Selfish alignments

[Xuldarinar]

An alignment question I wanted to pose, to another end of course but we'll get there:

What alignments can a character possess, doing exclusively selfish acts? Additionally, can one's alignment drift to neutral or even good from evil without having performed any selfless acts?

[Necroticplague]

An alignment question I wanted to pose, to another end of course but we'll get there:

What alignments can a character possess, doing exclusively selfish acts? Additionally, can one's alignment drift to neutral or even good from evil without having performed any selfless acts?

Any of them, yes. Ever heard of the term "enlightened self-interest"?

[Sayt]

Second for any of them; as ever, context is king.

Lying to get a personal advantage is chaotic. Rules-lawyering (or even just lawyering) for an advantage is lawful.

Killing for advantage or gain is evil.

Protecting people who are dear to you is good, even if it's just because they're dear to you.

[Esprit15]

I would argue that the Lawful alignments (except Evil) and the Good alignments need some level of selflessness.

[Illven]

I would argue that the Lawful alignments (except Evil) and the Good alignments need some level of selflessness.

I would disagree with the lawful parts.

Law does not equal good. :smallannoyed:

[LTwerewolf]

Neither lawful nor good equal nice.

[Zanos]

I'd say Neutral Evil. An absolutely selfish person would likely care little for order or chaos, and would use or harm them as to benefit themselves only.

Neutral and Good are right out.

[Geddy2112]

Any alignment can be selfish. Extreme good is selfless, but not all good has to be bleeding heart. Neutral and evil is more likely to be selfish, but they don't have to be. Good implies altruism, but also a respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good creatures protect and care for innocent life, which is not incompatible with being selfish.

And yes, a character can go from evil to neutral, and even to good without being selfless. Selfless acts will speed up the process, but enough respect and concern for life, and protecting it, can get you there. Even if you have a very selfish interest to do good, it is still good.

[Ettina]

I generally play Neutral characters as selfish. They don't go out of their way to hurt or help others - all they really care about is their own self-interest.

Evil characters are either selfish with a need to hurt others (like my illithid character - if he was any other race, he'd have been Neutral, but he needed to eat brains to survive), actively sadistic, or very ambitious 'ends justify terrible means' characters.

To me, if being selfish makes you Evil, I have no idea how to tell Neutral from Good. I take it as:

Good - helps others when they don't directly gain from it, and only hurts evil-doers or those they honestly believe are evil-doers (I don't determine alignment from mistakes - though a diety could be upset about a mistake if they aren't an understanding sort)
Neutral - neither helps or hurts others except in situations of clear self-interest, and doesn't hurt innocents; or hurts and helps in roughly equal measure
Evil - hurts innocents for their own gain, rarely helps except in clear self-interest

[OldTrees1]

Everyone at the core of their free will/deterministic decision center decides what to do based solely on what they want to do. The first and final judge is selfish. This includes the person that wants to do as they ought to do (some of the greatest saints and worst sinners).

It is only when you ignore this aspect and focus on what they want rather than that they want it that selflessness emerges.

[hamishspence]

To me, if being selfish makes you Evil, I have no idea how to tell Neutral from Good.

Good people consistently make sacrifices on behalf of strangers - acts that are against their own self-interest on at least some level

A Neutral person might sacrifice for kin, or a close friend (or "community" in a community-threatening situation) but generally won't for people they don't have any kind of emotional investment in.

[Psyren]

I would disagree with the lawful parts.

Law does not equal good. :smallannoyed:

It does equal community though, i.e. putting the group before the individual. That can be done to moral, immoral, and amoral ends.

Of course, LE does tend to favor laws that advance the welfare of the LE actor himself or herself.

[Ettina]

A Neutral person might sacrifice for kin, or a close friend (or "community" in a community-threatening situation) but generally won't for people they don't have any kind of emotional investment in.

Even some of my Evil characters do that, with a strong enough bond. Very few people have such a bond with them, but any alignment can have loved ones.

I kind of think only helping people you have a bond with is kind of selfish, too. Maybe I just define it a bit more broadly than most people.

[Red Fel]

Good is naturally selfless. So while it is possible to be somewhat selfish, it is much harder for a Good alignment to be truly selfish. For example, the classic CG Rogue may steal from the rich and give to himself, but if he met a starving child on the street, he would be hard-pressed to not share a copper or two for bread.

Neutral and Evil have no qualms about selfishness. Neutral is pragmatic, which generally means looking out for Number 1 anyway. And as has been frequently quoted on this site (although I forget the quote's genesis), while Neutral means looking out for Number 1, Evil means doing it at the expense of Number 2. So selfishness is just fine there.

I'm of the view that selfishness is mostly irrelevant to the C-L spectrum. Chaotic creatures are certainly more able to indulge their whims, as Chaos thrives on personal expression and freedom, but Lawful is no slouch in that category either. Lawfulness is defined in part by order and structure - a self-focus is irrelevant. Lawful Evil, for example, is frequently cited for its ambition and greed - selfish desires if ever there were. An LE character, in being selfish, might observe that the order and structure of society should inure to his benefit, and to his enemies' detriment. There's nothing that says he has to use the rules fairly. And while Lawful often means being honorable, it doesn't mean you can't want. It also doesn't mean you can't manipulate that same sense of honor to your own benefit.

Short answer? All of them, with a caveat for the Good alignments.

[hamishspence]

Even some of my Evil characters do that, with a strong enough bond. Very few people have such a bond with them, but any alignment can have loved ones.

While Evil people might have the Neutral (or possibly even the Good) self-sacrificing trait - they tend to balance it out with other nasty ones.

An evil hero, who regularly risks their neck for strangers, or other such sacrifices, would probably have to do extremely Evil things to their enemies, to still "qualify as Evil".

[Segev]

One trap that those who want to be Good often fall into is the belief that to be Good one must be self-sacrificing. This is not axiomatic. Self-sacrifice is often done for Good motives, because helping others is a Good thing and it usually takes genuine altruism to do it at one's own expense. But it is not a requirement.

Good can be self-interested. Just because thwarting the villain will place you on the throne doesn't mean thwarting the villain is less Good. It only means that, if you wish to be Good, you'd better do your darndest to be the most benevolent, wisest, and BEST person who could possibly sit on that throne. But you still absolutely can enjoy your position. There's nothing wrong with that.

So what if you are, in part, motivated by the fact that you'll win the heart of the beautiful princess if you do this good deed? It's still the right thing to do, and you're not doing anything wrong by it. Wanting good things for yourself and working for them is not a mark against your Goodness. It's only when you're willing to do things at others' expense just to satisfy your own desires that it becomes a mark against you, morally.

[hamishspence]

While a certain amount of self-interest is compatible with good - it's hard to justify a Good character that never commits acts of personal sacrifice.


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

[Segev]

While a certain amount of self-interest is compatible with good - it's hard to justify a Good character that never commits acts of personal sacrifice.


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

Colloquially, that works as a definition.

Unfortunately, when you really peel it back and try to nail it down, there's always room for argument that there's an element of selfishness.

Self-sacrifice for others often obligates those others to you on some level, if only emotionally. Self-sacrifice is a reliable way to make friends and influence people. And Good people often are eager to make friends, both just because friends are nice to have and because it makes them stronger to have allies who like and trust them.

Self-sacrifice also can assuage emotional misery to which Good people are particularly vulnerable: guilt. If you do something for somebody else and it gives you a warm glow, is it really "sacrifice?" Isn't there just a little bit of selfishness to doing something because you'd feel bad if you didn't?

These are common arguments that sophists and evil apologists use to attempt to undermine the Good and convince them that the whole thing is a lie. The trouble with them is the premise: that Good requires total selflessness, total disregard for one's own desires.

It doesn't. It merely requires that one's desires and sources of happiness align with helping others and giving aid where it's needed, even at immediate material costs and discomforts to oneself.

Not coincidentally, a lot of longer-term planned enlightened self-interest leads to identical behavior as "Goodness." Because self-interest is not evil, and Good does not require a lack of self-interest or even awareness of possible benefits to oneself of performing good actions, short- and long-term.

[hamishspence]

The trouble with them is the premise: that Good requires total selflessness, total disregard for one's own desires.

It doesn't.

Indeed. Even D&D celestials are likely to have "own desires" - without becoming Fallen.

[Xuldarinar]

So, now that we've gotten this far into this discussion, and I am thrilled this much has cropped up;


The insinuator (an antipaladin archetype) requires a few things of them, one of which being that they not willfully commit selfless acts.

The reason I posed the question, other than the fascinating discussion on alignment that followed, is that I couldn't help but wonder if given the right attitude if they could fall and whether or not their alignment could drift towards good in the absence of selflessness. They require evil, but they don't fall if they become neutral or good.



To add to this discussion, I do have another question to pose: Does the alignment of an action, under identical circumstances, change with motivation? If you save someone's life, and you do it because there is a potential benefit to you rather than saving their life is the right thing to do, does the act stop being a good act?

Additionally: Can an evil act also be a selfless one?

[Psyren]

I think you're overthinking the archetype - you can justify just about any act for which you receive a reward as not being (wholly) selfless. So falling as an Insinuator is going to be very difficult as long as you're not throwing yourself in front of carriages or carrying orphans out of burning buildings, and even then you can do those things if a reward of some kind is offered. So really all you have to do is ask "what's in it for me" before taking a risk of any kind, and not even that much if the benefit for you is obvious.

The stricter requirement for an insinuator is going to be violating the rules of their outsider patron, and even then you have at least two more you can call on the following day(s) to regain your powers without atoning.

[Geddy2112]

you can justify just about any act for which you receive a reward as not being (wholly) selfless. So falling as an Insinuator is going to be very difficult as long as you're not throwing yourself in front of carriages or carrying orphans out of burning buildings, and even then you can do those things if a reward of some kind is offered. So really all you have to do is ask "what's in it for me" before taking a risk of any kind, and not even that much if the benefit for you is obvious.

This-you could pull kitties out of trees all day long, even if you only make a copper per cat saved. Hell, even good PR to make you seem like a good person could be a reward, doubly so if you use it to further darker ends. Get Macchivelian-in your case, the ends can justify some incredibly altruistic means.



To add to this discussion, I do have another question to pose: Does the alignment of an action, under identical circumstances, change with motivation? If you save someone's life, and you do it because there is a potential benefit to you rather than saving their life is the right thing to do, does the act stop being a good act?
Additionally: Can an evil act also be a selfless one?
The short answer to the first one is that yes, intent and circumstances can influence the nature of an action. Killing is usually evil, but killing a demon attacking innocent people is good, or at least non evil.

Can evil be selfless-very rarely, but I suppose it is possible. You could kill something or someone at great risk to yourself, when the death benefited you in no way but benefited others. In practice this probably never happens.

[Florian]

Additionally: Can an evil act also be a selfless one?

Consider this: You raid the home base of a hated rival. There you find that he keeps a harem of slave-girls. You decide to add injury to harm by freeing those girls and send them home, maybe even escorted for a bit of the way to see no harm done to them by your rivals minions.....

It´s cruel and evil towards your rival, but in itself a selfless act.

[Segev]

Consider this: You raid the home base of a hated rival. There you find that he keeps a harem of slave-girls. You decide to add injury to harm by freeing those girls and send them home, maybe even escorted for a bit of the way to see no harm done to them by your rivals minions.....

It´s cruel and evil towards your rival, but in itself a selfless act.

This is a decent example, actually, since it parallels nicely with the good-aligned equivalent: the good guy would perform this act selflessly because he knew it would make the girls happy, just as the evil guy performed this act selflessly because he knew it would make his rival unhappy.

If you really examine it, any time somebody does something For The Evuls (i.e. because evil amuses them), they're "selflessly" performing an evil act. Since traditionally people who do things "for goodness's sake" do it because doing good pleases them, and that's considered "selfless."

[Apricot]

I think the best way to think of the "does not commit selfless acts" requirement is that the class in question cannot do selfless things for reason of them being selfless. That is, the desire to help others with no regard to one's own personal ends must be totally absent. Situations where others benefit from your actions and situations where you don't benefit from your own actions are both okay: as examples, the assassination of some charitable priest could aid his religious rivals, and sacrificing much of your own self to harm a hated foe doesn't seem particularly selfless. The key factor is that the altruistic motive must be utterly absent. Basically, so long as you play a self-serving, callous individual, you ought to be fine. To quickly run through alignments:

Chaotic Evil: pretty good for this. The self-serving part should probably be diminished, here, and the callous part enhanced. There often won't be enough consciousness to be properly self-serving. Problems arise when there's some OOC/semi-IC reason to want to do something that's either got to be selfless or too calculating for the character, though.

Neutral Evil: amazing for this. There are no alignment-based limits on your behavior. Outside of developing personal attachments, there's absolutely no reason to do anything altruistic.

Lawful Evil: very good for this. Almost any actions can be construed as self-serving in the right light. The only issue arises when the law conflicts strongly with the evil, in which case you can take refuge in being "compelled" to do good. Does tooth-gnashingly helping another count as altruism? I think not.

Chaotic Neutral: completely acceptable for this. A selfless act requires that one really hold the selflessness in mind; a CN individual might just do those things to prove their own freedom. There's no inherent contradiction in a person who isn't actively malicious but who only considers their own ends.

True Neutral: I think this might not work at all. The general lack of ideological commitment (or commitment to lack of ideology) required here means that the individual can't be properly devoted to selfishness. That devotion would be some style of ideology, and would negate the alignment.

Lawful Neutral: also wouldn't work. In the requisite extreme devotion to law, there's an implicit assumption that the rule of law is more important than one's individual ends. If the law (in an abstract rather than concrete sense) requires one to perform a selfless act, then one must. That would cause an instant fall, making the alignment unsuitable.

Chaotic Good: another no-go. CG individuals have to seriously want to help others. One could imagine some kind of gruff Han Solo-type figure and say that they're just in it for themselves and happen to align with the interests of others (see: episode IV and the start of V), but that's just a facade. If you show the Chaotic impulse for freedom and yet refuse to ever help someone out for the sake of helping them, I think you'd be properly categorized as CN.

Neutral Good: yeah, this can't work. The go-to line of this alignment is basically "help others, no matter what." I don't see any interpretation where this could work.

Lawful Good: surprisingly, I think there's an extremely niche and dubious interpretation of a specific character type in LG where this would work. Consider the self-righteous individual, zealous in their defense of Goodness, who is harsh and precise in executing all of its Laws. They consider themselves the champion of Good, being completely willing to harm any who aren't in its name. Critically, their actions that help others aren't for the sake of those others, but for the sake of their own image of themselves as Good. Now, one could very easily say that this is actually a kind of Lawful Evil, and that's quite an accurate analysis. However, the D&D-style allocation of spells doesn't make sense with this type of interpretation. A delusional, self-righteous individual wouldn't typically be summoning undead or what have you, they'd be Smiting Evil cruelly and without remorse. This makes it sensible to give the individual in question a Good alignment for the sake of being able to use the right spells. Whether this would work with the Insinuator, I'm not totally sure, but it should be possible to have a Lawful Good character who is never truly selfless or altruistic (even if only in particular interpretations with an eye on aesthetic suitability).

And as far as them falling: oh, definitely. Give one of them personal attachments or the beginnings of a conscience, and they can fall. Maybe by virtue of growing to love another individual, or maybe by virtue of realizing that their selfishness is bringing ironic self-harm: redemption stories are older than time.*

*Metaphorically. Maybe literally. "Older than time" doesn't really obtain.

[icefractal]

While a certain amount of self-interest is compatible with good - it's hard to justify a Good character that never commits acts of personal sacrifice.Which raises an interesting question - can a character still be good if there's never a reason for them to sacrifice anything?

For example, consider something like an Elohim (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/elohim) (usually neutral, but this one's trying to be good) trapped on a demiplane (Plane Shift doesn't work) with only a small village for company. It can help the villagers out, make things a paradise for them even, but it won't really be a sacrifice - the Elohim is in no danger, and spends nothing but some time from its immortal life. But in practical terms, it improves the lives of the villagers much more than, say, a person who volunteered to be eaten for food (very definitely a sacrifice).

Is it good aligned? And if not, would it be good aligned if it had decided to fight to the death to protect said village, but no threat it couldn't easily handle ever showed up?

[Red Fel]

Which raises an interesting question - can a character still be good if there's never a reason for them to sacrifice anything?

For example, consider something like an Elohim (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/elohim) (usually neutral, but this one's trying to be good) trapped on a demiplane (Plane Shift doesn't work) with only a small village for company. It can help the villagers out, make things a paradise for them even, but it won't really be a sacrifice - the Elohim is in no danger, and spends nothing but some time from its immortal life. But in practical terms, it improves the lives of the villagers much more than, say, a person who volunteered to be eaten for food (very definitely a sacrifice).

Is it good aligned? And if not, would it be good aligned if it had decided to fight to the death to protect said village, but no threat it couldn't easily handle ever showed up?

Not all personal sacrifices involve giving up something tangible, such as your worldly possessions, or something truly final, like laying down your life.

In this example, the Elohim is under no obligation to act in the benefit of these villagers. It chooses to. It gets nothing out of the bargain. So, without any incentive to the contrary, it chooses to use its powers for the benefit of others. Even if that requires very little of its will, its time, or its efforts, that's something. Even a tiny sacrifice, but a sacrifice nonetheless - a choice to give of yourself, purely for the benefit of someone else.

And while Good and Evil are generally gauged and shifted based upon your actions, rather than merely your intentions, the fact is that alignment exists before a character appears on-screen. Before he has had a chance to act, we can judge him solely by his tendencies. And a creature who wants to act on behalf of others, absent more, is likely to be Good. This is so even if no opportunity to act on behalf of others ultimately arises.

[GreyBlack]

Define "selfish." Does selfishness include vested self-interest? What about benevolent self-interest? Is fighting to free the nation from slavery when you're a slave yourself count as selfishness? How about acting in a good manner solely because you like how you feel when you act in a good manner? How about doing good actions solely to gain a reward in the afterlife?

Any alignment can be "selfish," for certain definitions of "selfish." It is probably easier for the Neutral or Evil alignments to be selfish, as they have no pretention to righteousness or ambiguity that the Good alignments do. However, all alignments can be selfish. Just depends on your frame of reference.

[Segev]

Not all personal sacrifices involve giving up something tangible, such as your worldly possessions, or something truly final, like laying down your life.

Indeed. It may be a greater SHOW of goodness for a poverty-stricken family to share equally of their meal with a starving homeless man than it is for a very wealthy man to take the homeless fellow to a nice diner and tell the diner to send him the bill for whatever the man wants, but it is not a mark against the wealthy man that he "merely" gave something that cost him next to nothing.

A person who helps when others need it, but finds that others only need it in such small amounts that he almost doesn't notice is still doing good. Good isn't about grand gestures; it's about consistently doing things both big and small to make life better for everybody you meet. Even if only a little, especially if it costs you nothing.