be willing to condemn a man to death for his crimes, in order to prevent him from perpetrating them in the future.

These people straddle the good-neutral divine IMO.

There are perfectly good, kind, pious and charitable people IRL that honestly believe decapitation or stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for the crime of loving someone of the same gender, or believing in a different God.

To my mind that makes them 'not good people'. And in my campaigns, I set objective good and evil.


It is noteworthy that an executioner by no means has to LIKE his work, only believe it necessary.

Whether you enjoy the killing or not is not relevant. Your subjective justification for the act does not matter.

The killing is all that matters. Your reason for doing it is irrelevant.


But, because we couldn't hold her and the samurai was insistant that killing her would be evil and dishonorable despite her very clear and present danger and intent to break any promises we exacted to let her go, we...let her go. And she killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people in our hometown.

Its not your fault if he kills people after you let him go. Your PC's remain good, and get into heaven. The samurai goes to hell.

Murdering him means you both go to hell. Now youre both murdering monsters. End of.


The paladin I played recently, in a totally different game, would have executed her rather than accepting her surrender, in exactly the same situation, and he was one of the most self-sacrificing, kindest people I've seen played in any game. He would give ANYBODY a chance to repent...but knowing what he would have about her in that situation, he wouldn't have spared her.

A helpless victim at your mercy, repents and pleads for mercy. You kill him anyway. If it was 1-3E, I would have had your Paladin fall for such an act.

Not that your character would have minded though. Hes self sacrificing like that.


It was a campaign where all of us were evil. Sure, we were a little creeped out by him, but we all accepted from early on we were better off having each other alive, as a bunch of PC's who broke out of jail together.

That doesnt change anything. There is no way known 99 percent of my characters (evil or good) would willingly travel with a psychotic cannabilistic serial killer.

You think Tony Soprano or Walter White would be OK with heading out into the woods and camping with Charles Manson or Hannibal Lecter? Your moral code has nothing to do with it; the guy is a psychotic monster. God knows what he's thinking; youre as likely to end up as dinner in the camping fire as you are to be sitting around it.

Would you be OK sleeping next to someone like that, all out in the woods alone? Would you allow such an NPC into the party?

I play my characters like that; I dont differentuate between NPC's and PCs.

I recall a party I was in once (evil party) placing an ad in town for a cleric (we were down on a party healer). One of our mates had created a cleric and wanted to join the game. So here we were sitting in the local tavern interviewing potential party clerics, and in walks this guy in black robes, carrying a scythe, with his face painted like a skull. In character I coughed nervously and asked him who he worships. Without breaking stride, the player (in character) exclaims 'Nerull, lord of murder and treachery'.

I was all like: 'Yeah...No thanks, next candidate please.'

He went away and redid the character to instead worship Wee Jas and toned down the 'psycho killer treacherous monster' element a bit. Aint no way I would willingly hang around with a fundamentalist nutter whose religion required him to betray and murder people.


So, a thief and killer are both evil, sounds right.

No, stealing is not evil. Its pretty darn chaotic though. Killing and torturing others is evil.

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

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.


Your average thief is CN.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-10, 09:50 PM
Lets please avoid the argument about whether or not good has to be pacifist. It's doubtful that it'll accomplish anything but get those on both sides mad. (It's making me frustrated just watching - and I haven't even weighed in.)

nedz
2015-12-10, 10:06 PM
1E was more nuanced with 49 shades of alignment using the "tending" notation.
E.g. Across the top line
{LG, LGtNG, NGtLG, NG, NGtCG, CGtNG, CG} etc.
Note: LGtNG is still LG, it's just getting close to NG

DMs were supposed to plot this on a graph to track alignment change - I never really bothered doing this to that degree especially since it's all subjective and it's just big actions which get noticed.

AMFV
2015-12-10, 11:29 PM
The biggest problem with D&D's scale of Goodness to Badness is that it's not a spectrum, you can't rate an action in terms of Goodness or Badness. There are specific actions that are listed as Evil or as Good. There are specific intentions that are listed as Evil or Good. But we can't rate actions without a tighter moral framework. For example if you argue that Good people want to prevent harm to others, you have to then define "harm". Which is a trickier thing than one might imagine.

The alignment system is an abstraction of real philosophy in the same sense that the combat system is an abstraction of real fighting. Real philosophy is intensely controversial and complex, with levels of nuance that would be literally impossible to include in a game. In D&D there is a philosophical absolute, but a lot of it is left grey.

Why is using poison evil? Logically that doesn't jive with other sections of alignment. Is slavery evil in all cases? What about indentured servitude? This is not addressed (or is addressed to be both simultaneously evil and not evil in different sources), So it's mostly for DM discussion. If you want a more robust philosophical model, you'd have to create one.

Now the one thing I think D&D could use would be rules for changing alignment, but alignment doesn't really affect enough to even make tracking it worthwhile. Paladins and Clerics need to (and druids, although so loosely as to be almost meaningless), but everyone else basically doesn't have to worry about it, except for the effect of a few spells, which don't come up all that often.

So, again, it's an abstraction to simplify a very advanced concept, you see similar abstractions in WoD and nWoD, and in other systems where morality factors in. Star Wars, would be another example.

Geddy2112
2015-12-10, 11:50 PM
That doesnt change anything. There is no way known 99 percent of my characters (evil or good) would willingly travel with a psychotic cannabilistic serial killer.

You think Tony Soprano or Walter White would be OK with heading out into the woods and camping with Charles Manson or Hannibal Lecter? Your moral code has nothing to do with it; the guy is a psychotic monster. God knows what he's thinking; youre as likely to end up as dinner in the camping fire as you are to be sitting around it.

Would you be OK sleeping next to someone like that, all out in the woods alone? Would you allow such an NPC into the party?


Of course I would not personally be okay hanging around with a psycho cannibal, but this is a game.

No, Tony Soprano and Walter White would not be, but none of us were Walter White or Tony Soprano. Sure, he was a psychotic monster, but he was our psychotic monster. We were all varying degrees of monster, some worse than others. He was in for murder, like everyone else in the party except me, and nobody really questioned the details. He did not run around talking about eating people, actually seemed pretty normal on the surface. And yeah, we had a ton of heated moments where we almost killed each other, but we were all instigators for these. The premise of the game was a bunch of bad people escape from prison and in getting back to our...hobbies...we found a mutual goal we all decided to work towards instead of parting ways once we were out.

And I don't disagree that you should not have the right as a character and player to work with that kind of psycho cannibal. And yes, it is a bit unusual to work with such a character in a party. We all agreed (in and out of character) to have a campaign where a psycho cannibal is fine, as was every other over the top evil trope. The point is that he did not try to say his actions were anything but evil, and we agreed to this OOC as a group.

Malifice
2015-12-10, 11:53 PM
Lets please avoid the argument about whether or not good has to be pacifist.

No-one has made that argument.

hifidelity2
2015-12-11, 08:49 AM
1) A thief that has never killed, just stolen from others;
CN.
NE - as he stole from a charity that was helping the poor


A bank robber that will kill if necessary in order to steal;
NE
CG - he robs from the corrupt bank and gives to the poor widdows and orphans


3) An assassin who is paid to kill;
C, N or LE
LG - its a sanctioned hit by the state and takes out Hitler



4) A serial killer who kills for fun;
CE
agree


5) A demon worshipping cultist who sacrifices others;
CE
agree(ish)


A vampire that drinks blood in order to survive;
NE
ANY: Maybe he drinks only from people who let him (is family) - its not his fault he was turned & he is a really nice guy


7) A demon that slaughters humans because it is bored.
CE
N - its his nature - he is not being bad - and they are only humans so its not like they are important or anything

Segev
2015-12-11, 11:43 AM
This line "killing (lawful or otherwise) that is done not in self defense or the defense of others when no other option reasonably presents itself" is close to the converse of the definition of a just war. That is, it is just to kill when it is done in self defense or defense of another and all other options have been exhausted and the force used is proportional.I would actually contend that restraining yourself to proportional force, if it has come to the point where war is the only recourse (other than letting yourself and your loved ones be slaughtered/enslaved), is only good in a short-sighted sense.

War is awful. It is nasty, it is brutish, and it breeds suffering the way warm humid bread breeds mold. If it must be done, it had best be made as short as possible. If you must go to war, do so with overwhelming force (or as near as you can manage). Make every enemy victory Pyrrhic. Make every enemy loss devastating. Not to be cruel. Not to engage in deliberate torture. But to utterly destroy their ability and will to fight. It must, in short, be fought with the goal of ENDING it as swiftly and decisively as possible.

Like ripping off a bandage or treating a gangrenous wound, you may have to do the harsh thing to make it over quickly and permanently. Do so unflinchingly; those who suffer due to war deserve no less.

The time for kindness is after you've won. Show mercy. Help rebuild. Aid and comfort the wounded and bury the fallen. Be just and gentle when the enemy has no more fight left in them.

Obviously, because war is this terrible, one does not enter it for any reason save the most dire. It is an absolute, positive last resort. Treating it as anything else, and worse, fighting it as if it's a game of moral high-horse measurement over who can fight the most "gently," is atrocious.


These people straddle the good-neutral divine IMO.

There are perfectly good, kind, pious and charitable people IRL that honestly believe decapitation or stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for the crime of loving someone of the same gender, or believing in a different God.

To my mind that makes them 'not good people'. And in my campaigns, I set objective good and evil.That's shifting the goal posts, or possibly constructing a strawman. I didn't say they were killing for bad reasons. You have objective morality in your world. You can objectively state whether the actions warrant death.

I would generally draw the line at whether the person has caused suffering to the point of (or worse than) death in the past, and is likely to do so again in the future. If so, their death is justified, and at WORST a neutral act (which in no way should cause a Good person to "slip" towards neutrality; simply performing neutral acts is not enough to "taint" your Good alignment. If you argue otherwise, than the definition structure you're using, I would argue, makes this a Good act, since it is done for all the right reasons and promotes Good at no expense save that of the actively guilty.)


Whether you enjoy the killing or not is not relevant. Your subjective justification for the act does not matter.

The killing is all that matters. Your reason for doing it is irrelevant.So a psychopath who ensures that he provokes whoever he wants to kill for fun into attacking him with lethal force, first, is non-evil in your world? Or who joins a mercenary squad specifically so he can get hired to go out onto battlefields and slaughter enemy soldiers for his own jollies? Or who joins his own nation's armies while at war for the same reason?

The reason for killing matters. Enjoying killing is not a good thing. And yes, if you enjoy killing somebody, even if it's just because they well and truly deserved it and it needed to happen, you're not as good a person as if you did not enjoy it. It is a stain upon your soul for which you should seek atonement. It's not necessarily an EVIL act in the "cause a paladin to fall" sense, but it's a warning sign.




Its not your fault if he kills people after you let him go. Your PC's remain good, and get into heaven. The samurai goes to hell.

Murdering him means you both go to hell. Now youre both murdering monsters. End of.So all Joe Badguy needs to do is be slippery enough to escape any bonds and have an impeccable sense of who is strong enough to kill him. "I surrender! I promise I won't kill anybody else!" every time you show up, and you can't touch him without being evil?

You're constructing a world where "necessary evil" is, in fact, a thing, then. "I may go to hell, but at least the thousands of people you would go on to torture and kill won't suffer your ministrations." In fact, it's an incredibly selfish kind of "good" to say, "I don't want to taint myself, so all those people I know you're going to torture and kill can go right ahead and be tortured and killed since you know the right words to say to make it 'evil' for me to stop you."




A helpless victim at your mercy, repents and pleads for mercy.He stopped being a "victim" when he became a victimizer.


You kill him anyway. If it was 1-3E, I would have had your Paladin fall for such an act.Paladins in your world must be woefully ineffectual, then. And very selfish.


Not that your character would have minded though. Hes self sacrificing like that.Indeed. And he'd go right back to helping and protecting the innocent AND trying to redeem the guilty afterwards. Even without his magical powers.

Knaight
2015-12-11, 12:01 PM
The point is, there is a distinction between, say, "I steal to live" and "I murder for fun," sure. And there is a difference between "I kill at the order of my king" and "I killed my king," obviously. As has been mentioned, the ethical axis takes care of a lot of it. But the subtle, nuanced levels, while infinitely entertaining, aren't important enough in terms of what needs to go on a character sheet, for the most part.
There's a point to be made here that a lot of character sheets include a line for a quick description of the character at a conceptual level, and that that line can handle this nicely. "Religious fanatic with a shortage of mercy" and "Psychopathic serial killer" have meaningful distinctions here. The first is likely to do things like kill surrendered prisoners, impose disproportionate sentences if in a position to do so, and similar things. The second is likely to just kill people for essentially no reason. That the second is more evil is reasonably clear, and having that line on description covers that. It can also subtly imply that while the second is more evil, the first is quite possibly significantly more dangerous.


Oddly, one COULD make a case for an LN assassin. He's really a stealth executioner. He kills people who have been found guilty in absentia after having been given due process (and a chance to prove themselves innocent if they would have shown up). And he represents a mostly-LN system, not a corrupt LE one. (He might even represent an LG one.) He kills people because they are found guilty of capital crimes, but he does it as an assassin because those people elude the traditional arresting forces.

...

I could even make a case for it being possible to design him as an LG character. He does an unpleasant job, but when a paladin kills a bad guy, so does he.
The obvious case here is someone who, as part of a war effort against someone who needs to go, picks off the leadership. Nazi Germany has already been used as an example here, but it's still a pretty good one. Plenty of the rank and file soldiers were just doing what they had been pressed into doing, and while that still reflects pretty poorly, it reflects a lot better than it does on the higher ups. Assassinating Hitler has already been mentioned, but even getting major generals like Rommel, concentration camp owners as part of a method of trying to free people from those, or others higher up in that apparatus can be argued to be good.

To use an example that doesn't bring up the Nazi regime, it would be hard to fault any number of people invaded by the Mongols under Ghengis Khan for seeking out and assassinating Ghengis Khan, particularly as even at the time it was clear the guy was inordinately talented and it was unlikely his successors would be up to scratch. It would be hard to fault any number of people crushed under Alexander the Great's armies for seeking out and assassinating Alexander the Great, with much the same reason.

goto124
2015-12-12, 01:52 AM
Some day, I hope to run a game where alignment doesn't do anything, but I have sliders to represent the PCs' alignments anyway. As the PCs perform their actions, I adjust their sliders accordingly, just to see where they end up.