Alignment Question: good intentions, evil methods

[RickAllison]

Hi all, so I had a question on alignment. I am interested in making a character who is very much for love and liberty. He wants people to be as happy as possible and so by his desires for the world, he would be CG. However, his methods might be... He can be a sadistic a**hole. He very much focuses on the needs of the many. If a noble was oppressing a village, he would happily torture him in agonizing fashion (matches under fingernails, etc.) over months if need be to persuade him to be kinder. The question I have then is whether he is CN or CE.

Personally, I feel he is CN because he works for good, but employs very evil methods. However, if actions define alignment, I understand he would be squarely in CE territory, which I'm okay with. The party would be good-aligned, but my goals would be perfectly in line with theirs, making the world a better place. I would just have to make sure the party paladin is away when I need information...

Thoughts, feelings, vague premonitions?

[Kane0]

CN if its rare and unpleasant for him, CE otherwise.
Not that it really matters thankfully.

[Tanarii]

Alignment in 5e is about your characters beliefs. Per the PHB, it is about attitudes toward morality and society/order. It also includes a one sentence description of typical behavior, but not perfectly or consistently. In other words, it's one thing to consider when making in-character decisions on what to do, along with your Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw. That's all it means.

With that in mind, here is the typical, but not perfect or consistent, behavior of Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

So the way it's supposed to work is you choose your character's Alignment, defining his attitudes towards morality and society/order. Then you chose your Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. Then when playing you character, you keep all those descriptions (including the appropriate one I quoted above for whatever character Alignment you picked) in mind while making choices for your character.

The way it is NOT supposed to work is defining your character personality, then trying to figure out what Alignment fits him best. In 5e, that's a pointless exercise. If you've already got a character personality, you don't need an Alignment.


However, if actions define alignment,
In 5e, actions do not define Alignment. Alignment is specifically about a character's attitudes towards morality and society/order. And how that typically, but not perfectly or consistently, informs a character's behavior, should the player choose to use it as part of the personality system to aid in roleplaying.

[RickAllison]

Okay, but don't I need to have the alignment for things like Protection from good/evil or artifact restrictions, or is all that gone for 5e?

[Millstone85]

Okay, but don't I need to have the alignment for things like Protection from good/evil or artifact restrictions, or is all that gone for 5e?The 5e spell Protection from Evil and Good affects both fiends and celestials but not regular villains and heroes. For some reason I can not fathom, it also works against aberrations, elementals, fey and undead. I think it should rather be called Nature's Ward or something.

Now, I know the DMG has some things to say about good and evil characters visiting the Outer Planes, but those rules are optional.

[Addaran]

Okay, but don't I need to have the alignment for things like Protection from good/evil or artifact restrictions, or is all that gone for 5e?

From what i've seen, it's all gone. Protection from good/evil or the detections actually work on strong supernatural presences (outsiders, undeads, fey if i remember right, AFB).

I got from lvl 1 to 5 without ever needing to choose an aligment. :D

edit: Shadowmonked. :smallfrown:

[Tanarii]

Okay, but don't I need to have the alignment for things like Protection from good/evil or artifact restrictions, or is all that gone for 5e?

AFAIK they're all gone. But you should be aware that NE and CE characters aren't allowed in Adventurers League. That's not really possible to enforce the way 5e handles Alignment, other than through good faith on the part of the players. In other words: don't be a ****.

I still recommend you check out the PHB personality system. It's a really solid way to get in character, and properly codify your characters motivations. But it sounds like you're already got most of the character's personality down pretty solid. Definitely a Personality and Flaw. And something close to an Ideal or Bond.

[Kane0]

After a little searching, the only time the character's alignment seems to have an effect on gameplay appears to be when you enter a metallic dragon's lair.

[ad_hoc]

Generally speaking, evil people don't see themselves as evil.

That isn't a motivation. The motivation is usually to do good, it is just that their concept about how to do that or what.must.be done to do that are inconsistent with reality.

[Millstone85]

The sprite from the PHB can learn the alignment of a creature it touches.
There's that.


Generally speaking, evil people don't see themselves as evil.I believe your typical D&D world to be built on the assumption that yes they do.
It might be part of the fantasy.

[Kane0]

Its all about them mustaches and goatees.

I mean really, if you don't have some sort of facial hair going on you can't be considered evil. Either that or no hair at all but even then its iffy.

[RickAllison]

Alright, fantastic, this has been great to get a better understanding of how alignment works in 5e. We were not an AL campaign (I think), but our paladin sounds like (s)he might be just as bad...

[Tanarii]

Alright, fantastic, this has been great to get a better understanding of how alignment works in 5e. We were not an AL campaign (I think), but our paladin sounds like (s)he might be just as bad...Two points:

First, Paladins have it a little different. They must obey the specifics of their Oaths. If you do something that makes it so they will violate their oath by ignoring your action, they will take action against you. They swore to.

Second, nothing about Alignment being attitudes towards morality and society/order makes it any less likely that other characters, PCs or NPCs, won't oppose you based on the actions you take in-game. Actions have consequences, up to and including others opposing you as being (in their view) an evil bastard.

[Millstone85]

He can be a sadistic a**hole. He very much focuses on the needs of the many. If a noble was oppressing a village, he would happily torture him in agonizing fashion (matches under fingernails, etc.) over months if need be to persuade him to be kinder.Now, here are a couple questions I would ask:
* Would the character torture an innocent for the good of the many or do they only pay evil unto evil? --> Ideal?
* How much pleasure do they take in inflicting such pain and are they fine with that part of themselves? --> Flaw?

[RickAllison]

Now, here are a couple questions I would ask:
* Would the character torture an innocent for the good of the many or do they only pay evil unto evil? --> Ideal?
* How much pleasure do they take in inflicting such pain and are they fine with that part of themselves? --> Flaw?

He takes no pleasure in torture, but doesn't feel remorse either. He is heartily ambivalent. As for innocents, it would depend on how much good it would achieve. He wouldn't do it as a sacrifice to bring rain for crops (he could find some other way). However, if the village were going to be destroyed and no other way arose to stop it, he would do it. If someone knew where a murderer was hiding and wouldn't tell due to loyalty or love, he would try to persuade, then intimidate, then attempt magical means, and then torture.

[Tanarii]

He takes no pleasure in torture, but doesn't feel remorse either. He is heartily ambivalent. As for innocents, it would depend on how much good it would achieve. He wouldn't do it as a sacrifice to bring rain for crops (he could find some other way). However, if the village were going to be destroyed and no other way arose to stop it, he would do it. If someone knew where a murderer was hiding and wouldn't tell due to loyalty or love, he would try to persuade, then intimidate, then attempt magical means, and then torture.
So he's definitely a "whatever it takes for the greater good" kind of guy by the sounds of it.

I assume you were originally thinking chaotic because he generally opposes the existing order, and anything generally resembling organized government as tyrannical? In other words, he's defining "greater good" as individual freedom and liberty? Or is he specifically opposing those he has decided are evil?

[Millstone85]

So he's definitely a "whatever it takes for the greater good" kind of guy by the sounds of it.Looks like it.

In that case, does he put much thought into how emotionally detached he has become?
Also, I remember going through the "no other way" debate on this forum before and what is clear is that not a lot of people here believe in the no-win scenario. They will tell you there was a good somewhere near the lesser evil you chose.

[Tanarii]

Also, I remember going through the "no other way" debate on this forum before and what is clear is that not a lot of people here believe in the no-win scenario. They will tell you there was a good somewhere near the lesser evil you chose.
That's not really relevant to his character motivations.

That said, it probably is very relevant to consequences for actions. Not necessarily because the action is good or evil. But because the action will be perceived and judged in-game, and likely to garner some kind of reaction from those that know about it.

[Shining Wrath]

Most of the time it doesn't matter - there are no spells with alignments and so on.

However, if you visit the outer planes or a creature (Sprites) that can determine alignment determines your alignment, those creatures may respond to you differently depending on what your alignment is.

You will have to talk this over with your DM. There's no hard, fast rule for a person who does bad stuff to achieve good ends. If it were me I'd call this character "Chaotic Evil but redeemable".

BTW, as a DM I see no problem with alignment change during a campaign, and for some characters it might even be part of the character development - the criminal who now uses their skills for good might be moving from CN to CG, the Vengeance Paladin who keeps widening the definition of those who need to be punished going from LG to CE, and so on.

[Mith]

Since Alignment is being mostly sidelined, what about the idea that the Sprites detect Bond, Ideal, and Flaw?

[Addaran]

However, if you visit the outer planes or a creature (Sprites) that can determine alignment determines your alignment, those creatures may respond to you differently depending on what your alignment is.


Even in the Sprite's exemple, i'd say it doesn't really matter. Just with his backstory, i'd make the Sprite uneasy (no matter if he choose CG or CE) because it senses the darkness/taint in him. So untrusting more then helpfull or hostile toward him.
Someone evil but always aiming to do good or someone good willing to do horrible things for his goal are both grey area. =)

[Shining Wrath]

Even in the Sprite's exemple, i'd say it doesn't really matter. Just with his backstory, i'd make the Sprite uneasy (no matter if he choose CG or CE) because it senses the darkness/taint in him. So untrusting more then helpfull or hostile toward him.
Someone evil but always aiming to do good or someone good willing to do horrible things for his goal are both grey area. =)

It'd be very easy for a DM to refluff the Sprite ability to "knows your heart" and can read the struggles therein.

The outer planes, though - a visit to Mount Celestia might get you "purified" by force if you act as described, regardless of what label the player sticks on the character sheet. Good at heart doing evil stuff or evil at heart with good intentions or neutral at heart with good intentions and evil deeds are perhaps not that different in the eyes of a Solar working for the LG deities.

[JumboWheat01]

Good intentions and evil methods? Sounds like your classic Well-Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist)!

...I think I've spent too much time on TVtropes...

You could be Chaotic Neutral with Chaotic Evil leanings. For the most part, you're just a free spirit, doing as you please when you please, but when you see the right situation, you show your more sadistic side.

Don't confine yourself to a simple nine-box alignment grid!

[RickAllison]

Good intentions and evil methods? Sounds like your classic Well-Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist)!

...I think I've spent too much time on TVtropes...

You could be Chaotic Neutral with Chaotic Evil leanings. For the most part, you're just a free spirit, doing as you please when you please, but when you see the right situation, you show your more sadistic side.

Don't confine yourself to a simple nine-box alignment grid!

Don't drag me back there, I just escaaaaaped.....

But seriously, I think this has been good to figure out exactly where my character fits. The way I see it with your guys' input, it is his nature to be CE. Both his race and his specific bloodline have a tendency toward that alignment (he was actually born to be a cleric for a CE god, so there's that...), so his tendencies make sense with his heritage, but that he is making progress. He has progressed beyond being a maniac to just an extremist, and maybe the campaign is what he needs to figure out what it means to be the hero!

[Malifice]

In 5e, actions do not define Alignment.

I'll bear that in mind when I write LG on my character sheet and go about murdering children, while retaining my LG alignment.

Apparently the DM cant do anything about that.


Hi all, so I had a question on alignment. I am interested in making a character who is very much for love and liberty. He wants people to be as happy as possible and so by his desires for the world, he would be CG. However, his methods might be... He can be a sadistic a**hole. He very much focuses on the needs of the many. If a noble was oppressing a village, he would happily torture him in agonizing fashion (matches under fingernails, etc.) over months if need be to persuade him to be kinder. The question I have then is whether he is CN or CE.

Personally, I feel he is CN because he works for good, but employs very evil methods. However, if actions define alignment, I understand he would be squarely in CE territory, which I'm okay with. The party would be good-aligned, but my goals would be perfectly in line with theirs, making the world a better place. I would just have to make sure the party paladin is away when I need information...

Thoughts, feelings, vague premonitions?

Probably Neutral Evil actually. He enforces his world view by the means of methodical, slow and agonizing torture and murder. He expects people to follow his vision for the world, and will torture, murder and kill them if they do not. He uses evil as a tool for a higher purpose.

Where is the 'chaos' coming from here?

Your intention doesnt matter with regards to the objective evil of an act. Not Godwin, but the holocaust was done 'for the greater good' of Germany. As was every genocide done ever. In fact most acts of evil are done 'for the greater good' or carry such a justification.

If your character utilises evil methods to get what he wants, he's evil regardless of his subjective intentions or his perception of himself.

Its no different to if your character went around healing, being a pacifist and a generally charitable and nice bloke (in his employment as an evil Wizard bent on taking over the world). He's a good person, working for an evil man. I would expect a conflict between the good blokes worldview and alignment and that of his employer (if he was depicting a realistic person) however.


After a little searching, the only time the character's alignment seems to have an effect on gameplay appears to be when you enter a metallic dragon's lair.

Or if you want to be an oathbreaker paladin. There are a few others.

[RickAllison]

Probably Neutral Evil actually. He enforces his world view by the means of methodical, slow and agonizing torture and murder. He expects people to follow his vision for the world, and will torture, murder and kill them if they do not. He uses evil as a tool for a higher purpose.

Where is the 'chaos' coming from here?

Your intention doesnt matter with regards to the objective evil of an act. Not Godwin, but the holocaust was done 'for the greater good' of Germany. As was every genocide done ever. In fact most acts of evil are done 'for the greater good' or carry such a justification.

If your character utilises evil methods to get what he wants, he's evil regardless of his subjective intentions or his perception of himself.

Its no different to if your character went around healing, being a pacifist and a generally charitable and nice bloke (in his employment as an evil Wizard bent on taking over the world). He's a good person, working for an evil man. I would expect a conflict between the good blokes worldview and alignment and that of his employer (if he was depicting a realistic person) however.

You make an excellent point on the lack of chaos. I think I can make this work. I want him to end up Neutral Good, so your interpretation of his alignment works well. Born to be CE, learned to temper his chaos when he began his work so he could slip under the radar, and then found he wasn't hating people anymore. Eventually works his way up to TN through learning to resist evil methods, and ends by embracing compassion to be NG. Thanks, I was trying to figure out how to make the jump from chaotic to neutral.

[JumboWheat01]

Now that sounds like you've got a lot of character growth planned. That's good, characters, whether D&D or some other RPG always feel better to play if they grow throughout the game.

[Kane0]

As long as the growth isn't forced.

Like if it makes more sense in the context of the game to slide back into evil because it gets more results and fewer consequences, why wouldn't you?

[Vogonjeltz]

Hi all, so I had a question on alignment. I am interested in making a character who is very much for love and liberty. He wants people to be as happy as possible and so by his desires for the world, he would be CG. However, his methods might be... He can be a sadistic a**hole. He very much focuses on the needs of the many. If a noble was oppressing a village, he would happily torture him in agonizing fashion (matches under fingernails, etc.) over months if need be to persuade him to be kinder. The question I have then is whether he is CN or CE.

Personally, I feel he is CN because he works for good, but employs very evil methods. However, if actions define alignment, I understand he would be squarely in CE territory, which I'm okay with. The party would be good-aligned, but my goals would be perfectly in line with theirs, making the world a better place. I would just have to make sure the party paladin is away when I need information...

Thoughts, feelings, vague premonitions?

Neutral Evil, the alignment for those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

It hits the freedom aspect (whatever they can get away with) and the fact that they don't really care what they have to do (no compassion or qualms) to get whatever they want.

CE is arbitrary violence. This is seemingly directed, not arbitrary, so CE doesn't fit.

Utilitarianism (the needs of the many) is not the same as Good. If anything it skews towards Evil as it inherently lacks compassion for the individual. It also trends towards Law over Chaos because it's all about using resources in the most efficacious way possible, without regard for the consequences to individuals.

Based on the profile, the character sounds like he might just be a psychopath given the lack of remorse over the subject of torturing someone:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference

[RickAllison]

Now that sounds like you've got a lot of character growth planned. That's good, characters, whether D&D or some other RPG always feel better to play if they grow throughout the game.

Admittedly, most of it happens in the backstory :smallbiggrin:. In-story, it will mean he'll start as a TN. The question becomes will he learn compassion and ascend to NG, or will he regress to his evil roots... Truth be told, I'm not sure what route I want him to take :smallwink:

[Malifice]

Based on the profile, the character sounds like he might just be a psychopath given the lack of remorse over the subject of torturing someone:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference

Psychopathy [and sociopathy] among DnD characters is the norm. Its impossible to feel emotion or empathise with a bunch of numbers on a sheet.

Add to that the game is often played by young and often immature men with social problems or pent up rage [or both] to begin with, and it all too often rapidly decends into buchery and murder.

Then you have the fact that most people view certain acts of abhorent evil as 'justified' themselves personally, and any questioning of alignment leads to an percieved attack on personal beliefs.

These discussions never end well.

[Tanarii]

I'll bear that in mind when I write LG on my character sheet and go about murdering children, while retaining my LG alignment.

Apparently the DM cant do anything about that.in a way, yup. I mean, there's no point in a player doing that. And a DM, at least one not in AL, has no care what a character's alignment is. All that matters to the DM is consequences for actions taken.

OTOH, of course the DM should do something. Because going about murdering children should have consequences. The DM should be having those in-game consequences occur.

But what the character sheet says doesn't need to be one of those consequences in default 5e. It's there for the player to use as an RP aid, part of personality. If he's choosing not to use what's written on his sheet as an RP aid, that's of no matter to the DM.

Of course, there's nothing stopping a DM from adding 'Alignment determined by actions' back into the rules. IMO it'd take some pretty heavy house-ruling, or at least campaign-setting ruling, to do that in any way that had meaning. I.e. Where alignment change was a consequence, and consequences flowed directly from Alignment. You'd need a bunch of mechanics that depended on Alignment for it to become meaningful again. Or design in-game consequences flowing directly from Alignment, instead of directly from action.

[EscherEnigma]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

That is to say... if your character is doing evil, even if they have the best of intentions, they're probably evil. I haven't dug into the particulars of 5e's alignment system, but if that isn't true then it doesn't mean much (that said, I've already been told that it doesn't mean much, so take that with a grain of salt).

[Malifice]

in a way, yup. I mean, there's no point in a player doing that. And a DM, at least one not in AL, has no care what a character's alignment is. All that matters to the DM is consequences for actions taken.

As an AL DM youre wrong. The game specifically prohibits NE and CE alignments.

Its not prohibiting having NE or CE written on your character sheet. Its prohibiting the sort of behaviour that those alignments bring to the table.

If the player of a LG character at my table murders a baby, his alignment changes. He is (in no way) still a good person. You might think he is. I cant see how, but hey.

It becomes an issue in AL play. Unless the new alignment is LE he is no longer AL legal. Ill discuss the matter with the player first, then warn him, then impose the alignment change (thus expelling him from the game) if he doesnt change course.


But what the character sheet says doesn't need to be one of those consequences in default 5e. It's there for the player to use as an RP aid, part of personality. If he's choosing not to use what's written on his sheet as an RP aid, that's of no matter to the DM.

But it is. Its a consequence of his actions. If a character is played CE, then his alignment written on his character sheet changes to reflect that. The 'in game' character has no idea this has happened (and to be perfectly clear, the alignment change is retrospective in many cases).

This has no bearing on the player. He just keeps playing his character the same way.


Of course, there's nothing stopping a DM from adding 'Alignment determined by actions' back into the rules.

Your alignment dictates your actions. Your actions occur within the spectrum of your alignment. If you are not playing to your alignment, then an alignment change occurs (and if youre a new character, it was probably your real alignment all the time despite what was written on a bit of paper on the planet earth).

[Drackolus]

I'd say he sounds almost like a textbook Vengeance paladin, which tend to be lawful good or lawful neutral. Law and chaos is also a definition for what good is, not just how you go about things.

[Malifice]

I'd say he sounds almost like a textbook Vengeance paladin, which tend to be lawful good or lawful neutral. Law and chaos is also a definition for what good is, not just how you go about things.

Lawful good people dont make a habit of brutally torturing people over the space of months before murdering them.

[djreynolds]

Hi all, so I had a question on alignment. I am interested in making a character who is very much for love and liberty. He wants people to be as happy as possible and so by his desires for the world, he would be CG. However, his methods might be... He can be a sadistic a**hole. He very much focuses on the needs of the many. If a noble was oppressing a village, he would happily torture him in agonizing fashion (matches under fingernails, etc.) over months if need be to persuade him to be kinder. The question I have then is whether he is CN or CE.

Personally, I feel he is CN because he works for good, but employs very evil methods. However, if actions define alignment, I understand he would be squarely in CE territory, which I'm okay with. The party would be good-aligned, but my goals would be perfectly in line with theirs, making the world a better place. I would just have to make sure the party paladin is away when I need information...

Thoughts, feelings, vague premonitions?

You are evil.

You could've used a spell on him, or gave him money, or done him a favor to persuade him to be kinder. Yes? You could have said I will set myself on fire if you would only be kinder. But you did not. Evil.

And it is okay to be evil, just embrace it.

Now in real life would you really torture someone or condone it. And not just say it, but really torture someone. Of course not, so why in this fantasy land. A paladin sets an example for others, he takes his oath to heart. He/she probably gets her party into a lot of trouble in the fulfillment of his oath. His oath drives him, and he may be tortured over what his oath asks of him.

Torture and liberty do not go well together.

[RickAllison]

You are evil.

You could've used a spell on him, or gave him money, or done him a favor to persuade him to be kinder. Yes? You could have said I will set myself on fire if you would only be kinder. But you did not. Evil.

And it is okay to be evil, just embrace it.

Now in real life would you really torture someone or condone it. And not just say it, but really torture someone. Of course not, so why in this fantasy land. A paladin sets an example for others, he takes his oath to heart. He/she probably gets her party into a lot of trouble in the fulfillment of his oath. His oath drives him, and he may be tortured over what his oath asks of him.

Torture and liberty do not go well together.

For the first part: what if you don't have a caster? No spell. He is in control of the money of this part of the kingdom, so the second suggestion goes out the window. I suppose you could try doing a favor, but what are the odds that any favor that would convince him to change his entire method of rule is both within the party's grasp and in a reasonable timeframe would not have been completed by someone in his court. And why would he set himself on fire? Offering to commit suicide is good by your standards?? Ludicrous.

The character has acknowledged that his methods are necessary. Of course I wouldn't do it in real life, but IRL I wouldn't go out slaying dragons and what-not when I could be abusing magic to make myself rich. And he is not even a paladin, so that point is moot. The paladin is a fellow part member, whose unethical actions would be in direct pursuit of her oath (of vengeance). As for torture and liberty, the IC justification is that the actions of this man have restricted the liberty of all the peasants, so it would be pursuing that goal.

[Corran]

Hi all, so I had a question on alignment. I am interested in making a character who is very much for love and liberty. He wants people to be as happy as possible and so by his desires for the world, he would be CG. However, his methods might be... He can be a sadistic a**hole. He very much focuses on the needs of the many. If a noble was oppressing a village, he would happily torture him in agonizing fashion (matches under fingernails, etc.) over months if need be to persuade him to be kinder. The question I have then is whether he is CN or CE.

Personally, I feel he is CN because he works for good, but employs very evil methods. However, if actions define alignment, I understand he would be squarely in CE territory, which I'm okay with. The party would be good-aligned, but my goals would be perfectly in line with theirs, making the world a better place. I would just have to make sure the party paladin is away when I need information...

Thoughts, feelings, vague premonitions?
The character you just described is mentally unstable, and there is no alignment for mentally unstable characters.

[Millstone85]

Also, I remember going through the "no other way" debate on this forum before and what is clear is that not a lot of people here believe in the no-win scenario. They will tell you there was a good somewhere near the lesser evil you chose.
You could've used a spell on him, or gave him money, or done him a favor to persuade him to be kinder. Yes? You could have said I will set myself on fire if you would only be kinder. But you did not. Evil.
For the first part: what if you don't have a caster? No spell. He is in control of the money of this part of the kingdom, so the second suggestion goes out the window. I suppose you could try doing a favor, but what are the odds that any favor that would convince him to change his entire method of rule is both within the party's grasp and in a reasonable timeframe would not have been completed by someone in his court. And why would he set himself on fire? Offering to commit suicide is good by your standards?? Ludicrous.See what I meant?

It is like this story where you can push someone on the tracks or do nothing and watch a train hit several people instead. Most reject that binary choice entirely. Are you sure the people already on the tracks can't flee? Nope, they were tied there by a Richard Dastardly cosplayer. Why not throw yourself on the tracks? You are not... er... corpulent enough to make a difference in this specific physics problem, unlike Mr Fatty next to you. Oh come on, that story is just stupid! Look, it is one person here versus several people there, what is the lesser evil? Just don't do evil!

You will be discussing this for a looooong time.

[djreynolds]

For the first part: what if you don't have a caster? No spell. He is in control of the money of this part of the kingdom, so the second suggestion goes out the window. I suppose you could try doing a favor, but what are the odds that any favor that would convince him to change his entire method of rule is both within the party's grasp and in a reasonable timeframe would not have been completed by someone in his court. And why would he set himself on fire? Offering to commit suicide is good by your standards?? Ludicrous.

The character has acknowledged that his methods are necessary. Of course I wouldn't do it in real life, but IRL I wouldn't go out slaying dragons and what-not when I could be abusing magic to make myself rich. And he is not even a paladin, so that point is moot. The paladin is a fellow part member, whose unethical actions would be in direct pursuit of her oath (of vengeance). As for torture and liberty, the IC justification is that the actions of this man have restricted the liberty of all the peasants, so it would be pursuing that goal.

Honestly you can play your character and let others judge you.

Why not kill the baron? Why not dispose him? Or arrest him? Why leave a man alive, who can later on try to kill you. Torture just seems silly if you are going to let him go. You giving me a beating is vastly different from you water-boarding me or ripping out toe nails, etc.

I have no problem with you playing your character as is, he seems neutral evil. Enjoy feel free to play as you desire, and others will judge and characterize your actions.

There are two kinds of thieves, someone walking around taking things and doesn't know it is wrong and the guy sneaking around doing it trying not to get caught, etc. The later knows its unlawful and he will get in in trouble with the law.

[LordVonDerp]

I am interested in making a character who is very much for love and liberty.
He wants people to be as happy as possible and so by his desires for the world, he would be CG.

He very much focuses on the needs of the many.

The question I have then is whether he is CN or CE.

Neither. If he puts the love, liberty, and happiness of the many over that of one man than he is Lawful, not Chaotic.
As for Neutral vs Evil, nothing about his behavior suggests he is any worse than the average Noble or soldier.

[Malifice]

Of course I wouldn't do it in real life,

Thats becuase no-one would.

Can you think of any real life champions of freedom and liberty, who were chairtable and kind... but also slowly tortured people to death in their basements for months on end before murdering them?

[LordVonDerp]

Lawful good people dont make a habit of brutally torturing people over the space of months before murdering them.

That depends a great deal on where and when they find themselves. If a Roman finds himself in Rome it is neither good nor evil for him to act like a Roman.

[kaoskonfety]

I'd exclude good from the alignment options off the top. Your are just too "ok" with torture etc. Others will very likely find some way to disagree.

LE and NE feel "best fit", you feel like you have too much method to your madness for CE to fit "great". You could swing it with the "Robin Hood torturing Friar Tuck and and the King into joining the good fight" crazed lunatic thing some people are pointing at.

LN can work if you are the cold methodical "freedom is a right and those who repress it are criminals" type, and CN if you're in the "burn all government" stripe without particular malice (less weeks of torture, more just killing).

N if you just are doing this when peoples choices are constrained and will just as freely burn a village as save it if the 'greater whatever you think is good' is served (as a kind of wandering forse of 'nature' where freedom is 'natural'). This feels chaotic to outside observers but you have enough personal code to step away from that if you'd like.

Alot of this will also depend on how you define "oppress" - Burning people alive? Unjust laws? Cruel imprisonment? Poor urban planning? Taxes? Meatloaf day? Fashion laws you find distasteful?

[Millstone85]

Dare I say the name Miko Miyazaki? In my opinion, she was not so much Lawful Good done wrong as she was Lawful Bigot done right. It could be very interesting to play a character who is, or is perceived to be, like Miko.


Born to be CE, learned to temper his chaos when he began his work so he could slip under the radar, and then found he wasn't hating people anymore. Eventually works his way up to TN through learning to resist evil methods, and ends by embracing compassion to be NG.That sounds like my warlock, who was a bit inspired by Belkar. Although I actually consider the alignment shift from evil to neutral to be nearly hopeless.


Psychopathy [and sociopathy] among DnD characters is the norm.
As for Neutral vs Evil, nothing about his behavior suggests he is any worse than the average Noble or soldier.This is depressingly funny.


If the player of a LG character at my table murders a baby, his alignment changes. He is (in no way) still a good person. You might think he is. I cant see how, but hey.The baby could be the prophetized antichrist, the spawn of the Star Devourer, or just an orc in a setting where the race is truly always chaotic evil. The baby could be under an incurable curse that condemns him/her to an I-have-no-mouth-and-I-must-scream existence until the sweet release of death. The baby could... Yeah, those are ****ed up situations to present a player with but it is within the scope of the game.

[Malifice]

That depends a great deal on where and when they find themselves. If a Roman finds himself in Rome it is neither good nor evil for him to act like a Roman.

Unless Rome is evil of course.


The baby could be the prophetized antichrist, the spawn of the Star Devourer, or just an orc in a setting where the race is truly always chaotic evil.

Irrelevant. Good people dont murder babies.

Leave the 'it is an evil thing I must do, but I do it for the greater good' stuff to the LE types like Hitler.

[Tanarii]

As an AL DM youre wrong. The game specifically prohibits NE and CE alignments.

Its not prohibiting having NE or CE written on your character sheet. Its prohibiting the sort of behaviour that those alignments bring to the table.

If the player of a LG character at my table murders a baby, his alignment changes. He is (in no way) still a good person. You might think he is. I cant see how, but hey.

It becomes an issue in AL play. Unless the new alignment is LE he is no longer AL legal. Ill discuss the matter with the player first, then warn him, then impose the alignment change (thus expelling him from the game) if he doesnt change course.I agree, what matters is behavior. Because that's what D&D 5e says alignment is for. But not specific actions, nor resulting from them. You don't need to be perfect or consistent with every action in regards to your Alignment, just typical behavior.

Yes,in AL the DM should warn the player that the way he's playing his character isn't acceptable under the AL rules, ie he is regularly exhibiting NE or CE behavior.

And what are those behaviors?

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

If an AL DM tells you to change the alignment on your character sheet, ignore him. He doesn't have that right.

If he tries to tell you a single action is evil, and he kicks you out, and you were acting within your Personality, Bond or Flaw instead, appeal that **** to get your XP and rewards. You've got proof you were acting within character AND within the rules for 5e Alignment and personality. Because one action doesn't make Alignment in 5e, it's only typical, but not perfect or consistent, behavior. So report him, and then don't return to his table.

If he tells you that your overall character behavior is unacceptable under the above PHB guidelines, you're gonna have problems. Because they're broadly written and that's within the 5e rules for what 5e Alignment is.


But it is. Its a consequence of his actions. If a character is played CE, then his alignment written on his character sheet changes to reflect that. The 'in game' character has no idea this has happened (and to be perfectly clear, the alignment change is retrospective in many cases).

This has no bearing on the player. He just keeps playing his character the same way.Changing the alignment on the character sheet, without any change in the way the player changes his characters behavior, is not a consequence. It's meaningless. So was the Alignment on the character sheet in the first place if the player was ignoring it.


Your alignment dictates your actions. Your actions occur within the spectrum of your alignment. If you are not playing to your alignment, then an alignment change occurs (and if youre a new character, it was probably your real alignment all the time despite what was written on a bit of paper on the planet earth).I prefer: alignment is part of the characters personality, personality informs in-character decision making, which result in actions. Actions have in-game consequences.

Actions do not always need to be within the spectrum of alignment. As the book says, characters do not perfectly or consistently hold to their attitudes regrading morality and society/order. Actions occur within the spectrum of personality,

[KorvinStarmast]

Psychopathy [and sociopathy] among DnD characters is the norm. Its impossible to feel emotion or empathise with a bunch of numbers on a sheet.

Add to that the game is often played by young and often immature men with social problems or pent up rage [or both] to begin with, and it all too often rapidly decends into buchery and murder.
--snip--
These discussions never end well.
Particularly when sweeping generalizations and stereotypes are inserted into them. :smallbiggrin:

Insofar as the "action define alignment" that is not right. The way the 5e take on alignment is presented, "actions inform alignment."

The occasional screw up does not create immediate alignment change. Where the DM needs to be involved is in patterns of behavior and trends. A player can profess "this alignment" but if the trend is in a different direction, or not attempt is made to course correct when straying from the general alignment, a DM needs to discuss this with the player at the least ... and can even rule that an alignment change has occurred based in a consistent and sustained pattern of behavior deviating substantially from professed alignment.

[Millstone85]

The baby could be the prophetized antichrist, the spawn of the Star Devourer, or just an orc in a setting where the race is truly always chaotic evil.Irrelevant. Good people dont murder babies.

Leave the 'it is an evil thing I must do, but I do it for the greater good' stuff to the LE types like Hitler.What I said earlier about not accepting the premise is actually not so bad. I can respect your decision to keep away from a story setting in which racial theories against orcs are factually correct. Tolkien himself had regrets writing orcs that way, didn't he? It is the same if you decide there is no such thing as fate and even the child of Hell, or of the maddening depths of space, has the potential to be humane.

But within the premise, your character would be suicidal and irresponsible.

Also, I don't know if Hitler saw any necessary evil in what he did. Probably only good. And now I am thinking about a time travel adventure where the PCs meet baby Adolph. It has gone full circle.

[Tanarii]

Probably Neutral Evil actually. He enforces his world view by the means of methodical, slow and agonizing torture and murder. He expects people to follow his vision for the world, and will torture, murder and kill them if they do not. He uses evil as a tool for a higher purpose.


Neutral Evil, the alignment for those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

It hits the freedom aspect (whatever they can get away with) and the fact that they don't really care what they have to do (no compassion or qualms) to get whatever they want.OP, if you want another opinion, I agree with these two. If I were choosing an Alignment for this character, within the bounds of the rest of the personality you described, I would choose Neutral Evil. It's explicitly for those that do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. That sounds like what you've described to me.

The I'd take some time nailing down the other motivations for the character. You've got those in general terms. But I'd make them as specific as possible. What kind of things trigger his 'ends justify the means' mentality? What would drive him to torture? Who qualifies? How does he justify it to himself, since he clearly doesn't view himself as evil? Etc.

I'd probably frame it in the Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw structure, but that's because I'm on a kick for using those right now. ;)

[Millstone85]

Neutral Evil
Neutral EvilOP, if you want another opinion, I agree with these two.You could push other people's / the multiverse's judgment of the character to Lawful Evil, for maximum dissonance with the character's self-perception as Chaotic Good.
Also, it would make him compatible with that Adventurers League thing.

[Tanarii]

You could push other people's / the multiverse's judgment of the character to Lawful Evil, for maximum dissonance with the character's self-perception as Chaotic Good.
Also, it would make him compatible with that Adventurers League thing.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Doesn't sound like a very good fit to me. Not without some effort describing the tradition, loyalty or code. And when the character might break those for other personality reasons. If he had a set of rules for, or was clear on, when and why torture was required or disallowed, it'd feel more appropriate.

[LordVonDerp]

Unless Rome is evil of course.


Irrelevant. To do what society considers acceptable is by definition neither good nor evil.


Irrelevant. Good people dont murder babies.

Good people take responsibility for their inactions, as well as their actions



Leave the 'it is an evil thing I must do, but I do it for the greater good' stuff to the LE types like Hitler.
Understanding an obeying the basis of all Good and Law does not make one Evil.
And no, invoking Godwin's Law does not help your case.

[Millstone85]

Doesn't sound like a very good fit to me. Not without some effort describing the tradition, loyalty or code. And when the character might break those for other personality reasons. If he had a set of rules for, or was clear on, when and why torture was required or disallowed, it'd feel more appropriate.I would encourage the OP to make that effort in order to play up a CG/LE dissonance in the character. That might be fun. So far, it looks like the character is rather amicable as long as he doesn't meet someone he sees as a villain and/or as a major obstacle to his plans. Then it is pay-evil-unto-evil and/or whatever-it-takes.


To do what society considers acceptable is by definition neither good nor evil.For the record, I generally hold the belief that an optimal morality could be discovered someday. Hopefully, mankind has improved in its ethics as well as in its technologies, making present societies a better measure of rights and wrongs than past societies. Yes, I could be entirely uncorrect. Anyway, it is in this day and age considered a virtue to have at least some critical thinking about this day and age's virtues.


Good people take responsibility for their inactions, as well as their actionsAnd it sure ain't easy.

[GlenSmash!]

For the record, I generally hold the belief that an optimal morality could be discovered someday. Hopefully, mankind has improved in its ethics as well as in its technologies, making present societies a better measure of rights and wrongs than past societies. Yes, I could be entirely uncorrect. Anyway, it is in this day and age considered a virtue to have at least some critical thinking about this day and age's virtues.

I think this was Gene Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek, actually. Hmm now I want to roll a character based on Captain Picard. Of course my group would not work well with such morality in the party.

[GlenSmash!]

Psychopathy [and sociopathy] among DnD characters is the norm. Its impossible to feel emotion or empathise with a bunch of numbers on a sheet.

Add to that the game is often played by young and often immature men with social problems or pent up rage [or both] to begin with, and it all too often rapidly decends into buchery and murder.

Then you have the fact that most people view certain acts of abhorent evil as 'justified' themselves personally, and any questioning of alignment leads to an percieved attack on personal beliefs.

These discussions never end well.

These are very astute observations.

[Malifice]

Irrelevant. To do what society considers acceptable is by definition neither good nor evil.

Good people take responsibility for their inactions, as well as their actions


Understanding an obeying the basis of all Good and Law does not make one Evil.
And no, invoking Godwin's Law does not help your case.

Not Godwin when you're discussing peeps who act 'for the greater good' and such.

And societies have alignments too. If a town was all about strong laws tyrannical laws it's LE.

Only in a DnD forum would there be talk of a man who locks someone in his basement and tortures him for months being framed as an act of 'good' or something that a 'good' person would do, or would child murder be seen in the same light.

If you want to play a character who tortures and murders people for 'the greater good' then go right ahead.

Just be sure to place an E on your character sheet. It's not that big a deal.

[-Jynx-]

Thats becuase no-one would.

Can you think of any real life champions of freedom and liberty, who were chairtable and kind... but also slowly tortured people to death in their basements for months on end before murdering them?

Mother Teresa actually. While on the surface she was hailed for all the good she was doing for the world on the underbelly she also had a hand in some shady money passing as well as less than desirable living quarters for the people she was "helping". So much so that I would very much consider it negligence which frankly in the case of the sick/dying is just as bad as torturing/murdering them.

[Millstone85]

I think this was Gene Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek, actually. Hmm now I want to roll a character based on Captain Picard.It is part of why I liked these shows. Alas, some of their best known examples of future ethics, such as "the prime directive" or a ban on transhumanism, were often treated like fearful religious commandments, as well as inconsistently. The shows also had an habit of technobabbling evolution into moral debates. And speaking of fictional dilemmas...


Only in a DnD forum would there be talk of a man who locks someone in his basement and tortures him for months being framed as an act of 'good' or something that a 'good' person would do, or would child murder be seen in the same light.That's mostly because D&D has both game terms and fantasy elements that heavily redefine the debate. Your real life opinion on paving your way to Hell with good intentions is one thing, but my opinion on the tool for character creation known as alignment is that it is more useful from a self-perception angle. In real life, anyone saying a baby is the Devil's spawn and will kill us all is a lunatic, but in a D&D setting the baby could literally be the instrument of Asmodeus' apocalypse.

[Shaofoo]

Not Godwin when you're discussing peeps who act 'for the greater good' and such.

Godwin is only used when you compare something to Hitler or Nazis when the topic isn't about Hitler or Nazis. If you use Hitler or Nazis then you are invoking Godwin regardless of your justification.

There are a ton of other people in the world who use the greater good for their own motivations, you can try to expand your horizons beyond the Third Reich.


And societies have alignments too. If a town was all about strong laws tyrannical laws it's LE.

You can generalize a society's alignment but you can't attribute a society with an alignment because a society isn't a singular free thinking entity but a group of people that adds to a collective. Just because the majority is LE doesn't mean that now ALL are LE (even 50% + 1 is a majority)


Only in a DnD forum would there be talk of a man who locks someone in his basement and tortures him for months being framed as an act of 'good' or something that a 'good' person would do, or would child murder be seen in the same light.

In D&D there can be established bad guys so in essence torturing bad guys is seen as good. Of course if you want to have more moral depth than your average Transformer episode then you would know that torturing anyone is wrong regardless.


If you want to play a character who tortures and murders people for 'the greater good' then go right ahead.

Just be sure to place an E on your character sheet. It's not that big a deal.

And would you accept someone who does this? Would you actually be willing to stand back and let them do it when they so gladly agree with you?

"Yeahyeah I'm evil whatever. Listen why don't you go save orphans from trees or whatever you "good" types do while I actually try to resolve the situation and not bellyache all over me."

Is the problem that evil exists or that evil isn't willing to say they are evil?

[Tanarii]

There are a ton of other people in the world who use the greater good for their own motivations, you can try to expand your horizons beyond the Third Reich.My personal favorites are Robespierre and Lenin.


You can generalize a society's alignment but you can't attribute a society with an alignment because a society isn't a singular free thinking entity but a group of people that adds to a collective. Just because the majority is LE doesn't mean that now ALL are LE (even 50% + 1 is a majority)Besides, historically (ie the history of D&D as a game), when society is given an Alignment, they also have to tell you what the hell the society's Alignment *means*. Because it's almost never 'alignment of the majority of the population'. So they have to create their own definitions, on top of whatever definitions already exist for that edition for Character Alignment.

[Malifice]

Godwin is only used when you compare something to Hitler or Nazis when the topic isn't about Hitler or Nazis. If you use Hitler or Nazis then you are invoking Godwin regardless of your justification.

No, its not. You also cant invoke Godwin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)when the discussion is about murdering babies or commiting atrocities for 'the greater good':

The law and its corollaries do not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies...


There are a ton of other people in the world who use the greater good for their own motivations, you can try to expand your horizons beyond the Third Reich.

Ok ' Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Bosnia. Rwanda. Nagasaki. Dresden. Literally every genocide or atrocity in the history of the world ever was done 'for the greater good'.


You can generalize a society's alignment but you can't attribute a society with an alignment because a society isn't a singular free thinking entity but a group of people that adds to a collective. Just because the majority is LE doesn't mean that now ALL are LE (even 50% + 1 is a majority)


I didnt say that. What I said is it is possible to attribute a general alignment to a DnD culture. If theyre a bunch of demon worshipping anarchists, then CE is appropriate. Any one expressing similar views or adhering to those cultural norms is also CE.

Thats different from saying all members are CE.

If Rome is objectively an evil society, then its evil, and anyone who adheres to that societies rules and norms is going to share the alignment of that society and culture.


In D&D there can be established bad guys so in essence torturing bad guys is seen as good.


100 percent wrong. Bad guys are bad guys because they torture. If youre using their methods yourself (murder and torture) youre also a bad guy.

It is not a 'good' act to torture and murder an 'evil' person. Its an avil act. And only an evil person would do it.


"Yeahyeah I'm evil whatever. Listen why don't you go save orphans from trees or whatever you "good" types do while I actually try to resolve the situation and not bellyache all over me."

Cool. There is nothing wrong with playing that trope. Its common enough in the real world. "I do the evil things that need to be done, in order to stop a greater evil"

Guess what; you're still evil - by your own admission. Just like the OP (whose character is fully aware he does horiffically evil things). See also; Dexter. A thouroughly evil person.

[Shaofoo]

No, its not. You also cant invoke Godwin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)when the discussion is about murdering babies or commiting atrocities for 'the greater good':

The law and its corollaries do not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies...


Except you have used a direct example of Hitler therefore you have invoked Godwin. Your quote says that using other acts of genocide, murder, etc... is not enough to invoke Godwin.

So if you were to say that you mentioned the Apartheid or the Trail of Tears then that isn't Godwin even though it has elements that can relate both them and the Nazis.


Ok ' Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Bosnia. Rwanda. Nagasaki. Dresden. Literally every genocide or atrocity in the history of the world ever was done 'for the greater good'.

Good job, except the point is that you still lean on the Godwin button. It is still a faux pas. The point of Godwin's law is that it is low hanging fruit basically.




I didnt say that. What I said is it is possible to attribute a general alignment to a DnD culture. If theyre a bunch of demon worshipping anarchists, then CE is appropriate. Any one expressing similar views or adhering to those cultural norms is also CE.

Thats different from saying all members are CE.

Except you only give me a single example so you are basically painting me by saying that not everyone is a demon worshiping anarchists yet the only people that you bother to give example is demon worshiping anarchists. It is like saying South Carolina is full of redneck racists and say nothing else so the only conclusion is that South Carolina only has redneck racists. If you wish to give an example then tell me more than just a single group because then I can only conclude that they are the only group. You are basically telling me an incomplete statement, if not 100% are demon worshiping anarchists then what do the remainder are?


If Rome is objectively an evil society, then its evil, and anyone who adheres to that societies rules and norms is going to share the alignment of that society and culture.

Nope, I do not subscribe to such thoughts when used in real life. A society isn't evil because good and evil cannot be defined so brashly in real life, especially in a society we have no cultural point of view to share. It'd be like looking into Uganda and calling them evil because they kidnap kids and use them as soldiers, it is a gross misrepresentation. Anyone who adheres to the customs and norms of a society might do so because they are forced or suffer the consequences, not because they like it.




100 percent wrong. Bad guys are bad guys because they torture. If youre using their methods yourself (murder and torture) youre also a bad guy.


It is not a 'good' act to torture and murder an 'evil' person. Its an avil act. And only an evil person would do it.

Good and bad are vague elements the way you describe them. Everyone is the hero of their own story. You can call them evil just like the wife of the evil warlord that you murdered will also call you evil as well. There is no point of reference.

Good and evil at this point is individually defined per person, it doesn't mean anything beyond the definition we give it if that is how you choose to do so. Which for this discussion is useless because basically it is my definition versus yours and in the internet that goes as well as pulling teeth.


Cool. There is nothing wrong with playing that trope. Its common enough in the real world. "I do the evil things that need to be done, in order to stop a greater evil"

Guess what; you're still evil - by your own admission. Just like the OP (whose character is fully aware he does horiffically evil things). See also; Dexter. A thouroughly evil person.

So then, that's it. You just will let that person go? As long as the person says they are evil (even to placate you as my example, not that they really mean it. Just to shut you up basically) then they are okay. So then you will choose to do nothing. For being one of the most vocal and abrasive voices against doing evil things the fact that just writing E on your sheet is enough to placate you is a bit baffling to be honest. Personally I would rather either work to do something that isn't evil or at the very least make sure there are consequences. Maybe for you it is enough to write E but for me if a person is being disruptive in his evilness I'll only be placated when I can feed the character sheet to a paper shredder.

Evil triumphs when good does nothing. Giving a label to evil does nothing. If the point is to give labels to where they belong then I was wrong about you all along.

[Malifice]

Except you have used a direct example of Hitler therefore you have invoked Godwin. Your quote says that using other acts of genocide, murder, etc... is not enough to invoke Godwin.

This is a thread about removing a tyrant via acts of evil 'for the greater good'. The discussion has included the murder of orc children, and thus a tacit nod to the condoning of genocide.

Godwins law does not apply.


Except you only give me a single example so you are basically painting me by saying that not everyone is a demon worshiping anarchists yet the only people that you bother to give example is demon worshiping anarchists.

What are you even arguing? At no stage did I suggest that all members of a LE society are LE. You inferred that in my commment.

Youre arguing with your own inference mate.


Nope, I do not subscribe to such thoughts when used in real life. A society isn't evil because good and evil cannot be defined so brashly in real life, especially in a society we have no cultural point of view to share. It'd be like looking into Uganda and calling them evil because they kidnap kids and use them as soldiers, it is a gross misrepresentation. Anyone who adheres to the customs and norms of a society might do so because they are forced or suffer the consequences, not because they like it.

And yet here you were authorising the murder of Orc children or 'evil people' mere seconds ago. Which is it?


Good and bad are vague elements the way you describe them. Everyone is the hero of their own story. You can call them evil just like the wife of the evil warlord that you murdered will also call you evil as well. There is no point of reference.

But there IS a point of reference. Good and Evil are objectively defined in DnD.

Subjectively both the Warlord and his murderer might think they are 'good' people who only do what they do 'for the greater good'. They both might genuinely believe they are good people.

Objectively, applying the definition of good and evil, they are not good people.


Good and evil at this point is individually defined per person

No they are not. Not in DnD. Good and Evil have objective standards. This is true regardless of what the person subjectively thinks.

You can be a CE monster and still regard yourself as a good person (and genuinely believe it). You can define good and evil however you want. But that doesnt change what Good and Evil are.

Postmodernism is not a thing in DnD. Objective Good and Evil exist. Moral relativism doesnt change what alignment you 'are'.


So then, that's it. You just will let that person go?

Of course. I have no problem with evil PCs. As long as they are played maturely.


Evil triumphs when good does nothing.

And Good fails when they resort to the same atrocities as Evil.

You cant fight evil by comitting acts of evil. You fight evil by being good. Showing mercy and compassion. Turning the other cheek. Extending kindness to your enemies. Demonstrating empathy. You only resort to violence as a last resort in self defence or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself.

This isnt a case of 'the evil guys' on one side and 'the good guys' on the other, with both sides employing genocide, torture, murder and intimidation as tools to 'win' and the only thing seperating them is whether they have a 'G' or an 'E' on a character sheet.

Good guys do good things; charity, compassion, mercy, kindness.

Evil people do evil things; torture, murder, cruelty, suffering.

Thats the difference.

[Shaofoo]

This is a thread about removing a tyrant via acts of evil 'for the greater good'. The discussion has included the murder of orc children, and thus a tacit nod to the condoning of genocide.

Godwins law does not apply.


Except the part where you compare LE guys to Hitler.




Leave the 'it is an evil thing I must do, but I do it for the greater good' stuff to the LE types like Hitler.

Like I said, next time, don't reference Hitler and you won't get accused.



What are you even arguing? At no stage did I suggest that all members of a LE society are LE. You inferred that in my commment.

Youre arguing with your own inference mate.

I explained it clearly that your example is lacking because you do not explain your entire town to me. You just say a part exists that worships demons and leave the rest in the air. I am arguing your bad logic and example. There can't be any discussion with a broken point.




And yet here you were authorising the murder of Orc children or 'evil people' mere seconds ago. Which is it?

Neither, because I was talking about real life in the quote you mentioned. Real life is a much more complex scenario than your average D&D world. Also I didn't authorize anything, please do not say that I said anything when I didn't say anything. You do have a bad habit of such things as well. It is hard to have a good discussion when you falsely accuse people of things they didn't do (or even twisting things till they are indescribable).




But there IS a point of reference. Good and Evil are objectively defined in DnD.


Subjectively both the Warlord and his murderer might think they are 'good' people who only do what they do 'for the greater good'. They both might genuinely believe they are good people.

Objectively, applying the definition of good and evil, they are not good people.



No they are not. Not in DnD. Good and Evil have objective standards. This is true regardless of what the person subjectively thinks.

You can be a CE monster and still regard yourself as a good person (and genuinely believe it). You can define good and evil however you want. But that doesnt change what Good and Evil are.

Postmodernism is not a thing in DnD. Objective Good and Evil exist. Moral relativism doesnt change what alignment you 'are'.


Okay now find me the definition in the 5e PHB, DMG and MM of ONLY Good and ONLY Evil, do not mix in Good and Evil with any other alignment and do not make any inferences that are not direct quotes to those singular words. (and using any other sources beyond those three books in addition to failing to comply with the restrictions makes any argument forfeit, null and void).

If you wish to mix in other D&D books and sources then point me to a general D&D of all time but I will probably not care to follow it because I know that such discussion to be a waste of time anyway as was shown in previous topics.




Of course. I have no problem with evil PCs. As long as they are played maturely.

And what do you mean by maturely? That they are considerate to others? That is quite an unevil way to look at things. Would you be railing against an evil person that does good as well?

QUite frankly I have a problem with people acting evil even if they are being mature and honest about it. Maybe for you killing babies is all right in your games as long as the guy that does it has an "I am evil" sign but for me killing babies is wrong and I will put a stop to this even if it means interrupting the game cold. There are some lines that should not be crossed even if you are willing to do so and wear all the labels needed to make it happen.



And Good fails when they resort to the same atrocities as Evil.

You cant fight evil by comitting acts of evil. You fight evil by being good. Showing mercy and compassion. Turning the other cheek. Extending kindness to your enemies. Demonstrating empathy. You only resort to violence as a last resort in self defence or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself.

This isnt a case of 'the evil guys' on one side and 'the good guys' on the other, with both sides employing genocide, torture, murder and intimidation as tools to 'win' and the only thing seperating them is whether they have a 'G' or an 'E' on a character sheet.

Good guys do good things; charity, compassion, mercy, kindness.

Evil people do evil things; torture, murder, cruelty, suffering.

Thats the difference.

Except that misses my point. By a lot actually.

You are willing to allow evil.

Who cares what Good does, you are saying evil is okay as long as they say they are evil.

That to me misses the point of good and evil as a whole. To me if the only thing that matters about good and evil is two letters in your character sheet then I don't think I can ever follow your logic of caring so much yet so little at the same time.

That is what it means when Good does nothing. You did nothing. Good doesn't have to do evil, good has to be idle for evil to triumph.

[Tanarii]

But there IS a point of reference. Good and Evil are objectively defined in DnD.

No they are not. Not in DnD. Good and Evil have objective standards. This is true regardless of what the person subjectively thinks.

Postmodernism is not a thing in DnD. Objective Good and Evil exist. Moral relativism doesnt change what alignment you 'are'.
This doesn't appear to be the case in D&D 5e.

First of all, Alignment absolutely is NOT what you "are" in 5e. The PHB is very clear on what Alignment is. It describes a creature's attitudes about morality and society/order.

Second of all, nowhere are Law, Chaos, Good or Evil defined. Even the Alignments are not defined. Only typical behavior for them is defined. And Alignments specifically call out they are not perfectly or consistently followed.

So no. Neither Alignment in general, nor Good and Evil as morality, appear to be objectively defined in D&D 5e.

[EscherEnigma]

See what I meant?

It is like this story where you can push someone on the tracks or do nothing and watch a train hit several people instead. Most reject that binary choice entirely. Are you sure the people already on the tracks can't flee? Nope, they were tied there by a Richard Dastardly cosplayer. Why not throw yourself on the tracks? You are not... er... corpulent enough to make a difference in this specific physics problem, unlike Mr Fatty next to you. Oh come on, that story is just stupid! Look, it is one person here versus several people there, what is the lesser evil? Just don't do evil!

You will be discussing this for a looooong time.

Eh. Morality scenarios like that are mostly to illustrate the morality of a specific act. Which, while individual acts of morality should inform a character's alignment, they don't dictate it. A good character can occasionally do evil, an evil character can occasionally do good, and neutral characters can dabble all over. A player or GM shouldn't necessarily question a conflict between an action and the stated alignment if it's a one-off. But when there's a conflict over the long term, consistently seen over and over again, that's when the player or GM should consider whether the alignment matches the character as played.

So I'm not sure I see this discussion as comparable to debates over morality scenarios.


Only in a DnD forum would there be talk of a man who locks someone in his basement and tortures him for months being framed as an act of 'good' or something that a 'good' person would do, or would child murder be seen in the same light.
Off the top of my head I can think of at least four examples where that was basically done. Well, not individual examples. More like "institutional examples". And in all cases it was seen, by the people doing it and their bosses, as for the greater good.

Today, two of my four examples are pretty universally regarded as "evil". I'm sure there's some people that would argue otherwise, but the consensus is that it was wrong and a tragedy. It would be illegal in all parts of America today.
Today, one of my four examples is widely regarded as "wrong" in America, but probably not "evil" except by a minority of people related to the victims, and some people think of it as good and necessary. It is still practiced in parts, though the exact methods have changed over time. It is only illegal in some states in America today.
Today, one of my four examples is very divisive. Some people regard it as "evil", some regard it as "good". The benefits are debated. It is technically illegal in the United States, but there are ways around it.

The first two examples are the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition.
The third example is Conversion Therapy to make gay people straight.
The fourth example is Guantanamo Bay.

[Vogonjeltz]

Psychopathy [and sociopathy] among DnD characters is the norm. Its impossible to feel emotion or empathise with a bunch of numbers on a sheet.

Add to that the game is often played by young and often immature men with social problems or pent up rage [or both] to begin with, and it all too often rapidly decends into buchery and murder.

Then you have the fact that most people view certain acts of abhorent evil as 'justified' themselves personally, and any questioning of alignment leads to an percieved attack on personal beliefs.

These discussions never end well.

All possibly the case (I can't speak to the actual maturity or demographics as I lack actual statistics), yet it still is good form in roleplaying to adhere to your alignment or, at the least, set your alignment in accordance with what the character is likely to do. I can't help it if players aren't great at playing to the actual role part of the game, but I can at least diagnose the behavior of the character and sort according to the alignment profiles. This guy as described sounds NE.


That depends a great deal on where and when they find themselves. If a Roman finds himself in Rome it is neither good nor evil for him to act like a Roman.

That's only half the spectrum, the society and order half. Presumably that character is Lawful, but we don't actually know whether they are good neutral or evil for the other half. If they simply don't consider morality, that's probably Lawful Neutral.

[goto124]

A Chaotic person can find it plain useful to act like a Roman in Rome, making them less like an outsider, better contact with the people living there, etc.

[Malifice]

Like I said, next time, don't reference Hitler and you won't get accused.

You can accuse me all you want, but youre wrong.


I explained it clearly that your example is lacking because you do not explain your entire town to me. You just say a part exists that worships demons and leave the rest in the air. I am arguing your bad logic and example. There can't be any discussion with a broken point.


Youre arguing against yourself here. I never said what you think I said.


Neither, because I was talking about real life in the quote you mentioned. Real life is a much more complex scenario than your average D&D world.

No, its not.


Okay now find me the definition in the 5e PHB, DMG and MM of ONLY Good and ONLY Evil, do not mix in Good and Evil with any other alignment and do not make any inferences that are not direct quotes to those singular words. (and using any other sources beyond those three books in addition to failing to comply with the restrictions makes any argument forfeit, null and void).

5E uses a paraphrased version of 3E's description for the alignments. Ergo the persuasive definition of good and evil is the 3E one. Its not a binding definition however.


And what do you mean by maturely?

That they dont use the E on the character sheet as some kind of justification for acting in a manner that would shock Charles Manson and the Joker. Sadly all too often people play evil PCs as 'Random serial killer-Psycho-mass killer-sneak in and murder the tavern owner over 5 copper-evil stupd' types.

Real life evil people are nuanced. Psychotic serial killers are most certainly evil, but they are an extreme outlier.

Your Evil Walter Whites, Tony Sopranos, Dexters, Titus Pullo, the Punisher etc are a bit more nuanced than that.


QUite frankly I have a problem with people acting evil even if they are being mature and honest about it. Maybe for you killing babies is all right in your games as long as the guy that does it has an "I am evil" sign but for me killing babies is wrong and I will put a stop to this even if it means interrupting the game cold. There are some lines that should not be crossed even if you are willing to do so and wear all the labels needed to make it happen.

I allow Evil in my games. So does AL.


That to me misses the point of good and evil as a whole. To me if the only thing that matters about good and evil is two letters in your character sheet then I don't think I can ever follow your logic of caring so much yet so little at the same time.

Dude, alignment dictates actions in the game. Good people dont murder and torture and avoid killing. They engage in charity, compassion and mercy. They avoid causing suffering.

Evil people do the exact opposite.

If you want to go around engaging in murder, torture, killing and not showing remorse then FINE. Write an E on your character sheet and get on with it.


That is what it means when Good does nothing. You did nothing. Good doesn't have to do evil, good has to be idle for evil to triumph.

I didnt say 'Good does nothing'. I said (paraphrasing)

Good does mercy, compassion, kindness. It does not do murder, torture and suffering.

Evil does murder, torture and suffering. It does not do mercy, compassion and kindness.

Thats the difference between the two alignments. Youre making some absurd argument that what makes someone Good is that they 'only' murder evil people, 'only' torture evil people and 'only' make evil people suffer.

The difference between good and evil is NOT that good people are discerning in whom they torture and murder. Its that good people dont torture and murder people.



The first two examples are the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition.
The third example is Conversion Therapy to make gay people straight.
The fourth example is Guantanamo Bay.

All acts of evil.

[RickAllison]

That they dont use the E on the character sheet as some kind of justification for acting in a manner that would shock Charles Manson and the Joker. Sadly all too often people play evil PCs as 'Random serial killer-Psycho-mass killer-sneak in and murder the tavern owner over 5 copper-evil stupd' types.

Real life evil people are nuanced. Psychotic serial killers are most certainly evil, but they are an extreme outlier.

Your Evil Walter Whites, Tony Sopranos, Dexters, Titus Pullo, the Punisher etc are a bit more nuanced than that.

Dude, alignment dictates actions in the game. Good people dont murder and torture and avoid killing. They engage in charity, compassion and mercy. They avoid causing suffering.

Evil people do the exact opposite.

If you want to go around engaging in murder, torture, killing and not showing remorse then FINE. Write an E on your character sheet and get on with it.



I didnt say 'Good does nothing'. I said (paraphrasing)

Good does mercy, compassion, kindness. It does not do murder, torture and suffering.

Evil does murder, torture and suffering. It does not do mercy, compassion and kindness.

So then my question is, what if someone does both? Someone who spends all of their time serving the poor and helping people out of nothing but goodwill, but who also is willing to murder and torture for (admittedly, very shaky) justified reasons. Someone who is gracious enough to reach out to his fellow man to lend aid, but is willing to do deplorable things?

[Malifice]

So then my question is, what if someone does both? Someone who spends all of their time serving the poor and helping people out of nothing but goodwill, but who also is willing to murder and torture for (admittedly, very shaky) justified reasons. Someone who is gracious enough to reach out to his fellow man to lend aid, but is willing to do deplorable things?

Then theyre quite probably evil.

If your local church pastor, who runs a soup kitchen for the homeless, also has a murder dungeon in his basement, where he imprisons and slowly tortures government officials (who he blames for the homeless) and local criminals (who prey on the homeless) to death, you and I (and the courts) would have no hesitation in calling that man an evil person.

Look at Dexter. He is evil. He might be a nice bloke, and work towards putting evil people behind bars (or simply carving them up) but he (and he acknowledges this) is evil.

If you play the character who is prepared to use murder, torture and rape in his 'fight against the forces of evil' then he's evil. Its no different to a character who uses charity, mercy and compassion in his 'war against good'. He's good.

If you believe in liberty, kindness, mercy and compassion (i.e. are a good person) you dont lock people up in a murder dungeon.

Justifying an act, does not make the act good.

[RickAllison]

Then that kind of runs contrary to your previous argument:


Good does mercy, compassion, kindness. It does not do murder, torture and suffering.

Evil does murder, torture and suffering. It does not do mercy, compassion and kindness.


He does mercy, compassion, and kindness. He also does murder, torture, and suffering. If evil cannot do the former three, how can he be labelled as such? (This is playing devil's advocate; I view him as NE, kind of like the Punisher).

[Malifice]

He does mercy, compassion, and kindness. He also does murder, torture, and suffering.

As do pretty much all murderers, torturers and rapists. Tony Soprano, Dexter and Walter White were loving family men. Hitler too. Most families of murderers were genuinely shocked to discover that the loving family man they knew was secretly a mass murderer/ rapist.

If youre the kind of person who can string up another human being, and then proceed to cut little bits off them over the period of months, then you're not a person who demonstrates mercy, compassion and kindness. Or rather: You're only a person who is kind, chariatable and mercifcul to others when it suits you to do so. Thats not mercy, compassion and kindness at all. When you have someone at your mercy, begging you to stop, you dont.

You're Dexter. Youre evil.

Its no different from an Antipaladin who pretends to be a nice bloke so as not to have his evil discovered. Or how Joseph Fritzl maintained a normal life in Switzerland while keeping his daughter locked in a dungeon under his house for 20 years. Niether of them are good people. Quite the opposite.


If evil cannot do the former three, how can he be labelled as such? (This is playing devil's advocate; I view him as NE, kind of like the Punisher).

I place the Punisher as LE. He has a very strict code, and he does what he does (evil stuff) for a lawful and just society. He may break the law, but not his own code.

[Mr.Moron]

Torture is inexcusable. Anyone willing to use torture is evil-aligned. Anyone who "happily torture him in agonizing fashion" is strongly evil aligned. Hell if I had an NPC that did that kind of stuff in of my games I might give the PCs CHA checks to just kind of feel the evil wafting off his soul, depending on the exact setting I was running in.

[RickAllison]

As do pretty much all murderers, torturers and rapists. Tony Soprano, Dexter and Walter White were loving family men. Hitler too. Most families of murderers were genuinely shocked to discover that the loving family man they knew was secretly a mass murderer/ rapist.

If youre the kind of person who can string up another human being, and then proceed to cut little bits off them over the period of months, then you're not a person who demonstrates mercy, compassion and kindness. Or rather: You're only a person who is kind, chariatable and mercifcul to others when it suits you to do so. Thats not mercy, compassion and kindness at all. When you have someone at your mercy, begging you to stop, you dont.

You're Dexter. Youre evil.

Its no different from an Antipaladin who pretends to be a nice bloke so as not to have his evil discovered. Or how Joseph Fritzl maintained a normal life in Switzerland while keeping his daughter locked in a dungeon under his house for 20 years. Niether of them are good people. Quite the opposite.



I place the Punisher as LE. He has a very strict code, and he does what he does (evil stuff) for a lawful and just society. He may break the law, but not his own code.

It kind of sounds like you have had some bad experiences with players having evil characters. Not every evil PC has to be some disgusting butcher, they can have subtlety, care; physical torture does nothing if the mind does not break. Cutting up the body generates sympathy, evidence that he was mistreated. No, the methods of this PC would be invisible to all, as they should be. Illusions that induce insanity, removal of the air from his lungs so he feels the experience of suffocating (not long enough for brain damage), food tinged with poisons that simply make him wish he was dead. Think Leon, from The Professional. Cold, calculating, efficient (I haven't seen Dexter, so I can't make judgments there), but with a heart of gold underneath. He doesn't do good when it suits him, he habitually does good. He would be a paragon if it wasn't for his more brutal interrogation and persuasion techniques, as those are truly the only evidence of any amoral tendencies.

[Malifice]

It kind of sounds like you have had some bad experiences with players having evil characters.

Good and Bad. Ive DMd and played with excellent and nuanced evil characters. Ive also had the displeasure of immature players of evil characters murdering NPCs on a whim and playing a personality that is 2 dimensional, childish and has no parallels with actual evil people in real life.

The best antagonists, evil people and villians have a reason for their evil. They got into necromancy to bring their dead wife back to life becuase they couldnt live without her, became a lich to end the emotional pain of her loss, and now seek vengance on her killers by 'any means'. That kind of thing.


Not every evil PC has to be some disgusting butcher.

Oh I agree. Very very very few evil people are moustache twirling psychopathic child murderers who gleefully accept they are diabolical. Most evil people actually think they're good people (our prisons, and the pages of history, are full of them). Most evil people have some kind of redeeming feature (heck even Hitler was a teetoataler that was faithful to his girlfriend and worked long hours).

If the character in the OP was depicted in a movie peeling off a screaming mans skin over the period of months, the audience would be in no doubt he is evil - notwithstanding the reasons he did it. His smiles and kindness to peope he isnt murdering are a charade; if they displease his own moral code, they get brought to the murder dungeon, and slowly and painfully tortured and killed.

If he was truly a good man, he could never do what he does to people. He's evil. His actions demonstrate that clearly.

[Shaofoo]

You can accuse me all you want, but youre wrong.

Evidence and definitions suggest otherwise but at this point you agreeing in such a minor point is inconsequential so for you to be happy lets just agree to disagree (which won't make you happy because this is never about being right but getting your vision through over mine but whatevs)/




Youre arguing against yourself here. I never said what you think I said.

And yet you provide no clarification at all, so even if I was wrong you don't make your point any more clearer (and the fact that you don't argue my point beyond no you're wrong tells me that I am right), that you don't want to make it clear means that you know that you don't have any solid argument or you don't care because trying to do so is too much effort for your ulterior motives to be reached.




No, its not.

Wow, I can't believe you just said that fantasy elf games are as morally complex as real life. I honestly question your outlook and your perception of the real world if you think that somehow you can obtain the complexities of real life in a D&D game, sure you can imagine that it could happen but I doubt many people have the skill and tact to pull it out, much less people like you that like to paint everyone in broad strokes for ease of use. I wouldn't call someone who kills someone else for an automatic E as you would.




5E uses a paraphrased version of 3E's description for the alignments. Ergo the persuasive definition of good and evil is the 3E one. Its not a binding definition however.

Citation needed from the makers of the game, you do not have enough evidence to say otherwise. Also you need evidence from the makers of 3e to make sure that they agree with the 5e edition.



That they dont use the E on the character sheet as some kind of justification for acting in a manner that would shock Charles Manson and the Joker. Sadly all too often people play evil PCs as 'Random serial killer-Psycho-mass killer-sneak in and murder the tavern owner over 5 copper-evil stupd' types.

Real life evil people are nuanced. Psychotic serial killers are most certainly evil, but they are an extreme outlier.

Your Evil Walter Whites, Tony Sopranos, Dexters, Titus Pullo, the Punisher etc are a bit more nuanced than that.

But since your only point of reference is psychotic serial killers previously then people get lost in your argument (see previous argument on town alignment). How many acts do you need for someone to be evil? Is the little kid that stole a Twix bar evil because stealing is evil? What about a man that pickpockets a wallet? As soon as someone does an evil act are they evil point blank? These are rhetorical questions and do not want an answer at all, please and thank you.




I allow Evil in my games. So does AL.

AL allows Lawful Evil and I might not be in AL but I am 100% sure they won't allow disruptive behavior either. Not all Evil is Lawful Evil. Part of the reason is to curb disruptive behavior.



Evil people do the exact opposite.

If you want to go around engaging in murder, torture, killing and not showing remorse then FINE. Write an E on your character sheet and get on with it.

And thus I find your values to be twisted and suspect if all you care about is alignment. I certainly wouldn't want to partake in any campaign where evil is happily embraced as long as the proper papers are filed (even if the evil is punished in the end eventually... maybe... you never mention retribution so I can only assume that as long as the person covers his tracks then everything is okay).


I didnt say 'Good does nothing'. I said (paraphrasing)

Good does mercy, compassion, kindness. It does not do murder, torture and suffering.

Evil does murder, torture and suffering. It does not do mercy, compassion and kindness.

Thats the difference between the two alignments. Youre making some absurd argument that what makes someone Good is that they 'only' murder evil people, 'only' torture evil people and 'only' make evil people suffer.

The difference between good and evil is NOT that good people are discerning in whom they torture and murder. Its that good people dont torture and murder people.


And my argument is that Good would also prevent evil from doing evil things as well. You argue something that was far from my point. Your argument never touches on my point at any point. You keep up with the segregation of what good and evil does and I say that good would do something against evil. There is nothing more to be said if you keep arguing something that has no relevance (and unlike you I did try to clarify but I can't help when you ignore the clarifications) and in fact wholly contradicts a previous statement that you just said.

I don't think that further discussion is needed at this point

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If there are generally other options available at not much extra personal risk but this character still chooses to go with months of torture instead, evil. Good is not just about fighting evil, and evil is not just about fighting good. If they were, we'd call them team blue and team green.

If the character does these things as a last resort, because this is the only way to get results for the greater good, that could put him in neutral territory. It gets questionable if his skillset is build entirely around doing things the evil way. Let's say the police shoot a hundred protesters, and their defense is that they had no other options, then maybe they should have prepared a little better and brought some tear gas and water cannons.

[Millstone85]

The discussion has included the murder of orc children, and thus a tacit nod to the condoning of genocide.Genocide is wrong because there is no such thing as a vile race. Nobody is born to be evil because of their ethnicity. Even the concept of race as used by genocide advocates is a gross oversimplification of ancestry.

This was the real life, now back to fantasy. In D&D, there definitely are races and, yes, some of these races are vile. If that bothers you, if you do not want genocide to be a sensible thing to do in any world, you are free to rule that orcs, illithids and even fiends do not have to be what the monster manual says.

Otherwise, you should not penalize players for knowing in what fictional setting they play. And you certainly should not accuse them (or in this case, me) of condoning genocide in real life.


You cant fight evil by comitting acts of evil. You fight evil by being good. Showing mercy and compassion. Turning the other cheek. Extending kindness to your enemies. Demonstrating empathy. You only resort to violence as a last resort in self defence or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself.
You only resort to violence as a last resort in self defence or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself.And here is your first concession. This is you first step on the slippery slope. Violence is evil and you have justified it for the greater good of defence. You now believe in the "no other option" scenario. Welcome to the dark side, have a cookie.

[Tanarii]

Dude, alignment dictates actions in the game.Not quite.

Alignment indirectly 'dictates' actions, and not 100% of the time. Not every action flows from alignment, they flow from personality as a whole.

Alignment 'dictates' attitudes towards morality and society/order. It also informs typical, but not perfect or consistent, behavior.

In other words, good people can and do occasionally do something that doesn't match their attitudes towards morality. Something they consider not-good, or even evil. Not regularly. It's not part of their typical behavior. But it can and does happen, due to other aspects of their personality. Assuredly they feel remorse.

Personality as a whole 'dictates' actions in the game. Assuming the player is playing in-character, of course.

5e has a rather subtle take on Alignment. It's not the be-all and end-all of personality any more. It's very carefully constructed to be only one component of personality. To allow room for other aspects of personality to 'dictate' actions, not just Alignment.

[LordVonDerp]

In D&D there can be established bad guys so in essence torturing bad guys is seen as good. Of course if you want to have more moral depth than your average Transformer episode then you would know that torturing anyone is wrong regardless.




Moral depth, by definition, means that sometimes torture or murder will be the right choice.

[Millstone85]

Regarding the OP's character, I would say that debates and additional informations have given me a new view of him. It is not so much about who he thinks he is (a good person) versus who others judge him to be (an evil person). It is more about who he thinks he is (an evil person) versus who he wants to be (a good person). Not only is he ready to use torture in dire circumstances, but violence is in fact his first answer to most problems, and he wishes to change that aspect of himself. So yeah, I will range myself with the now popular opinion that his backstory at least should be of evil character alignment.

One thing, though... NE characters "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms". Well, the OP's character fits the "without compassion or qualms" part, or at least he used to. But "whatever they can get away with" is not the same as "whatever has to be done". What if he thought he might get caught? What if he was sure to get caught? Would he still do it? If yes, is it because he can't stop himself (consider CE) or because it is his duty (consider LE)?

And another thing. I am starting to seriously doubt my approach to alignment. Perhaps it shouldn't be about how a character sees themselves, anymore than it should be about standards of morality all players can agree on. As this thread has proven once more, both are a very very difficult mental exercise. Perhaps it would be much simpler to focus on a player's perception of their character. Do you want to play a hero? Write "good". Do you want to play a villain? Write "evil". Do you want to play an anti-hero buckling under the weight of past sins and ill tendencies? Write "evil", at least for now. And do use ideals, bonds and flaws to clarify the picture. Other players and the DM can then help you judge if your character lived up to any of these but don't panic if no two people agree. Going that way, you can disregard most of what I wrote before.

[Shaofoo]

Moral depth, by definition, means that sometimes torture or murder will be the right choice.

If your victims are known to be irremediably evil then torture and murder of them will always be seen as the right choice because destruction of evil is always seen as good.

Of course I say because I don't believe or like to play in games where all green people are evil and dragons are color coded for your convenience

But depending on the situation torture and murder might be seen as the right choice but usually the only way we will be able to be sure is with hindsight and even then it isn't a guarantee. So you can torture and murder someone and you might thing you have done the right thing (and in fact I would be surprised if you thought otherwise) but any actual consensus might never be reached at all.

Just because you believe to have done the right thing doesn't mean that you actually have done the right thing. Moral depth by definition never has concrete answers to all (or even most) of the problems. At best you can explain the situation but never say that the action was right or wrong without looking in hindsight.

[RickAllison]

Regarding the OP's character, I would say that debates and additional informations have given me a new view of him. It is not so much about who he thinks he is (a good person) versus who others judge him to be (an evil person). It is more about who he thinks he is (an evil person) versus who he wants to be (a good person). Not only is he ready to use torture in dire circumstances, but violence is in fact his first answer to most problems, and he wishes to change that aspect of himself. So yeah, I will range myself with the now popular opinion that his backstory at least should be of evil character alignment.

One thing, though... NE characters "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms". Well, the OP's character fits the "without compassion or qualms" part, or at least he used to. But "whatever they can get away with" is not the same as "whatever has to be done". What if he thought he might get caught? What if he was sure to get caught? Would he still do it? If yes, is it because he can't stop himself (consider CE) or because it is his duty (consider LE)?

And another thing. I am starting to seriously doubt my approach to alignment. Perhaps it shouldn't be about how a character sees themselves, anymore than it should be about standards of morality all players can agree on. As this thread has proven once more, both are a very very difficult mental exercise. Perhaps it would be much simpler to focus on a player's perception of their character. Do you want to play a hero? Write "good". Do you want to play a villain? Write "evil". Do you want to play an anti-hero buckling under the weight of past sins and ill tendencies? Write "evil", at least for now. And do use ideals, bonds and flaws to clarify the picture. Other players and the DM can then help you judge if your character lived up to any of these but don't panic if no two people agree. Going that way, you can disregard most of what I wrote before.

He wouldn't be using torture as his first resort. He plans and considers, and only uses those evil methods when they are the best options. In fact, his primary method for resolution is Persuasion, he prefers to try words at first. If it looked like he would be caught for his actions, he would create a situation where the threat is gone. I imagine something like using an illusion to draw out an ambush or whatever, and letting the target know he is free and clear, ready to renew the persuasion methods if he regresses. I really agree with your last paragraph, the ideals, bonds, and flaws all fall back on his good aspects, but he is just a little (read: a lot) off.

[Tanarii]

He wouldn't be using torture as his first resort. He plans and considers, and only uses those evil methods when they are the best options. In fact, his primary method for resolution is Persuasion, he prefers to try words at first. If it looked like he would be caught for his actions, he would create a situation where the threat is gone. I imagine something like using an illusion to draw out an ambush or whatever, and letting the target know he is free and clear, ready to renew the persuasion methods if he regresses. I really agree with your last paragraph, the ideals, bonds, and flaws all fall back on his good aspects, but he is just a little (read: a lot) off.

I'd probably retool this personality a little and build this personality a little. Because it doesn't seem clear WHO or WHAT or WHY he opposes something/one. You're focusing on his dark side, the "will go to any length" side of him. But there's nothing to balance that out. As it stands, he's clearly and irredeemably Neutral Evil. He opposes whomever he judges that needs to be opposed, with no reasons for opposition given, then does whatever is necessary to neutralize them.

Unless I missed something. Going back to read your OP ;)

Edit: The impression I got was you're thinking of him as opposing tyranny? Defending the 'common people'?

[Segev]

I think, if he "gleefully tortures" somebody to try to brainwash them (or terrorize them) into "acting good," he's acting more CE simply because it's usually not pragmatic. He is therefore taking a likely-ineffective action that is needlessly cruel simply because he likes it.

It'd be better to kill the noble and replace him with a better one.

[RickAllison]

I'd probably retool this personality a little and build this personality a little. Because it doesn't seem clear WHO or WHAT or WHY he opposes something/one. You're focusing on his dark side, the "will go to any length" side of him. But there's nothing to balance that out. As it stands, he's clearly and irredeemably Neutral Evil. He opposes whomever he judges that needs to be opposed, with no reasons for opposition given, then does whatever is necessary to neutralize them.

Unless I missed something. Going back to read your OP ;)

Edit: The impression I got was you're thinking of him as opposing tyranny? Defending the 'common people'?

He has a more clarified personality, I figured it would just be adding unnecessary clutter to the discussion and it has changed quite a bit over this discussion. He is an unorthodox disciple of Eldath who aspires to her ideals (tranquility, peace, etc.), but is heavily influenced by his demon/primordial heritage. His primary foe in this regard are the Talosans (or was it Talassans... I forget) due to their habit for rampant destruction. Though he has little, he gives all he can, even using much of his rare freetime as an apprentice to construct living quarters for the homeless. He has, as of yet, never gone to the lengths discussed in the original post. He has the capability of it, and would not hesitate if it would serve the interests of his goddess more than keeping her wishes against violence. Thus, it would need to be extraordinary circumstances for him to go through with it, though it is due to respecting the desires of Eldath more than a moral compass.

[Tanarii]

That sounds like a Flaw trait to me then. It's not his attitudes or typical behavior, by any means.

[Vogonjeltz]

So then my question is, what if someone does both? Someone who spends all of their time serving the poor and helping people out of nothing but goodwill, but who also is willing to murder and torture for (admittedly, very shaky) justified reasons. Someone who is gracious enough to reach out to his fellow man to lend aid, but is willing to do deplorable things?

Evil. He's all types of willing to commit evil against someone he dislikes, he's evil. Not recognizing that one is comitting evil, or even simply denying it, does not mitigate that they are evil acts. As to the issue of his personality and acting politely to others, nice doesn't necessarily equate to good.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ObliviouslyEvil


And here is your first concession. This is you first step on the slippery slope. Violence is evil and you have justified it for the greater good of defence. You now believe in the "no other option" scenario. Welcome to the dark side, have a cookie.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

That's neither a slippery slope nor a concession. If you want slippery slope, it's the Consequentialism normative theory of ethics wherein "the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct." Which is exactly where the greater good fallacy stems from, the false premise that one can possibly know what the ultimate outcome of ones actions will definitively be.

Deontological ethics holds instead holds that it is the character of the act itself, not the outcome, that determines the morality of an action. If you commit evil acts, it's evil, even if you just happened to get lucky and something good occurred for someone along the way.

In case anyone is keeping score, D&D alignment is operating via Deontological ethics, not consequentialism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or pragmatic ethics. So, within the D&D framework, the ends don't justify the means.


If your victims are known to be irremediably evil then torture and murder of them will always be seen as the right choice because destruction of evil is always seen as good.

Destruction of Evil is probably good. Torture and Murder are certainly evil. Fighting evil doesn't mean doing evil.

[Cazero]

If your victims are known to be irremediably evil then torture and murder of them will always be seen as the right choice because destruction of evil is always seen as good.

You might have a point for murder (even if the existence of immortal souls tend to undermine it). But torture? What the hell?
Torture isn't going to destroy any evil, it will only create more. Torture is always evil and wrong, and any situation where it would be the 'right' thing to do is a 'lesser of two evils' scenario where all options are evil acts.

[Shaofoo]

Destruction of Evil is probably good. Torture and Murder are certainly evil. Fighting evil doesn't mean doing evil.

But if the ends justify the means, but at this point this is so vaguely defined that it is pointless to pursue any further. Murder and torture without the context has no meaning if you actually wish to do the morality exercise.

And I do not subscribe to murder or torture as I have explained.


You might have a point for murder (even if the existence of immortal souls tend to undermine it). But torture? What the hell?
Torture isn't going to destroy any evil, it will only create more. Torture is always evil and wrong,


Murder also has the potential to create more evil as well.

Torture was used plenty of times in history to convert people, you could say that trying to force someone to change their ways under threat of harm is good if it eliminates the evil within.

But I personally don't subscribe to torture or murder in any capacity. Do not think that just because I said such things in an off hand comment that is what I believe. I do not believe in wholesome good or evil, I prefer my morality to be shades of grey instead of pure black and white. And I also believe that good and evil are individually defined, there is no universal good and evil; there are some elements that some people will agree in general but as a whole there is no universal consensus. But then again such morality does not apply to fantasy elf games, I think a good skill to have is to be able to look at things objectively without your own perceptions and judgement clouding your vision.


and any situation where it would be the 'right' thing to do is a 'lesser of two evils' scenario where all options are evil acts.

This is an interesting scenario, would you do the right thing even if the right thing is an evil act? Are all evil acts to not be done regardless of the consequences that might arise from your inaction. Good and evil and right and wrong do not share the same axis. You can do the wrong thing and still be considered a good act and vice versa.

[Millstone85]

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.Yes, we frequent the same Wikipedia and Tv Tropes pages. Where do you think I got the term from? And I was obviously using it in jest.


Deontological ethics holds instead holds that it is the character of the act itself, not the outcome, that determines the morality of an action.If you want to teach me something today, please explain how "resort to violence in self defence or the defence of others" is considered by deontological ethics. There is violence, an evil act, for the purpose of defence, a good act.


In case anyone is keeping score, D&D alignment is operating via Deontological ethics, not consequentialism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or pragmatic ethics. So, within the D&D framework, the ends don't justify the means.
Destruction of Evil is probably good. Torture and Murder are certainly evil. Fighting evil doesn't mean doing evil.This is a game where most players are expected to be heroes and where most of the rules are about ways to cut, pierce, bludgeon, burn, freeze, electrocute, poison, melt, unhinge and curse a variety of sapient creatures the wickedness of whom we are repeatedly assured of. Are you sure that's the spirit?

[Mr.Moron]

Yes, we frequent the same Wikipedia and Tv Tropes pages. Where do you think I got the term from? And I was obviously using it in jest.

If you want to teach me something today, please explain how "resort to violence in self defence or the defence of others" is considered by deontological ethics. There is violence, an evil act, for the purpose of defence, a good act.

This is a game where most players are expected to be heroes and where most of the rules are about ways to cut, pierce, bludgeon, burn, freeze, electrocute, poison, melt, unhinge and curse a variety of sapient creatures the wickedness of whom we are repeatedly assured of. Are you sure that's the spirit?


This tell us that violence itself is not an evil act, but not much more than that. However that does not preclude that many of the most common, obvious or important uses of violence are evil acts and using "so violence is evil, except when" is just a useful way of speaking in shorthand that keeps you from having to clarify the entire tree of morality each time you want to touch on the subject.

It isn't that violence is evil and defense turns it good. It's rather violence is neutral, the vast majority of uses are evil to the point of evil being "default". Self defense is generally a good to neutral act, which doesn't mean an evil act is turning good rather just that common terminology obfuscates things.

[EscherEnigma]

All acts of evil.
Arguably. But that wasn't my point. You said you'd only find such discussions in a D&D forum. You are, quite simply, wrong. Quite simply, your objective view of morality is not universal.


Torture was used plenty of times in history to convert people [...]
That's the problem with torture though. In the real world, it doesn't actually work†. Information is seldom accurate or trustworthy (you start sticking needles under people's fingers, they'll say whatever they think you want to hear), behavior changes are seldom lasting (once they're "free" they almost always revert) and "belief" changes? Um, yeah, that just make's 'em lie until they can get to safety.

Which is a large part of why it's considered so unethical in the modern world. If you aren't actually getting any "good" out of it, but you are causing immense pain, what's the point? Well, the point for a lot of people is that, much like the so-called "Lie Detector Test", they think it works. They're wrong, but belief is a funny thing.
________
†Now, if you allow enough time, you can really break someone. But at that point we aren't really talking about plain ol' garden variety throw-'em-in-the-iron-maiden and put-hot-pokers-in-their-eyes torture, so I'm not sure it's pertinent to this discussion other then acknowledging that any permanent and lasting changes you make will probably be in the "this is not a functional person" sort of way.

[RickAllison]

.
________
†Now, if you allow enough time, you can really break someone. But at that point we aren't really talking about plain ol' garden variety throw-'em-in-the-iron-maiden and put-hot-pokers-in-their-eyes torture, so I'm not sure it's pertinent to this discussion other then acknowledging that any permanent and lasting changes you make will probably be in the "this is not a functional person" sort of way.

Actually, this is more like the kind of torture it would be. Spend a view days breaking the mind and let him go. Haunt him for a few days more, and re-kidnap him if he turns evil. Either he dies of a heart attack, or he finally realizes it's easier to just let the damn specter have his way.

[djreynolds]

Actually, this is more like the kind of torture it would be. Spend a view days breaking the mind and let him go. Haunt him for a few days more, and re-kidnap him if he turns evil. Either he dies of a heart attack, or he finally realizes it's easier to just let the damn specter have his way.

RickAllison, you giving me whooping because I'm jerk, isn't the same as you torturing me. Torture is bad, evil. Even to save the world. If you are willing to do this for your countrymen, then you live with the consequences it will surely bring to a sentient human being. Special Agents of governments, who may be tasked to perform executions or even torture, are haunted men and women. They live hallow lives, and this is the sacrifice they took upon themselves. They live a life racked with guilt.

[Cazero]

Murder also has the potential to create more evil as well.
Murder can have plenty of evil consequence. So what? I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the evil that deliberately inflincting pain unto another create within the one doing the torture.


Torture was used plenty of times in history to convert people, you could say that trying to force someone to change their ways under threat of harm is good if it eliminates the evil within.
But that's the problem with torture. It doesn't eliminate anything. The evil dude never had a change of heart. He's still just as evil as before. He just doesn't act upon it because he's traumatized and will return to his old ways of being an horrible person as soon as he gets over it and believes you can't get him this time.


This is an interesting scenario, would you do the right thing even if the right thing is an evil act? Are all evil acts to not be done regardless of the consequences that might arise from your inaction. Good and evil and right and wrong do not share the same axis. You can do the wrong thing and still be considered a good act and vice versa.
If as a general rule Good isn't 'right' and Evil isn't 'wrong', then you're not talking about D&D objective morality.
If the line blurs because of complicated consequences, you can still assert with certainty that some acts are Good and other Evil, that some consequences are Good and other Evil, and that chosing an Evil option because it will have more Good consequences remains an Evil act. That's why moral dilemnas exist : the magnitude of Good consequences don't make an Evil act taint-free.

[Tanarii]

If as a general rule Good isn't 'right' and Evil isn't 'wrong', then you're not talking about D&D objective morality.
5e doesn't appear to have objective morality. Law, Chaos, Good nor Evil are defined as separate concepts. It has 9 named Alignments, which represent a combination of those undefined concepts, as attitudes about morality and society/order. And those Alignments have one sentence broad descriptions of typical, but not perfect or consistent, behaviors.

So no specifics for the Alignment components, no specifics for the Alignments as individual whole, but specifically defined Alignment resulting behaviors. But vague behaviors, and in a way that doesn't require adherence to them. That's it.

Those behaviors can then be used in conjunction with the rest of personality traits to inform behavior decisions by the player. There are no defined mechanical or in-game definitions or repercussions of Law, Chaos, Good or Evil outside of direct consequences for actions themselves, not any inherent morality of the actions.

That's a far cry from 'objective' morality. It isn't *necessarily* subjective either. That allows it to be either, or something in between, as DMs and Players choose.

[Shaofoo]

That's the problem with torture though. In the real world, it doesn't actually work†. Information is seldom accurate or trustworthy (you start sticking needles under people's fingers, they'll say whatever they think you want to hear), behavior changes are seldom lasting (once they're "free" they almost always revert) and "belief" changes? Um, yeah, that just make's 'em lie until they can get to safety.

Well like I said there is a difference between the real world and elf fantasy land. When I said torture it was specifically in elf fantasy world, not real life because I know also that torture was all but useless. With a Zone of Truth spell you can force them to tell the truth and torture is just to get them to talk, all you need is for them to say anything and the truth will come out. And there is also Stockholm Syndrome as well that maybe in the end they will be on your side, you just gotta know how to work it. You wouldn't want your convert to go free just like you wouldn't want a recovering alcoholic to frequent a bar. But torture is evil, just wanna get this out there in case some people thinks that because I talk about torture that I agree with it.


Which is a large part of why it's considered so unethical in the modern world. If you aren't actually getting any "good" out of it, but you are causing immense pain, what's the point? Well, the point for a lot of people is that, much like the so-called "Lie Detector Test", they think it works. They're wrong, but belief is a funny thing.

I am certain that even if torture would get you information that is truthful 100% of the time with no failure it would still be considered unethical because you are still causing pain and damage to a human being. It is the same reason we don't use prisoners and POWs to test drugs and procedures that could have potential lethal effects (or even not lethal effects but still you are forcing them) even though you'd get information that could be useful for the good of those outside.





Murder can have plenty of evil consequence. So what? I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the evil that deliberately inflincting pain unto another create within the one doing the torture.


But that's the problem with torture. It doesn't eliminate anything. The evil dude never had a change of heart. He's still just as evil as before. He just doesn't act upon it because he's traumatized and will return to his old ways of being an horrible person as soon as he gets over it and believes you can't get him this time.

Thing is IF he gets over it. Even if he isn't internally good the prevention of evil from keeping him from acting will probably be seen as good. Of course if you want to get complicated then you can allow Stockholm Syndrome to take over, good torture is more than poking needles and pouring hot lead, you must also play mind games as well.

But torture and murder are both evil.


If as a general rule Good isn't 'right' and Evil isn't 'wrong', then you're not talking about D&D objective morality.

I don't see D&D making a distinction where good is always right and evil is always wrong. Objective morality is that some actions are good or evil always regardless of the intention, right and wrong is the end result of your actions and depending on what you wanted or not.

Letting a goblin scout that you trapped go because you don't take prisoners and he technically did nothing wrong can be seen as a good thing and then he goes and relay information that is used to sneak into your city and raid it, you have done a good thing that ended with bad consequences so it can be seen as wrong (because remember in elf fantasy land all goblins are evil beings).

[LordVonDerp]

Well like I said there is a difference between the real world and elf fantasy land. When I said torture it was specifically in elf fantasy world, not real life because I know also that torture was all but useless. With a Zone of Truth spell you can force them to tell the truth and torture is just to get them to talk, all you need is for them to say anything and the truth will come out.


Probably worth mentioning that Zone of Truth does not compel the affected to answer questions, so they could just as easily say nothing or say something irrelevant.

[Millstone85]

This tell us that violence itself is not an evil actThis tells us a lie, then. Inflicting harm upon another is evil.


It's rather violence is neutral, the vast majority of uses are evil to the point of evil being "default".No, it is not a nine-times-out-of-ten deal, it is basically the definition.

Justifying an evil act for a greater good can be unsavory but this is a new level of denial.

[Mr.Moron]

This tells us a lie, then. Inflicting harm upon another is evil.

In my view while inflicting harm is always regrettable, it is not always evil. I think my post history makes it clear I'm far from in the "Greater Good", sometimes it takes doing things dirty camp.I have no problems universally condemning torture because that refers rather narrowly to intentionally inflicting suffering for some end. However the view in this post is going a bit too far, even for me. It's an amazingly broad statement.


Let's imagine there is some machine that is not meant to kill people, but certainly can. It might be some kind of industrial equipment, a vehicle, or cooking apparatus. Now inside the machine there is a team of maintenance workers tending the machine.Due to their own negligence or incompetence they have not properly engaged any of the safety measures on the equipment and/or have accidentally disabled the fail safes. This machine can be operated remotely by relatively simple controls. Unfortunately someone with no knowledge of their presence in the machine or maybe even the machine's function at all activates it. Might be the janitor accidentally leaning against the controls, or perhaps a worker's rowdy child has escaped from the daycare and thought the button looked fun to push before anyone could wrangle them. At any rate the machine turns on and over the course of the next two minutes the workers face the gruesome workings of the machine.

Two workers die instantly
Two workers are killed slowly by the machine.
The last worker dies 2 days later, his wounds simply being far too great.

Clearly a tragedy has occurred. Your framework would say an act of evil has been committed. I ask by who?

[Millstone85]

However the view in this post is going a bit too far, even for me. It's an amazingly broad statement.Would you say evil only exists above a certain threshold of harmful behavior?


Clearly a tragedy has occurred. Your framework would say an act of evil has been committed. I ask by who?
Due to their own negligence or incompetence they have not properly engaged any of the safety measures on the equipment and/or have accidentally disabled the fail safes.It seems to me that you have already clearly defined human responsibilities. Had a worker survived long enough, they could have been put on trial fror gross negligence having resulted in several deaths, or whatever the legal jargon is.

[Mr.Moron]

Would you say evil only exists above a certain threshold of harmful behavior?

That would probably be too simplistic a way of putting it. There's multiple variables involved and simply knowing the degree of harm that took place is not sufficient in all cases to determine if some act was evil. I suppose that makes the answer to your question "No" strictly speaking, however the question is too narrowly framed for that answer to be meaningful.



It seems to me that you have already clearly defined human responsibilities. Had a worker survived long enough, they could have been put on trial fror gross negligence having resulted in several deaths, or whatever the legal jargon is.

So, your assertion is the team of workers are the ones who collectively committed the act of evil? Remember we're not talking about legal liability, trials and laws are irrelevant. We're talking about your statement:


Inflicting harm upon another is evil.

The question is not "Who is responsible?" the question is "Who has done evil?" Someone has come to harm through human action. In your framework someone must have done evil.

[Millstone85]

It's an amazingly broad statement.
the question is too narrowly framed for that answer to be meaningful.Hmm... I do not see this conversation going anywhere.

Also, I think I will be leaving this thread soon.


So, your assertion is the team of workers are the ones who collectively committed the act of evil?Yes, they put each other in mortal danger.


Remember we're not talking about legal liability, trials and laws are irrelevant.Tell that to my brother. He used to supervise a mill. When one of his employees injured himself while trying to repair some machine, my brother got probation for not providing a safe working environment. I am sure he would be delighted to learn that his sentence was a purely administrative decision without moral implications [/ sarcasm].

Do note that I am neither supporting nor denouncing that judgment. You own example could be complicated by considering if the team of maintenance workers had a leader of a Mr. Safety among them. No, what I am saying is that the justice system is supposed to operate, as you would put it, in a lawful good spirit. Otherwise, society needs new laws.

[Shaofoo]

Probably worth mentioning that Zone of Truth does not compel the affected to answer questions, so they could just as easily say nothing or say something irrelevant.

Say nothing and you get tortured.

Say something irrelevant and you get tortured.

Say something vague that is the truth and you get tortured.

Say anything that isn't a response to the question at hand and isn't sufficiently detailed and you'll get tortured.

Of course if torture does not affect you or you don't care then feel free to clam up.

BTW torture is evil, just want to make everyone sure about this because such details can be easily lost.

[Finieous]

Would you say evil only exists above a certain threshold of harmful behavior?


I'd say evil* acts fall on a spectrum, just like any other actions we ascribe qualities to. A 270-lb. defensive end's punishing blindside hit on the quarterback is certainly harmful and violent and therefore might be a little evil, but it's clearly not as evil as assault, torture or homicide.

* Really, I think this goes for however you define "evil." The all-or-nothing moral categories don't make any sense, to me.

[Mr.Moron]

Hmm... I do not see this conversation going anywhere.

Also, I think I will be leaving this thread soon.


Your original statement on evil is very broad: You asserted all forms of afflicted arm are evil with no qualifiers. This includes many actions in many circumstances and they are all being given a shared label.

Your following question on harm is very narrow: You ask me if I can tell if something is evil or not purely from the magnitude of harm it causes. This asking me to rank the concept of evil strictly against the 1 property of magnitude of harm. Because in my view more things go into evil than magnitude of harm answering your question gives no meaningful representation of my stance on evil.

My statements are not in conflict. You made two different (though related) statements that were very different in their scope and how they related to my points.


Yes, they put each other in mortal danger.

OK. We have established your view that negligence and/or incompetence is evil when it results in harm. This is an explict statement of that, given it is a response to the question: "So, your assertion is the team of workers are the ones who collectively committed the act of evil?"


Tell that to my brother. He used to supervise a mill. When one of his employees injured himself while trying to repair some machine, my brother got probation for not providing a safe working environment. I am sure he would be delighted to learn that his sentence was a purely administrative decision without moral implications [/ sarcasm].

I do not know your brother I cannot tell him anything. However, our laws while they may grounded in particular moral reasoning have no bearing on the nature of good and evil itself.


Do note that I am neither supporting nor denouncing that judgment.

You are supporting it. You explicitly supported it in the above quote. To my question "Did they commit an evil act?" your answer was an unqualified "Yes, they put each other in mortal danger". This statement by it's very nature requires supporting the idea that where negligence results in harm, it is evil without any space for further consideration. Your stance at this point is self-contradictory. Either your hold the stance "Yes, negligence is evil" or "I am neutral on the moral grounds for punishing negligence" you can't have it both ways.

[Millstone85]

I feel that we are no longer having a relaxed exchange. This will be my last post in this thread.


I'd say evil* acts fall on a spectrum, just like any other actions we ascribe qualities to.
Your original statement on evil is very broad: You asserted all forms of afflicted arm are evil with no qualifiers. This includes many actions in many circumstances and they are all being given a shared label.I might be struggling with a bit of a cultural barrier here. The words "bad" and "evil" both translate to "mal" in my language. Telling a lie is "mal". Killing someone is "mal". Of course, one is much "mal"-er than the other. But it is all one continuum.


You are supporting it. You explicitly supported it in the above quote. To my question "Did they commit an evil act?" your answer was an unqualified "Yes, they put each other in mortal danger". This statement by it's very nature requires supporting the idea that where negligence results in harm, it is evil without any space for further consideration.I was talking about the judgment that my brother was negligent, that it was his responsibility to provide a working environment in which that employee wouldn't have had this accident. I do not know if my brother was negligent or if it was the employee who went around all precautions. Maybe the judgment was fair, maybe my brother just served as a scapegoat for the company. I do not know and it doesn't conflict with my views on negligence itself. Now, in your story, there is no question that it was the maintenance team who was careless with safety measures and fail safes.

[Finieous]

Would you say evil only exists above a certain threshold of harmful behavior?




I might be struggling with a bit of a cultural barrier here. The words "bad" and "evil" both translate to "mal" in my language. Telling a lie is "mal". Killing someone is "mal". Of course, one is much "mal"-er than the other. But it is all one continuum.


Yes, I think that might be the case (at least where my understanding of your position is concerned). In English, the common definition of "evil" is "profoundly immoral and malevolent" (there's "mal"!) So the word connotes not just "badness" but some elevated (profound, extreme) degree of badness. If the continuum is badness, in other words, "evil" describes one section at the end of the continuum. So I'd say the blindside hit on the quarterback is bad (harmful, violent) but not evil.

[Mr.Moron]

I might be struggling with a bit of a cultural barrier here. The words "bad" and "evil" both translate to "mal" in my language. Telling a lie is "mal". Killing someone is "mal". Of course, one is much "mal"-er than the other. But it is all one continuum.
If you're still reading, however. I will attempt to clarify my understanding of evil if only so my previous comments may be a bit easier to process.


In the way I'm using it, you might say "lies" and "killing" are both bad but generally only killing is evil. I can't speak for anyone else but when I refer to evil I'm referring to a particular and special class of things on the extreme end of the "bad" continuum. Lying is generally bad but even a whopper of a lie might have redeeming value to it. It might make someone feel better, or avoid a really bad situation. Evil is something that by definition can have no redeeming value, it is pure unambiguous badness. The sort of thing the religious might call mortal sin. There is nothing that can be redeemed, salvaged or absolved by perspective about evil.

Evil is the kind of bad that's so bad it's broken of the end of that continuum and become it's own separate concept.

My apologies if my previous comments were a bit too abrasive.

[Millstone85]

Alright, one more post and I am done.


My apologies if my previous comments were a bit too abrasive.I am not putting all the blame on you. I saw your "Well okay, that's one way to handle discussion. *thumbs up*" comment before you erased it and it wasn't undeserved. Truth is, I should have left the thread long before you answered my question on the deontological view of violence as a mean to defend oneself or others. I had already been called a tacit advocate of genocide for pointing out that classic orcs are what genocidal regimes would have people believe their victims are. I am just tired of this thread, is all. Next time there is a discussion on alignment, I will try to remember the points that were presented here and in a way continue from where I left. But for now, I had enough.


Evil is the kind of bad that's so bad it's broken of the end of that continuum and become it's own separate concept.This is strange and I don't like it. But duly noted.

[Tanarii]

This is strange and I don't like it. But duly noted.It's usually what it means in English. Evil is a word tossed around lightly, often to mean "anything I don't approve of that I think is bad", but it means morally reprehensible, and often truly malevolent. Not just bad.



Of course, Evil & all of Morality is subjective IRL. So YMMV

*waits to see who will take the bait*

[RickAllison]

It's usually what it means in English. Evil is a word tossed around lightly, often to mean "anything I don't approve of that I think is bad", but it means morally reprehensible, and often truly malevolent. Not just bad.



Of course, Evil & all of Morality is subjective IRL. So YMMV

*waits to see who will take the bait*

"Prostitution is evil!" "Adultery is evil!" "Pornography is evil!" "Kittens are evil!" "Bush is evil" "Obama is evil" "Lebron James is evil!" "Cake is evil (and a lie)!" Should I come up with any other satiric declarations of evil things to stir up the pot, or will that suffice for you?

[Tanarii]

"Cake is evil (and a lie)!" Should I come up with any other satiric declarations of evil things to stir up the pot, or will that suffice for you?Nope. This one will keep me satisfied all week. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

But if the ends justify the means, but at this point this is so vaguely defined that it is pointless to pursue any further. Murder and torture without the context has no meaning if you actually wish to do the morality exercise.

And I do not subscribe to murder or torture as I have explained.

Yes, but the ends can not justify the means for two reasons:
1) No plausible claim can be made that the ends can be known to be achievable via the means.
2) The Saint's License is just a rationalization (an informal fallacy of reasoning).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)



This rationalization has probably caused more death and human suffering than any other. The words "it's for a good cause" have been used to justify all sorts of lies, scams and mayhem. It is the downfall of the zealot, the true believer, and the passionate advocate that almost any action that supports "the Cause", whether it be liberty, religion, charity, or curing a plague, is seen as being justified by the inherent rightness of the ultimate goal. Thus Catholic Bishops protected child-molesting priests to protect the Church, and the American Red Cross used deceptive promotions to swell its blood supplies after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Saint's License allows charities to strong-arm contributors, and advocacy groups to use lies and innuendo to savage ideological opponents.

A close corollary of the Saint's License is "Self-validating Virtue," in which the act is judged by perceived goodness the person doing it, rather than the other way around. This can also be applied by the doer, who reasons, "I am a good and ethical person. I have decided to do this; therefore this must be an ethical thing to do." Effective, seductive, and dangerous, these rationalizations short-circuit ethical decision-making, and are among the reasons good people do bad things.

source: http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html

Don't worry, I don't think that you subscribe to murder or torture, or whatever, just so we're clear.


Yes, we frequent the same Wikipedia and Tv Tropes pages. Where do you think I got the term from? And I was obviously using it in jest.

It read as a serious attempt to make an argument, not a jest. So if you did intend it as a joke, you didn't do a good job of typing it that way.


If you want to teach me something today, please explain how "resort to violence in self defence or the defence of others" is considered by deontological ethics. There is violence, an evil act, for the purpose of defence, a good act.

Violence writ large isn't inherently good or evil. Some acts which involve violence are good, some are evil. Violence is often unpleasant, but then again unpleasant isn't a moral indicator.


This is a game where most players are expected to be heroes and where most of the rules are about ways to cut, pierce, bludgeon, burn, freeze, electrocute, poison, melt, unhinge and curse a variety of sapient creatures the wickedness of whom we are repeatedly assured of. Are you sure that's the spirit?

In terms of a percentage of the rules, combat is just 1 Chapter of 9 and only 1 pillar of 3 (let's not forget about Exploration and Social Interaction). Having rules for how to adjudicate combat doesn't have anything to do with the subjects involved in that combat.


This tells us a lie, then. Inflicting harm upon another is evil.

No, it is not a nine-times-out-of-ten deal, it is basically the definition.

Justifying an evil act for a greater good can be unsavory but this is a new level of denial.

As for violence being evil: "Unaligned creatures are incapable of making a moral or ethical choice and so acts according to its bestial nature. Sharks are savage predators, for example, but they are not evil; they have no alignment." (PHB 122)

So the rules of D&D are geared towards the deontological nature of morality and ethics. Thus the means can't be justified via the ends.

[REVISIONIST]

The dark spectre of m-craft rears its ugly head again. I'm always surprised at how
heated the arguments get on the 5e part of this forum. I thought from the get go
5e was an alignment lite system. I thought that might have even been a carry over
from 4e. Not to say any individual table can't play it differently, but it doesn't
seem to have much mechanical impact. But for a game that has ELEMENTAL EVIL, OUT of
the ABYSS, and TYRANNY of DRAGONS as their major game material, I would of thought
most gamers would check their moral philophies at the door when the game sort of
expects you to roll up a character where 30% of your character is about how you
can attack something. I've yet to play in a game where the cleric hasn't attacked
a creature if not another huminoid!(bandit, thug, whathave you) The game just seems
to push you by design towards fighting. Plenty of room for other roleplay in 5e,
skill check persuasion etc, but the bulk of the rules, and a lot of the games Ive
played in have combat. War is hell. I think of the moral dilemmas in the movie Fury
or Saving Private Ryan. Great to roleplay the haunted veteran fighter of 2 wars
against the invading orcs, who has seen and done things they couldn't ever imagine
doing.
As far as the OP, is this something you are struggling with for your character (ie.
what alignment should/would I be), or is this something that the DM wants you to
flesh out before play begins?

[LordVonDerp]

Say nothing and you get tortured.

Say something irrelevant and you get tortured.

Say something vague that is the truth and you get tortured.

Say anything that isn't a response to the question at hand and isn't sufficiently detailed and you'll get tortured.

Of course if torture does not affect you or you don't care then feel free to clam up.

BTW torture is evil, just want to make everyone sure about this because such details can be easily lost.

You missed one:
Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and you'll be tortured.

[Shaofoo]

Yes, but the ends can not justify the means for two reasons:
1) No plausible claim can be made that the ends can be known to be achievable via the means.
2) The Saint's License is just a rationalization (an informal fallacy of reasoning).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)



The first point is just the person lacking any sort of future knowledge. The person would believe that it would work unless it is known that it will not work (and at this point your point would fall apart because you go on by probability in failing, not any sort of certainty).

And I am not sure where are you getting with your second point beyond justifying their actions.

The ends cannot justify the means because the potential damage that is done is unique and probably cannot be fixed at all. This is why in fantasy elf world murder and torture are okay to evil beings because damaging evil beings is okay and potentially even desired.

And I must keep reminding everyone that real world and fantasy world subscribe to different moralities, fantasy world actually has designated evil guys while real world does not (or it does depending on your ideological views).

[Shaofoo]

You missed one:
Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and you'll be tortured.

Is there a point to this?

[Tanarii]

And I must keep reminding everyone that real world and fantasy world subscribe to different moralities, fantasy world actually has designated evil guys while real world does not (or it does depending on your ideological views).
Actually that's a good point. I was all fired up to point out that 5e appears to at least give the option of not having objective morality, and yet ...

5e clearly states that outsider's Alignment is an essential part of it. And that evil humanoids have an strong inborn & innate tendency towards evil.

That's more about free will, and Team Evil lacking it. But for something to be an essential part of a creature, that strongly implies that the something is objective.

Of course, the really important part of that is no matter how you slice it, they're clearly identified as Team Evil, making it easy for Team Good to know who to oppose. (Note: oppose doesn't mean torture.)

[Mr.Moron]

Actually that's a good point. I was all fired up to point out that 5e appears to at least give the option of not having objective morality, and yet ...

5e clearly states that outsider's Alignment is an essential part of it. And that evil humanoids have an strong inborn & innate tendency towards evil.

That's more about free will, and Team Evil lacking it. But for something to be an essential part of a creature, that strongly implies that the something is objective.

Of course, the really important part of that is no matter how you slice it, they're clearly identified as Team Evil, making it easy for Team Good to know who to oppose. (Note: oppose doesn't mean torture.)

Which raises a question: Can you torture a Demon? That is torture is the act of intentionally infliction of suffering. For something to be torture the thing you are harming must be able to suffer. You probably can't torture a tree in any meaningful sense since it lacks even vague analogues to the systems that allow us the capacity to experience suffering. Set it on fire, chop it up, dip it in acid you can certainly bring harm to the tree and it can be wasteful, destructive and wrong but it can't be torture.

Demons are not at all like us. We are composed of flesh, bone and nerves. Demons are composed whatever dark matter constitutes an extension of the "The Abyss". Demons clearly do have some form of what we'd call free will. They can talk, make decisions, weigh options, consider the future, deal with abstract concepts and choose to do or not do certain things. However, the limits on their will are alien to ours: They are incapable of empathy or compassion, and cannot not do evil. Their free will does not extend to being able consider or comprehend or taking actions that aren't malicious and destructive. Beyond that the fluff doesn't go into too much detail. However it does establish them as extremely alien entities, which lack any good analogues to the systems we as persons use to experience ourselves and the world around us. Which leaves us to speculate:

When a demon is injured, is the sensory experience it has comparable to what we and other animals experience as pain?
If so, when a demon experiences pain does it process that pain in a way that can be deep and damaging?

If the answer to either of these questions is no: Can Demons suffer and could anything you do to one constitute torture?

[Tanarii]

Which raises a question: Can you torture a Demon?

If the answer to either of these questions is no: Can Demons suffer and could anything you do to one constitute torture?
Of course. All the best (ie most horrific) tortures inflict psychological damage, not physical. You just need to figure out what they can't stand.

Probably something to do with the opportunity to be evil, but not the capability. Or maybe just inflicting a sense of ennui.

[RickAllison]

The dark spectre of m-craft rears its ugly head again. I'm always surprised at how
heated the arguments get on the 5e part of this forum. I thought from the get go
5e was an alignment lite system. I thought that might have even been a carry over
from 4e. Not to say any individual table can't play it differently, but it doesn't
seem to have much mechanical impact. But for a game that has ELEMENTAL EVIL, OUT of
the ABYSS, and TYRANNY of DRAGONS as their major game material, I would of thought
most gamers would check their moral philophies at the door when the game sort of
expects you to roll up a character where 30% of your character is about how you
can attack something. I've yet to play in a game where the cleric hasn't attacked
a creature if not another huminoid!(bandit, thug, whathave you) The game just seems
to push you by design towards fighting. Plenty of room for other roleplay in 5e,
skill check persuasion etc, but the bulk of the rules, and a lot of the games Ive
played in have combat. War is hell. I think of the moral dilemmas in the movie Fury
or Saving Private Ryan. Great to roleplay the haunted veteran fighter of 2 wars
against the invading orcs, who has seen and done things they couldn't ever imagine
doing.
As far as the OP, is this something you are struggling with for your character (ie.
what alignment should/would I be), or is this something that the DM wants you to
flesh out before play begins?

The alignment-lite nature of 5e might be the thing that spurs these debates. When alignment was a major component, it was fairly defined so there would be no question of effects due to the mechanic. Now that it is no longer a major component, they have ceased truly defining it which leads to questions such as actions vs. intentions.

As for the alignment struggle for my character, most of it was consigned to backstory. He began as CE, his care under a priestess of Eldath nurtured him to CN, and his apprenticeship as a shipwright instilled in him discipline enough to become TN. He is capable of doing it, and I anticipate that what will haunt him is not the act itself, but how the goddess who saved him would feel about it, as well as the cleric who is his love. If he ever does regress, he will have to work his way from NE, but I want his character growth as an adventurer to take him to NG, wiser and at peace with himself. The massive character changes came about because of the compelling discussions on this topic, so I thank all of the participants for helping me really nail down how my character fits in, even if it is just an exercise for the character sheet.

[EscherEnigma]

I am certain that even if torture would get you information that is truthful 100% of the time with no failure it would still be considered unethical because you are still causing pain and damage to a human being.
As I already established, there are people, even people who wouldn't generally be considered "evil" or "bad", who do in fact consider torture ethical (as long as it's done to the "right" people). So your assertion seems more then a little misplaced.


Say nothing and you get tortured.

Say something irrelevant and you get tortured.

Say something vague that is the truth and you get tortured.

Say anything that isn't a response to the question at hand and isn't sufficiently detailed and you'll get tortured.

Of course if torture does not affect you or you don't care then feel free to clam up.

BTW torture is evil, just want to make everyone sure about this because such details can be easily lost.
Zone of Truth has a ten minute duration. Real life torture sessions can go on for hours.

So I think evidence is on the side of "people can get through it".

[Sigreid]

Hi all, so I had a question on alignment. I am interested in making a character who is very much for love and liberty. He wants people to be as happy as possible and so by his desires for the world, he would be CG. However, his methods might be... He can be a sadistic a**hole. He very much focuses on the needs of the many. If a noble was oppressing a village, he would happily torture him in agonizing fashion (matches under fingernails, etc.) over months if need be to persuade him to be kinder. The question I have then is whether he is CN or CE.

Personally, I feel he is CN because he works for good, but employs very evil methods. However, if actions define alignment, I understand he would be squarely in CE territory, which I'm okay with. The party would be good-aligned, but my goals would be perfectly in line with theirs, making the world a better place. I would just have to make sure the party paladin is away when I need information...

Thoughts, feelings, vague premonitions?

Late to the party, but I think most truly evil people convince themselves that it's all for the greater good. I think only truly crazy people can admit to themselves that they're really just a monster in human skin.

[djreynolds]

Alignment is key to the game, and it should be fun. I'm a nice guy in life, but I would like to play a crazy person or evil or misguided, well that's the fun. And as long as the players at the table agree, then it is all good.

Its tough to psychoanalyze D&D, when it is set in a world where I'm in combat all the time. A good DM should allow you to just play and he/she will create the repercussions to your actions. If you torture a man, perhaps this person becomes a lifelong adversary you must deal with, great side quests. A chaotic person will do as they feel is right or wrong, and it is up to the others to decide whether this is evil or good or lawful or unlawful or just fine.

[Shaofoo]

Actually that's a good point. I was all fired up to point out that 5e appears to at least give the option of not having objective morality, and yet ...

5e clearly states that outsider's Alignment is an essential part of it. And that evil humanoids have an strong inborn & innate tendency towards evil.

That's more about free will, and Team Evil lacking it. But for something to be an essential part of a creature, that strongly implies that the something is objective.

Of course, the really important part of that is no matter how you slice it, they're clearly identified as Team Evil, making it easy for Team Good to know who to oppose. (Note: oppose doesn't mean torture.)

If you read the write up of the evil races they paint them in broad strokes that they are evil, nasty and a plague to decent beings. In fact they literally use the words vermin for orcs, so basically trying to kill off nearby encampment of orcs would be the same as for someone out to kill an infestation of termites. Of course torture is evil just like we think it is a little evil that the kid with the magnifying glass keeps burning insects.


As I already established, there are people, even people who wouldn't generally be considered "evil" or "bad", who do in fact consider torture ethical (as long as it's done to the "right" people). So your assertion seems more then a little misplaced.

Like I said before, people who has designated bad guys in their mind will find horrific torture and murder be accepted because the destruction of evil is always good. That there are people who think torture is good is irrelevant that most people would still consider it evil but then it stems from my analysis that good and evil are individually assigned.

And my assertion isn't wrong. You stem from the fact that the end doesn't justify the means because the ends cannot be determined at the beginning of the test. You are saying that if the end is good then the end does justify the means you just can't tell from the beginning. I am saying that the end does not justify the means because the means is horrible even if the end is good.



Zone of Truth has a ten minute duration. Real life torture sessions can go on for hours.

So I think evidence is on the side of "people can get through it".

So you are saying that after 10 minutes that they let the people go "Well good try, but I guess he is too tough for us, let him free!"

Zone of Truth is a 2nd level spell so it can easily be recast over and over and even if the slots run out for casting Zone of Truth the spellcaster can easily rest up while the torturer keeps flaying your body and this will go on for tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day

Phone call for Mr. Plankton!

And the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day...


Alignment is key to the game, and it should be fun. I'm a nice guy in life, but I would like to play a crazy person or evil or misguided, well that's the fun. And as long as the players at the table agree, then it is all good.


Alignment is vestigial to the game, you can literally cut out the page on alignment (one entire page) and absolutely nothing has to change for the game to function. You want to play a crazy evil person, you don't need two words to give you permission to do so.

[Tanarii]

Alignment is vestigial to the game, you can literally cut out the page on alignment (one entire page) and absolutely nothing has to change for the game to function. You want to play a crazy evil person, you don't need two words to give you permission to do so.
I disagree.

First, if you cut Alignment/Personality out of the game it changes the game for players unless they replace it with something. Ie effectively 'home-brew' their own character personality. Now, given, almost everyone would do exactly that. And many people already do that. But recognize what Alignment is for players: it's a codified component of character personalities, a tool for player use in getting in to character. without personality of some kind, characters are flat mechanical constructs. Which is fine if that's all you want out of your game. But it's a very different game form your standard TRPG.

Basically what I'm saying is that you're making a massive leap from removing Alignment to players automatically constructing chacter personalities in its absence. Most likely because you've played table top role-playing games for a while, and that's what you do in TRPGs. But it won't be an automatic leap for anyone new to the game, because doing that as part of a game is a foreign concept to games. Character personalities are a critical component.

Even for veteran players it can be a useful tool to assist with getting in to character. But less necessary. Regardless, veteran players are still replacing alignment with something, or they'd be playing a different game.

Second, it also makes a character's standing in terms of D&D's Team Good vs Team Evil a little less clear if you remove alignment. For some groups, this is very appealing, of course. But that's still a fairly drastic change in the game.

[Mr.Moron]

Of course. All the best (ie most horrific) tortures inflict psychological damage, not physical. You just need to figure out what they can't stand.

Probably something to do with the opportunity to be evil, but not the capability. Or maybe just inflicting a sense of ennui.

You say "of course", but that's not exactly a compelling argument. I'll concede my question was a bit too narrowly framed on physical pain. That's just kind of where I guess my mind goes when the subject of torture is brought up. Imagery of the Spanish inquisition and all that.

However, given just how alien a demon is I'm not sure it naturally follows that they way they experience things is in any way comparable to how we do. I don't deny it's possible, but nothing in the fluff seems to make it conclusive. Is a Demon's desire comparable to ours? Would the experience of dangling a gasoline-soaked basket of puppies in front of them, but with no means to set them on fire cause any sort internal experience that we as mortals could have?

I guess my point is that it's possible to imagine these questions going either way, and how you answer them as GM is a matter of flavor in your universe. The idea that they're creatures more/less like us only with limited free will and not made of meat is reasonable. However I'm not sure it's a natural or obvious conclusion given what we're given about them.

[Shaofoo]

I disagree.

First, if you cut Alignment/Personality out of the game it changes the game for players unless they replace it with something. Ie effectively 'home-brew' their own character personality. Now, given, almost everyone would do exactly that. And many people already do that. But recognize what Alignment is for players: it's a codified component of character personalities, a tool for player use in getting in to character. without personality of some kind, characters are flat mechanical constructs. Which is fine if that's all you want out of your game. But it's a very different game form your standard TRPG.

Basically what I'm saying is that you're making a massive leap from removing Alignment to players automatically constructing chacter personalities in its absence. Most likely because you've played table top role-playing games for a while, and that's what you do in TRPGs. But it won't be an automatic leap for anyone new to the game, because doing that as part of a game is a foreign concept to games. Character personalities are a critical component.

Even for veteran players it can be a useful tool to assist with getting in to character. But less necessary. Regardless, veteran players are still replacing alignment with something, or they'd be playing a different game.


I said remove the page on Alignment, I do not mean remove the entire Personality part as I've said before, I mean remove that single page. I don't see how that would change even the other parts of the personality unless it is coded in the game that to choose the traits you are held fast to only choose traits that are coded to a specific alignment. I don't recall alignment being needed for any other part of the game. That is what I mean


Second, it also makes a character's standing in terms of D&D's Team Good vs Team Evil a little less clear if you remove alignment. For some groups, this is very appealing, of course. But that's still a fairly drastic change in the game.

That to me is all gain and no loss. I welcome non-binary morality. And quite frankly it isn't a very drastic change in the game unless you only do games that are official sources only. Quite frankly there could be a Team good and Team Evil but you can't just point to an orc or goblin and go Team Evil and be right 100% of the time.

I have played games where orcs and goblins are evil 100% of the time no questions and I just went along with it so it isn't that I refuse to play in such games but if it was in my world you would have to actually look into the person to see if they are evil.

And like I said, good and evil is individual per person, you don't need to know the alignment of the Joker or Darth Vader to declare them evil... or maybe you do cause just mentioning is X character Y alignment is enough to cause a whole bunch of posts arguing whether even a character that is presented as evil not be evil.

It might be a drastic change in the game world but the game itself should suffer nothing for such a change beyond not having to write down two words.

[Tanarii]

You say "of course", but that's not exactly a compelling argument.haha it wasn't meant to be an argument so much as an expression that I certainty felt it is possible. :)


However, given just how alien a demon is I'm not sure it naturally follows that they way they experience things is in any way comparable to how we do. I don't deny it's possible, but nothing in the fluff seems to make it conclusive. Is a Demon's desire comparable to ours? Would the experience of dangling a gasoline-soaked basket of puppies in front of them, but with no means to set them on fire cause any sort internal experience that we as mortals could have?Yeah I definitely blew right past the whole "alien mindset" thing in trying to point out physical pain isn't the only kind of torture. IMO it's even the least effective kind. But an alien mindset absolutely would make getting inside the psychology of a demon difficult. In fact, even attempting to do so might corrupt the soul of the person doing it. Similar to the way trying to get inside the psychology of a Great Old One drives one mad, except it would drive one to Eeeeevil! :)

[Tanarii]

I said remove the page on Alignment, I do not mean remove the entire Personality part as I've said before, I mean remove that single page. I don't see how that would change even the other parts of the personality unless it is coded in the game that to choose the traits you are held fast to only choose traits that are coded to a specific alignment. I don't recall alignment being needed for any other part of the game. That is what I meanIMO Alignment gives a very broad, very general, typical behavior as a baseline for the character, especially for moral or social behavior. Before accounting for variants based on other personality factors. It's almost a default underlying behavior which you're layering other factors on top of.

Removing that removes a huge chunk of personality. Now I agree, it's not the be all and end all of personality. But that's in effect removing codified baseline moral/social character behavior from the game. I think that changes the game quite a lot.

However, that's an awful lot of personal interpretation on my part as to what Alignment represents in terms of personality in D&D 5e. So Yes, you can remove Alignment, because it's character personality as a whole that differentiates TRPGs from other types of games.

[djreynolds]

IMO Alignment gives a very broad, very general, typical behavior as a baseline for the character, especially for moral or social behavior. Before accounting for variants based on other personality factors. It's almost a default underlying behavior which you're layering other factors on top of.

Removing that removes a huge chunk of personality. Now I agree, it's not the be all and end all of personality. But that's in effect removing codified baseline moral/social character behavior from the game. I think that changes the game quite a lot.

However, that's an awful lot of personal interpretation on my part as to what Alignment represents in terms of personality in D&D 5e. So Yes, you can remove Alignment, because it's character personality as a whole that differentiates TRPGs from other types of games.

This is perfect. Alignment in a baseline behavior, what you would do in most situations. It doesn't mean you cannot do this or that.

But when I'm playing with other people, alignment gives me an idea of what you might do or how you usually act.