How do you define evil?

[Falcii]

In a recent thread I made, people consistently made points about my lawful evil character they all seemed to over stress the evil that feels so Saturday morning cartoon. To that end I wonder how people typically define evil. Please discuss, whether that be citations or examples.

In my particular case, I chose that evil meant her main focus was a selfish one. She abuses systems to get what she wants, often at the expense of others or even the public at large. That said, while she certainly would be okay with murder, she wouldn't do it unless absolutely necessary. She values human life as a resource and favors as currency, so deleting a market share is wasteful if not straight up silly. She will sell information to awful people that lead to assassinations or even wars but killing little Timmy because he scuffed her boot is not my characters style.

[Shpadoinkle]

The way I see it: Evil people (generally) see other people as resources to be used, same as a magic ring or potion for instance. It doesn't matter if they don't like it; your interests and desires come first. If they become a liability then they need to be 'fixed' or simply disposed of, the same way you'd throw out a tool broken beyond repair. They might lament having to dispose of someone, especially if that person is particularly useful, but won't really feel bad about it.

Evil characters can develop personal relationships and have loved ones just as well as neutral or good characters can, but they're less likely to (for a number of reasons, but notable among them is the fact that their loved ones are likely to be evil as well, and may simply be using them for their own ends and feigning affection.)


... but killing little Timmy because he scuffed her boot is not my characters style.

Also (at least in most cases) it would be counterproductive. Kill little Timmy for a slight like that and now you have to deal with pissed off parents, neighbors, the town guard, etc. If you don't already have the entire town under your thumb, or if you're not otherwise powerful enough to have zero fear of any possible repercussions, then doing something like that would just lead to a big pain in the ass. If an evil character DOES have that much power though, I could see Timmy meeting a highly unpleasant end as a demonstration of your power and to cow other people into doing what you say with minimal argumentation, since you've already demonstrated that you're both willing and able to deal with people who displease you.

[Zanos]

In D&D land, Evil deities are very real, so doing something specifically because it furthers the powers of Evil is not unheard of, or even particularly ridiculous. The afterlives of some Evil deities are rather nice, or tailored for the personalities of people who would be worshiping them in the first place.

Still, my Evil characters are usually pragmatic above all else. No, I won't be sparing anyone who tried to kill me, because obviously they tried to kill me, and them being dead is better. Torture actually works in D&D land, so why shouldn't I use it if I need information? I could sacrifice a dog for this magic ritual, but humans work better, and I don't have a dog lying around.

Essentially, I play Evil as a sociopathic lack of care for other human beings. It doesn't have to be total, but it's there. Morality doesn't have a variable in this characters cost/benefit equation, other than perhaps the realization that people will try to stop them if their plan involves killing a lot of innocent people over, say, dire rats.

I won't make a claim that that is the only way to play Evil, though. You could make a character that genuinely hates what they do, but continues to do it because they feel it's for the right reasons.

[TheifofZ]

To define Evil, let's look at Good.
Being good is essentially defined as 'putting others before your own needs', meaning that you should never use others for your own gain, that you should seek to help others when they need it, and that you should strive to improve the world around you, even if it's not easy nor fun.

Evil is typically defined as the opposite of good. Which means 'Putting oneself before the needs of others'. Evil, therefor, thinks of what will make itself happy, comfortable, and satisfied, and never think of others. Evil also cares not about the state of the world, so long as the one that is evil doesn't suffer for it, and can find some form of enjoyment in the situation.

[Tiri]

I define evil as putting yourself (and those you care about) before others and being eager or at least not hesitating to harm those you don't care about.

[Conradine]

I have a some opinions about being Evil that are probably not shared by most players.


First, I think that most creatures with Intelligence and / or Wisdom lower than 10 would be for the most Neutral. Doing a Good or an Evil action require, in my opinion, to clearly understand the implications of that action AND to voluntarily do it. Low intelligence means difficulty in understanding consequences, low wisdom means difficulty in managing impulses.
That does not mean a character with Int and Wis 6 cannot be Good or Evil, but I find it very unlikey.

The Giant would not agree with me on that point. Yet Belkar dramatically changed his behiavour when V raised his Wisdom with a spell.


Second, cultural influence and lack of alternatives hamper the faculty of making moral choices.
To me, most orcs would be more Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil, simply because they lack the imagination to think something different than following the horde in his evil activities. Sure, many of them choose to embrace Evil by putting emphasis in killing, random violence and the like; but an orc hunter-fighter that sheeply go on with his living fighting when his boss tell him to do and plundering as the others do without ever thinking about an alternative is, in my opinion, CN.

Here I go openly against some official material ( Champions of Ruin - which states cultural relativism does not make an action less evil ).


Third, coercition partially to totally hamper the chances of making moral choice.

Here official material may agree with me. An article on Dragon Magazine - Core Belief ( Pelor ) explains that, according to Pelor's dogma, hunger, fear and despair can and will bring even a moral and good natured person to commit crimes and heinous or irrational actions, but that behiavour is not inherently evil and should be met by solving the basic necessities rather than punishing the offender.

That do not mean a poor person cannot be evil. A poor man which is not starving or dying of illness is able to harbor resentment and ambition as anyone else, and make moral decisions with a clear mind.


---


Another thing. I do not equate the prospective of gain with the threat of pain, from a moral viewpoint.

If a person is offered a bazillion billion dollars to kill an innocent, to accept is an Evil action. No matter how many zeroes you add to the offer, it's still a free choice.

If a person is given the choice between killing an innocent or getting a sewered finger, he could kill the innocent without being Evil acting due fear of pain. It does not qualify as "free choice".

[Duke of Urrel]

You could make a character that genuinely hates what they do, but continues to do it because they feel it's for the right reasons.

When I read this, I thought immediately of Belkar Bitterleaf. He really, really wants to kill things indiscriminately, but he's usually constrained externally by the Order of the Stick under the leadership of Lawful-Good Roy Greenhilt, not to mention by a brilliant plot woven by the Giant.

I would argue that you can't be Evil if inner motivations perpetually restrain your urges toward cruelty and destruction. Inner motivations of this kind are the work of a conscience, which Evil creatures basically don't have. If you're truly Evil, only outside factors can perpetually restrain you from doing harm.

Of course, if you're Evil and disciplined (as Lawful-Evil characters often are), you may be good at refraining from doing harm now so that you can do much greater harm later. You're able to delay gratification, in other words.

[Tiri]

I would argue that you can't be Evil if inner motivations perpetually restrain your urges toward cruelty and destruction. Inner motivations of this kind are the work of a conscience, which Evil creatures basically don't have. If you're truly Evil, only outside factors can perpetually restrain you from doing harm.

Evil people have consciences. In fact, the most evil people do have a conscience. It's more evil to engage in evil knowing that it is the wrong thing to do than not.

An evil person may even be constrained by their conscience at times. There's no rule that says they have to be doing evil all the time. ​Just more than they do good.

[Necroticplague]

Evil and Good are divine fiat. They're physical forces controlled by various powers far over the head of most mortals. Some actions end up causing those energies to gather around you and become part of your being, thus creating your alignment. Because it's just divine fiat, sometimes these actions can be incredibly stupid and arbitrary, due to not having to follow any consistent rules. Heck, for some creature's, their mere existence is an Evil act, and they are thus aligned with Evil, even if they themselves have done nothing wrong yet, or are incapable of making moral actions (skeletons, zombies, bloodhulks, for example). Thus, alignment is only very loosely related to morality. And when it is, it's typically not in the sense the terms 'good' and 'evil' invoke (and I believe calling them such was a major mistake on WoTCs part, because it brings a lot of extra baggage). So pinging on 'detect evil' doesn't necessarily mean anything more than 'bit of a selfish prick', and certainly isn't worth a death sentence.

[Name1]

Evil equals lack of mercy.

As soon as you have power (which you need: As an evil character, you basically need to stay ahead of the power curve since the party is more likely to betray you than the other way around) you take care of Timmy: You burn down his house, dominate his father into raping him, torture his mother, cook his dog and hae him eat it, necrotic terminate his family and then cast Eternity of Torture on him.

That is called "Disproportionate Retribution" and is something I typically associate with evil.

[Darth Ultron]

First, I think that most creatures with Intelligence and / or Wisdom lower than 10 would be for the most Neutral. Doing a Good or an Evil action require, in my opinion, to clearly understand the implications of that action AND to voluntarily do it. Low intelligence means difficulty in understanding consequences, low wisdom means difficulty in managing impulses.

I would say most dumb people are evil. It takes effort to be good and you need wisdom and intelligence to understand things. I doubt many folks even with 18's in their mental ability scores understand the implications of their actions.

And I would never give dumb folks that don't understand things and can't control their impulses a pass. Some fighters ''shoot some arrows into a crowd''...you know 'for fun', and kill someone....that is an evil act, even if they were too dumb to know ''arrows shot from a bow might kill people''.



Second, cultural influence and lack of alternatives hamper the faculty of making moral choices.

If your mental stats are over 3, you have free will and can choose to not do evil. Just following peer pressures to do evil, makes you evil.






If a person is given the choice between killing an innocent or getting a sewered finger, he could kill the innocent without being Evil acting due fear of pain. It does not qualify as "free choice".

The problem is: you can always say someone did ''not have a choice'', but they always do.

[SangoProduction]

Here I go openly against some official material ( Champions of Ruin - which states cultural relativism does not make an action less evil ).

Perhaps this is because there are so many cases in modern times when people are trying to excuse inexcusable acts with cultural relativism (rape, murder, etc), but I would have to say: if you've embraced the culture that says you should kill people for not believing the same as you, or looking different, then it really doesn't matter what culture you are from, you are unacceptable - effectively evil.

If they were simply overpowered, and truly forced to do actions like that by others (not peer pressure, actually forced at least under threat of violence), then you could at least say they weren't acting of their own volition.

[Name1]

I would say most dumb people are evil. It takes effort to be good and you need wisdom and intelligence to understand things. I doubt many folks even with 18's in their mental ability scores understand the implications of their actions.

I'd say most dumb people are neutral, because it takes some effort to be evil too. And I have to say I know a lot of more... restricted people, and they aren't inherently evil. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are rather nice.


If your mental stats are over 3, you have free will and can choose to not do evil. Just following peer pressures to do evil, makes you evil.

Any creature that can act and has an Int score of 3 or higher can be evil. Insane people, by RAW, can't be evil, as they
lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. A creature with 1 Cha and 1 Wis can be sapient.



The problem is: you can always say someone did ''not have a choice'', but they always do.
Again, people that are legitimately insane (not just CStupid) may very well lack the ability to make a choice. Though in the example, you are right: The person getting threatened is making the conscious choice to do whatever, thus he is responsible for his actions. You need a damn good reason to not be guilty if you make a choice that impacts others (and no ladies, being drunk doesn't make everyone else evil).

[GrayDeath]

In its essence, Evil is selfish.

You do what your goals require, the consequences to others be damned.

Some Evil people might be quite pleasant (civil, friendly, cultured, etc) to be around (as long as you are neither in their way nor a ressource even true friendship/Love are not really unliekely), but once you are in any way relevant to their goals you either become a ressource to be exploited or an obstacle to be removed.

That is Evil.

[Karl Aegis]

You're the guy who sees what the Good guys are doing and think, "Hey, that's a pretty good idea. I want to do that full-time."

[2D8HP]

Granny Weatherwax: “Evil is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what evil is.”

Oats: “It’s a lot more complicated than that-”

Granny Weatherwax: “No. It ain’t. When people say things are more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”

Oats: “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes-”

Granny Weatherwax: “But they START with thinking about people as things.........."

[Red Fel]

http://i.imgur.com/gXETi.gif
Shh! Listen! They're going to say The Words!

[Calthropstu]

evil is the deliberate bringing of harm to others for the primary purpose being the bringing of self gain.
Evil ranges widely, and has many degrees. From kidnapping people and selling them as slaves, to stealing bread from starving children... to simply tossing a beehive into a crowd for laughs.
Nuetral would be turning a blind eye to all of that as long as it didn't directly affect you.
Evil is knowing something is wrong, and doing it anyways.

[Conradine]

The problem is: you can always say someone did ''not have a choice'', but they always do.

Fear and pain hamper rational reasoning stripping of freedom of choice.

[zergling.exe]

http://i.imgur.com/gXETi.gif
Shh! Listen! They're going to say The Words!

Well, since you are so patient...

Red Fel! Red Fel! Red Fel! Teach us the meaning of evil!

[Extra Anchovies]

Hey, a thread about Evil without any Red Fel in it yet! What a surprise. (And that's one, for those us who're counting)

Never mind that, I hit "preview post" and there he is. Speak of the devil...

First off, the easydamus alignment page (http://easydamus.com/alignment.html) is hands-down the best resource on alignment. It's worth reading in full.

Anyone who's Evil has an in-group. Sometimes it's just themselves, sometimes it's their family, sometimes their religion, or their entire species, but they have one. To Evil, anybody who's not in the in-group doesn't matter. They're expendable, they're justified collateral damage, they're obstacles. If doing what's best for the in-group means attacking something that's not in the in-group, Evil does it without thinking twice because only the in-group matters.

That's not to say that looking out for yourself or the things you value is itself evil, though. What makes you Evil is when you take actions to benefit your in-group even when you know that those actions will cause harm outside your in-group.

Edit: 2D8HP's example from Terry Prachett's work is another very nice look at the concept of evil. Prachett's work as a whole is a very nice look at a lot of things, really.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd say most dumb people are neutral, because it takes some effort to be evil too. And I have to say I know a lot of more... restricted people, and they aren't inherently evil. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are rather nice.

Maybe not ''inherently'' evil, but still evil. A lot of evil takes no effort, and very often doing nothing is evil. And a lot of restricted people are very evil as they are very selfish and simply have no empathy or awareness of how anything they do effects other people.


Actually, the large majority of modern law system do not deem someone accountable of actions done under direct threat of harm.

That is just mans sadly flawed laws though, not the cosmic alignment rules. Though, sure, the cosmos might forgive you too.

[Name1]

Maybe not ''inherently'' evil, but still evil. A lot of evil takes no effort, and very often doing nothing is evil. And a lot of restricted people are very evil as they are very selfish and simply have no empathy or awareness of how anything they do effects other people.

Ah... I mean, yeah, I guess if that's the train of thought, all disabled people are evil, since their existence basically costs the state money said state couldn't spent on other projects... I suppose it makes sense when you look at it from that angle.


That is just mans sadly flawed laws though, not the cosmic alignment rules. Though, sure, the cosmos might forgive you too.

That is actually true. In fact, if you look at most nonevil races, it speaks for itself that the god of humanity is the only evil deity amongst the racial deities of the setting.

[Zanos]

Maybe not ''inherently'' evil, but still evil. A lot of evil takes no effort, and very often doing nothing is evil. And a lot of restricted people are very evil as they are very selfish and simply have no empathy or awareness of how anything they do effects other people.
Could you give me an example of when doing nothing is Evil? The only example I could think of is not intervening in an Evil act, but that doesn't make you Evil.

I will say that this thread has largely ignored one aspect of Evil that I touched on briefly, and that's of people who know what they're doing is wrong, but continue to do so for what they believe are the right reasons. Due to the way D&D morality works, "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few" is often an Evil mindset because it involves you being directly responsible for deaths. Letting something happen is neutral, but contorting events so you get to choose who dies makes the action Evil. In the trolley problem, pulling the lever to switch the train is an Evil act, by D&D standards.

[Red Fel]

Well, since you are so patient...

Red Fel! Red Fel! Red Fel! Teach us the meaning of evil!

http://33.media.tumblr.com/15dc7c04347e0a7f79a1b7675c3e446d/tumblr_nj1z40YLKJ1soplvbo1_250.gif

What's said is said.


In a recent thread I made, people consistently made points about my lawful evil character they all seemed to over stress the evil that feels so Saturday morning cartoon. To that end I wonder how people typically define evil. Please discuss, whether that be citations or examples.

Hello, friend. I've brought you a gift (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil).

My definition, as expressed therein, is simple: Evil is about power. It is about power as both a means and an end.

Good is about helping others, however you define help. Chaos is about freedom. Law is about order and tradition. But Evil is about power. And usually, it's about power over others.

Power can help people. Power can free you. Power can create order. But the focus is the same. I will have the power. Maybe it's physical or magical power. Maybe it's political power or influence. Maybe it's financial power, control of trade routes and monopolies. But Evil is about having power, and using it to acquire more. It's about the idea that might makes right - that the strong deserve to lord over the weak. After all, if the weak were stronger, they would be lording over those weaker than they. It is natural law. It is the order of the universe, the ebb and flow of the tides. Massive planets exert gravity over tiny moons. Lions prey on antelope. Big kids take candy from small kids. It is the most basic, primal rule of nature that the strong should have, and the weak should yield.

That, in its innermost core, is Evil. At least according to one expert.


In my particular case, I chose that evil meant her main focus was a selfish one. She abuses systems to get what she wants, often at the expense of others or even the public at large. That said, while she certainly would be okay with murder, she wouldn't do it unless absolutely necessary. She values human life as a resource and favors as currency, so deleting a market share is wasteful if not straight up silly. She will sell information to awful people that lead to assassinations or even wars but killing little Timmy because he scuffed her boot is not my characters style.

That can still be quite Evil. Preferring not to kill doesn't make one Good, it makes one principled - which is a fine thing to have in a villain.

A number of people in this thread have already made points that I would, like:
Evil in D&D is arbitrary, not subjective.
Evil is primarily selfish.
Evil is ruthlessly pragmatic.
Evil isn't necessarily mean, anymore than Good is nice.
All good points. I don't need to get into details.


First, I think that most creatures with Intelligence and / or Wisdom lower than 10 would be for the most Neutral. Doing a Good or an Evil action require, in my opinion, to clearly understand the implications of that action AND to voluntarily do it. Low intelligence means difficulty in understanding consequences, low wisdom means difficulty in managing impulses.

My issue with this isn't with the reasoning - I agree, one must be able to reason in order to choose between Good and Evil. It's why Animals are generally Neutral, and why the fact that Mindless Undead are Evil is an annoying bit of non-logic.

My issue instead is with the number. "Lower than 10?" If 10 is the average intelligence - not stupid, but not brilliant - then you're basically saying that anyone "below average" is incapable of reasoning morality or controlling their impulses. I disagree with this quite strongly.

A creature with Int lower than 3 is an Animal, incapable of complex thought. A creature with Wis lower than 3 basically has the impulse control of an infant. I'll readily acknowledge that such creatures ought to be Neutral. But lower than 10? That's incredibly insulting.


Second, cultural influence and lack of alternatives hamper the faculty of making moral choices.

In reality, perhaps. That's a debated topic. In D&D, no. Arbitrary morality means that Evil is Evil is Evil. The fact that every Drow is raised to believe that males are inferior, slavery is a way of life, and literal and figurative backstabbing is an ideal social order, does not make them unable to choose Good. It makes it harder, perhaps - certainly, a Good Drow in Menzoberranzan would be in constant danger for his or her life - but not impossible, and as such, such creatures are still subject to the same moral rules that govern the D&D cosmos. The fact that being Good is hard doesn't mean you won't wind up Evil for doing Evil things.


Here I go openly against some official material ( Champions of Ruin - which states cultural relativism does not make an action less evil ).

Here you go openly against RAW, and as such your definitions apply to your table.


Third, coercition partially to totally hamper the chances of making moral choice.

There is a substantial difference between coercion and domination, again particularly in D&D arbitrary morality. A person who is coerced is still making a decision, albeit one influenced by threat or duress. Do the wrong thing or a loved one dies, or your family home is foreclosed, or something, and you're still choosing to do the wrong thing. People on these boards frequently emphasize that if your choices are (1) do the wrong thing or (2) let an innocent (or yourself) suffer, a Good character chooses option #3.

Now, total domination - where one's willpower is absent, e.g. by magic, is another issue. You can get a pass on things you didn't do voluntarily. But coercion, again, is a case where doing Good means doing the hard thing; that doesn't get you a pass.


If a person is given the choice between killing an innocent or getting a sewered finger, he could kill the innocent without being Evil acting due fear of pain. It does not qualify as "free choice".

It most certainly does. He is placing his own safety over that of an innocent - that is textbook selfishness. That's our game, chief.


An evil person may even be constrained by their conscience at times. There's no rule that says they have to be doing evil all the time. ​Just more than they do good.

Not even that. Evil isn't a balancing act - you don't have to check your quota to make sure you have more check marks in one column than the other. What matters is your nature - are you the sort of person who would act in an Evil way, or a Good way, if the appropriate situation presented itself?


Actually, the large majority of modern law system do not deem someone accountable of actions done under direct threat of harm.

One, not true. Two, real-world laws aren't generally an acceptable topic for discussion. Three, the large majority of modern law systems have little or no place in a fantasy game with objective morality defined by cosmic constants.

[Falcii]

I have to wonder if part of the seemingly wide variety of definitions comes from the fact that a 2 axis system is ineffective at describing multifaceted individuals. I have had a couple conversations with my DM about a third access (passion v reason) or the failings of neutral as a descriptor (are the neutral because of ease or because the conflict truly balances out?)

We also refer to a few specific alignments as extraaxis alignments (**** evil is basically the pinnacle of all destruction and malice, lawful stupid does things only for the lols, which in a way is a moral code, lawful purple is someone who's actions are solely devoted to a strict moral code whose intricacies are so vast and particular and often convoluted that to the outside world they'd seem chaotic.)

[Conradine]

That is just mans sadly flawed laws though,


It's a very big claim to say actions done under duress can be evil.

It implies that giving up informations under torture is an evil and morally accountable act.



My issue instead is with the number. "Lower than 10?" If 10 is the average intelligence - not stupid, but not brilliant - then you're basically saying that anyone "below average" is incapable of reasoning morality or controlling their impulses. I disagree with this quite strongly.


This is a blatant straw men of my argument. I wrote that is unlikely ( "less probable" ) than a creature with intelligence below average is not Neutral, I've not wrote "anyone below average in incapable".

I even wrote that :


That does not mean a character with Int and Wis 6 cannot be Good or Evil, but I find it very unlikey.


Please, avoid to misrepresent my argument in future.



It most certainly does. He is placing his own safety over that of an innocent - that is textbook selfishness. That's our game, chief.

An action done due fear of physical mutilation is not "textbook selfishness", and - let me remind that - the overwhelming majority of law systems recognize that as a fact.

[Falcii]

Also omg I feel genuinely honored to have red fel grace my thread lol. Welcome to the party, thanks for coming! I am currently taking notes.

[Name1]

It's a very big claim to say actions done under duress can be evil.

It implies that giving up informations under torture is an evil and morally accountable act.

An action done due fear of physical mutilation is not "textbook selfishness", and - let me remind that - the overwhelming majority of law systems recognize that as a fact.

I think we have a misunderstanding here: These actions are Evil, but not necessarily evil. See, D&D simply doesn't care why you decide to get that innocent peasant on the other side of the street killed, it cares that the peasant dies and that it's your fault.

Maybe you wanted money, maybe you wanted to keep your hand. The real-world laws care, yet alignment simply doesn't.
It clearly is selfish to rat out others for my own benefit, even if that benefit is to remain unmutilated. That doesn't mean I wouldn't do it, but the fact that I would do it doesn't mean the system is borked for calling me selfish, but that I'm being selfish. So while it might be acceptable in the real world and thus not evil, that doesn't make it a non-Evil act.

It's an Occam's razor kinda deal: It's not complicated, it's just uncaring and cruel simplicity we don't want to accept.

[Conradine]

From a logical viewpoint:

the prospect of financial loss is not the same of the prospect of imminent pain and / or mutilation, disfigurement ecc.
Hormones, adrenaline and other chemical are released, mental clarity is hampered. This become much more true after the actual torture begins. Survival instinct easily overcome rational thought.


From a strictly legalistic game rules viewpoint:

If the torturer pass his Intimidation check with threats ( if you are bound and surrounded by torture implements ) or actual torture, and you are not immune to Fear, you accomply the torturer's request. From a mechanical viewpoint torture = Domination = non voluntary act.

Source: Book of Vile Darkness


From a theological narrative viewpoint:

Pelor teaches actions done due starvation or desperation are not considered evil. Torture is worst than starvation.
Pelor is the most authoritative source about Good and Evil in core D&D since it's the major NG (" Pure Good" ) deity of the setting.

Source: Dragon Magazine 346, Core Beliefs - Pelor






It clearly is selfish to rat out others for my own benefit,

When a torturer address a circular saw to your binded wrist and you feel the bite of the blade on your unprotected skin, and pain explodes in your brain so hard that you pray to be death rather than suffering that way,

in that moment you don't make the conscious, deliberate decision to trade another person benefit for your own benefit. You go mad for the pain and fear and do whatever it takes to make it stop.




The fact that every Drow is raised to believe that males are inferior, slavery is a way of life, and literal and figurative backstabbing is an ideal social order, does not make them unable to choose Good

Drows are higly intelligent creatures with average impulse control, much more cultured than average and fully able to understand both consequences and alternatives.
Orcs are for the most adrenalinic brutes, illiterate, culturally isolated ( since pillaging does not makes for much cultural contact ), with below average intellect and short lifespans. For these reason, I would say that its probable - not certain - that an orc raider tends more toward CN than CE.




See, D&D simply doesn't care why you decide to get that innocent peasant on the other side of the street killed, it cares that the peasant dies and that it's your fault.

According to the Book of Vile Darkness, if a Paladin causes a rock falling while escaping owlbears, and these rocks kills a family of commoners on their trail, this is not an evil action unless the Paladin somehow noticed the risk.

[Zanos]

Now, total domination - where one's willpower is absent, e.g. by magic, is another issue. You can get a pass on things you didn't do voluntarily. But coercion, again, is a case where doing Good means doing the hard thing; that doesn't get you a pass.
Interestingly, many classes do not get a pass, and it requires an atonement spell for them to regain their powers.

[Name1]

Oh, I never claimed not doing Evil when it's convenient is easy. It's pretty hard, actually. But that doesn't change the fact that in D&D-terms, there is no "e for effort"-badge.

It doesn't matter how you rationalize it, because alignment acts on a cosmic constant, that, like I said, couldn't care less about your current situation. If you are a starving child and steal bread, you stole and stealing is evil, your survival be damned.

From a mechanical standpoint... Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read BoVD in some time, but I think torture is still your plain intimidate (even if it piles up boni rather fast), which means you shift to friendly for the purpose of actios taken. The same thing could be done with a successful diplomacy check offering money as an incentive.


When a torturer address a circular saw to your binded wrist and you feel the bite of the blade on your unprotected skin, and pain explodes in your brain so hard that you pray to be death rather than suffering that way,

in that moment you don't make the conscious, deliberate decision to trade another person benefit for your own benefit. You go mad for the pain and fear and do whatever it takes to make it stop.

Yeah, I would rat them out, I already admitted that much. Because I'm not good. Being Good, in D&D terms, is a hard road I'm just not cut out to walk if I can't soldier through this. Which I can't. Thus, I will take the Evil action to betray someone for my own benefit. This doesn't make me Evil, a single action is rarely, if ever, able to do so, but that doesn't make my action any less Evil.

And what Pelor teaches... Well, I suppose the Burning Hatred does things it's own way :P


According to the Book of Vile Darkness, if a Paladin causes a rock falling while escaping owlbears, and these rocks kills a family of commoners on their trail, this is not an evil action unless the Paladin somehow noticed the risk.

Oh, I am aware of that. That's why I said "decide", which is what you do when you make that choice.

[Extra Anchovies]

Regarding coercion and "choosing" to let evil happen, ask yourself this:

Would you kill a stranger if it were the only way to prevent your death?

For an example with more context, imagine you are on a sinking ship. Only you and one other person, who you have never interacted with and who is of similar age, apparent gender, and apparent ethnicity to you, remain on deck. There is one seat left in the only remaining life-boat - if both of you try to squeeze aboard, the life-boat will sink and all aboard will drown. You are closer to the life-boat than the other person on the deck. Would you rush to the boat to take the last seat?

If you answered 'yes' (and I know I sure-as-hell did), congrats: you're Evil under any system that considers people to be morally culpable for actions taken under duress. Thus, any such system shouldn't really be using the word "Evil", because when such a system says "Evil", what it really means is "self-interested". When a person is presented with a set of options, one of which causes them more harm than any other option, they cannot be reasonably expected to take the option which causes them the most harm regardless of its or any other option's effects on other people. Any functional system of morality must be constructed around this fact.


I have to wonder if part of the seemingly wide variety of definitions comes from the fact that a 2 axis system is ineffective at describing multifaceted individuals.

It's certainly ineffective if you stick with the stupid good vs evil, law vs chaos nomenclature. That's loaded language if I've ever seen it. Much better would be to use the easydamus "real alignments (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html)" axes of Honorable/Practical/Independent and Humane/Realistic/Determined.


I have had a couple conversations with my DM about a third access (passion v reason)

Sounds like "chaos" and "law" to me.


the failings of neutral as a descriptor (are the neutral because of ease or because the conflict truly balances out?)

Oh, I definitely agree. "Neutral" in the D&D alignment system is often portrayed as bad, because it's halfway towards evil. Consider the Slaadi - ostensibly chaotic neutral, but they're clearly designed as antagonistic figures.

[Conradine]

If you are a starving child and steal bread, you stole and stealing is evil, your survival be damned.

Your position is ( in my opinion ) so extreme that I'll write only a thing, from a game viewpoint:

according to Dragon Magazine 346 - Core Belief,

Pelor do not agree on your definition of evil.

[Name1]

Any functional system of morality must be constructed around this fact.

Good thing we are talking alignment then^^


Your position is ( in my opinion ) so extreme that I'll write only a thing, from a game viewpoint:

according to Dragon Magazine 346 - Core Belief,

Pelor do not agree on your definition of evil.

Yeah, being Good is, at least in my games, borderline impossible, because it has a very high standard.

And... I'm not sure if the Burning Hatreds 2nd party idea of Good is what I'd want to follow

[Conradine]

Guys, do you realize that if giving up informations under torture, steal food when starving and rushing to safety when panicked are Evil actions then 99% of human population is Evil?

Evil is about malice, not about blind survival instinct.




Yeah, being Good is, at least in my games, borderline impossible, because it has a very high standard.



We are not talking about Good actions, we are talking about Evil and non evil actions. Although not good, actions done under extreme duress lack the necessary malice to be evil.

About Pelor... well, it's "the" god of Good in core d&d, so if we ignore him I don't know who can be deemed authoritative.

[Name1]

Guys, do you realize that if giving up informations under torture, steal food when starving and rushing to safety when panicked are Evil actions then 99% of human population is Evil?

I actually do. History has proven that we humans... we are capable of some messed up stuff. If we look at the conditions we leave 3rd world countries in... As a person, I just feel that declaring things I do not to be evil for the sake that them being evil would color me to be... well, evil... it just devalues the concept of Good.


About Pelor... well, it's "the" god of Good in core d&d, so if we ignore him I don't know who can be deemed authoritative.

I guess... I mean, it's DragonMagazine, so it's more of a 2nd party thing IMO, and I always felt that it wasn't considered official stuff on these forums as well. If what you quote is considered rock-solid RAW... It would be something I couldn't agree on and which would fly at my table as much as PunPun, but if DragonMagazine really is solid RAW, I suppose I have to give that point to you.

In either case, the question was how I define Evil, and I've given my answer.

[Conradine]

Personally, I find the concept of Evil devalued if actions done without malice are included.
Evil is more convenient than Good, sure. It's easier, too. But it's not so easy that you can do it without a deliberate choice, nor it's something that you can be forced to do.

It took me quite a while of real, direct action before being able to honestly say "At that point, I can rightfully define myself (neutral) Evil".

[Darth Ultron]

Would you kill a stranger if it were the only way to prevent your death?

If you answered 'yes' (and I know I sure-as-hell did), congrats: you're Evil under any system that considers people to be morally culpable for actions taken under duress. Thus, any such system shouldn't really be using the word "Evil", because when such a system says "Evil", what it really means is "self-interested". When a person is presented with a set of options, one of which causes them more harm than any other option, they cannot be reasonably expected to take the option which causes them the most harm regardless of its or any other option's effects on other people. Any functional system of morality must be constructed around this fact.

This is the big split between Good and Evil. See, there ARE people that would let the other person have the seat and die. And they are really not all that rare. And it's not that the person who gives up the seat is unreasonable, they are just good. You can't ''be good'' for the little things like donating money to a charity and then not do good when it's life or death, do an evil act that kills someone as you ''think it's reasonable'' and then go right back to pretending to be good.


Guys, do you realize that if giving up information under torture, steal food when starving and rushing to safety when panicked are Evil actions then 99% of human population is Evil?

Evil is about malice, not about blind survival instinct.


It's a bit more like ''40%'' (a little over a third), but yes: there are a lot of evil people in the world.

Say a person is starving. Is doing the evil act of stealing really the only way they can feed themselves? Well, no, of course not! They can do plenty of other things. But when a person says ''well I have other options and choices, but I choose the evil one'', then they are evil.


I actually do. History has proven that we humans... we are capable of some messed up stuff. If we look at the conditions we leave 3rd world countries in...


There is plenty of evil in 1st world countries too.

[Name1]

Personally, I find the concept of Evil devalued if actions done without malice are included.
Evil is more convenient than Good, sure. It's easier, too. But it's not so easy that you can do it without a deliberate choice, nor it's something that you can be forced to do.

It took me quite a while of real, direct action before being able to honestly say "At that point, I can rightfully define myself (neutral) Evil".


:smallsigh: ....As much as it hurts my huge Ego to admit this, you have a good point there (and while I'm at it, I'm sorry, I can be a **** if I get too much into a discussion).

Still... At what precise point is it malice? Or rather, at which point does need become want?
I mean, I can get the child part, even if it's a bit weird (seeing survival as an absolute need, I mean).
My question now is: Is this based upon loss being neutral (if you stand to loose something, betrayal is valid) and gain being Evil (if you stand to gain something that improves your situation, betryal is Evil)?

I mean, it kinda feels like that from your explaination: Loss of a finger or your life justifies it, while gain of money or a graft (say, to replace your arm) doesn't, right?

[Conradine]

Is doing the evil act of stealing really the only way they can feed themselves? Well, no, of course not!

Often the answer is "of course yes!".

And, by the way, if there is another option but you are unaware of it, you have not that option.


" Your honor, the accused could had open the bank vault and let the civils inside; instead he choosed to not open it and let the robbers kills ten people in retaliation. He's clearly accomplice in mass murder. "

" But your honor, I didn't know the vault combination code! "

" No matter, you're still guilty!


This Good / Evil system sounds like a kangaroo court.



there are a lot of evil people in the world.


I agree.

But we are not thinking about the same people.




You can't ''be good'' for the little things like donating money to a charity and then not do good when it's life or death, do an evil act that kills someone as you ''think it's reasonable'' and then go right back to pretending to be good.

Ok, not Good, but at least Neutral.
Benefit is not the same of threat. Necessity is not the same of desire.

To rat out under torture is not the same than do it for money or for a reduced sentence for crimes you actually committ.
To steal bread while starving is not the same to steal an IPod or luxuries.
To kill a person due fear of death is not the same to kill for money or fun.


Now, usually I write "in my opinion" but I thought, mabye erroneusly, that these concept were quite universally agreed.

[Conradine]

I mean, it kinda feels like that from your explaination: Loss of a finger or your life justifies it, while gain of money or a graft (say, to replace your arm) doesn't, right?


Yes.

If a person put me in dire danger and I managed to survive, I would search revenge if he did it for money or ( worse ) for fun. I would forgive him if he did that because he had a gun on his head or he was being tortured ( and search revenge against those who coerced him ).


Well, no, that is what I would have done years ago. Actually I would search revenge on everyone involved.
But I am Evil.





Still... At what precise point is it malice? Or rather, at which point does need become want?
I mean, I can get the child part, even if it's a bit weird (seeing survival as an absolute need, I mean).
My question now is: Is this based upon loss being neutral (if you stand to loose something, betrayal is valid) and gain being Evil (if you stand to gain something that improves your situation, betryal is Evil)?


Malice is about the mind.
Survival instinct is about the body ( adrenaline, hormones, endorphines and the like ).

Rage can blind a person, but it's possible to control it. Lust do not strip you of control, no matter how much some people may claim to have been provoked.

But fear...
fear is horrible. You indulge in rage or lust. These things gives satisfaction.
But fear? It's a torture. It deprives you of strenght, sap your lucidity, dehumanize you into a shell of yourself.
You don't choose to be overwhelmed by fear, you are a victim of it.



Desire is about pleasure. Need is about pain.

You desire a pretty girl. You need water.

[Name1]

Yes.

If a person put me in dire danger and I managed to survive, I would search revenge if he did it for money or ( worse ) for fun. I would forgive him if he did that because he had a gun on his head or he was being tortured ( and search revenge against those who coerced him ).



Ah... That actually helps explain a lot. So you are shifting the focus from the actual result (the attack on you) the the reason for said attack (payment/blackmail). I can see where you are coming from now^^

[Conradine]

More the emotional state of the person when he does the action.

I experienced extreme rage and I can tell you, I was still full in control of my actions.

I experienced extreme fear: I felt dissociated, as I was out of my body watching myself. I fractured both my hands punching a wooden door to escape a building during an earthquake and vaguely remember trampling some equally panicked people in the run. I can swear you: I didn't "freely choose" to do that.

[2D8HP]

"At that point, I can rightfully define myself (neutral) Evil".No Murder Hobos are Good. Given an infinite timeline, all Murder Hobos trend to Neutral Evil. (http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/2014/08/31/on-mid-medieval-economics-murder-hoboing-and-100gp/)

[Niek]

Good does things for You. It is fundamentally selfless, and does not demand reward for the services it provides.

Neutral does things for Us. It can be myopic to one degree or another, but it always considers the group its part of beyond itself.

Evil does things for Me. Any benefit or harm to others is incidental, the only one for whom decisions are made is the self.


Law does things because it Must. There is a duty, a code, and to turn away from the call would be a great dishonor even if the circumstances are inconvenient.

Neutral does things because it simply Will. It follows its nature, perhaps with some hesitation.

Chaotic does things because it Can. The opportunity presents itself, and is seized upon if it will advance the cause.

[Darth Ultron]

And, by the way, if there is another option but you are unaware of it, you have not that option.

" Your honor, the accused could had open the bank vault and let the civils inside; instead he choosed to not open it and let the robbers kills ten people in retaliation. He's clearly accomplice in mass murder. "


Taking the evil easy way, makes you evil, even if your too dumb to not be able to think of another way.

If the guy did not have the code, then he could not open the vault....even if he wanted too. So he is in on way an accomplice.

But lets say he did have the code and was all like ''I won't open the door, go ahead and kill all those people''. That is evil: people are more important then money(even more so insured bank money from a multimillionaire dollar company. A lot of banks do even have the rule of ''just give them the money'' too(including the marked bills and/or dye pack/gps locater).




To rat out under torture is not the same than do it for money or for a reduced sentence for crimes you actually committ.
To steal bread while starving is not the same to steal an IPod or luxuries.
To kill a person due fear of death is not the same to kill for money or fun.


Now, usually I write "in my opinion" but I thought, mabye erroneusly, that these concept were quite universally agreed.

Well, torture is being forced to tell and vs a person getting money or a deal is not on the same page.

All stealing is wrong and evil, it does not matter why. It's simple:don't steal. Find another way. And if your too dumb to think of another way...ask for help.

And killing a person is always leaning towards evil. Can you just kill someone that scares you? Of course not! Even if you did, somehow, fear for your life...you could still just knock them out, tie them up or get away.....and not kill.

Well, it looks like your saying ''a hungry person can commit any crime to feed themsevles and not be evil'', and that is a very odd stand. So you'd be ok with a hungry person stealing bread? Well, how about a stake? What is your dollar amount to make it go from ''non evil non crime'' to ''evil crime''? $10? $20? And does the food matter? You say bread is ok, but it there any type of food that ''crosses the line?" Like say the hungry person steals Red Bulls and ice cream, do they still get a pass from you? What if the hungry person steals cigarettes or cell phones? Is that a crime and evil as they did not steal food?

[TheifofZ]

I think there's something fundamental you don't grasp.
To quote; "There is always a choice. It's rarely an easy or a nice choice. But there's always a choice."
If a man puts a gun to another man's head and tells him to kill 3 children or die, the man being threatened has a choice to make:
He can put the children's lives above his own, and die, or he can choose to put his life above others, kill 3 children and live.
If you think that because he is threatened he doesn't have that choice, then you are wrong.
Hell, the Book of Exalted Deeds is clear on the point; Exalted Good characters are expected to be willing to endure any suffering, even their own death, to avoid committing any evil action.

If you're starving in a wealthy nation like america, there are other options besides stealing. Trash is the most popular, but small rodents or begging are also options.
Starving in a 3rd world country? There are other choices, too. Even less pleasant than trash or rodents, and people choose these every day.
Again, the choice is always there.

And it's one thing to make a choice on things you can do, but don't understand you can do; or a choice between something you can do and something you cannot do.
If a man doesn't know the passcode to open a vault so that he can hide people inside and save them, then that isn't a choice he can make. He CAN make the choice to try to hide and save himself, or try to stop the murderers and risk his own life to do so.

The nature of Good is self sacrificing; putting others before yourself. The nature of Evil is selfish; putting yourself before others.
As soon as you say 'threatened', you're avoiding culpability through excuse. Being faced with a harsh choice, like being threatened or starving, is exactly the time when those that are truly Good will choose to suffer so that others might be better off. That's what being Good is about.

Most humans are either slightly evil, or neutral; they regularly choose both selfish and selfless actions. The number of truly Good people? Comparatively small, because in this day and age, the number of people willing to truly make sacrifices to help others is fairly low.

[Darth Ultron]

I experienced extreme rage and I can tell you, I was still full in control of my actions.

I experienced extreme fear

You might note not everyone feels the same. You can control your rage and loose control in fear. Not everyone is like that.

Like say you were on a slinking ship. The ship is filling with water and will sink soon. So you and the others on board run to the life boats. If you run over and get on a life boat..your fine. And neutral or evil. If say some people fall or are hurt or need help...and you run by them to save yourself...your fine. And neutral or evil. Of course, a good person will stop and help anyway they can, even if it's just one person. The really evil person is the one closing and locking doors so ''too many'' people don't ''crowd'' the lifeboat. And there is a bit of forgiveness for the good people that are ''too scared to do anything but run'' or are ''to slow, dumb or hapless'' to help anyway or are ''saving their family''.


I think there's something fundamental you don't grasp.
To quote; "There is always a choice. It's rarely an easy or a nice choice. But there's always a choice."

Very true.



Most humans are either slightly evil, or neutral; they regularly choose both selfish and selfless actions. The number of truly Good people? Comparatively small, because in this day and age, the number of people willing to truly make sacrifices to help others is fairly low.

This is very dependent on where you live. A LOT of America, outside the inner cities and elitist neighborhoods, is quite good. There are a lot of good people around in ''middle America''.

This goes over to the ''media'' thread elsewhere: the media/news makes things out to be worse then they are....

[Conradine]

All stealing is wrong and evil, it does not matter why. It's simple:don't steal. Find another way. And if your too dumb to think of another way...ask for help.


Help can not be avaiable. Or those which you ask for help can give you misdirections or bad ideas.
Basically the concept is that: if you don't know an option exists, you have not that option. Period.
No matter how much easy is to pull a lever to save the princess, no matter how much in plain sight it is: the lever, pratically speaking, do not exist untill you notice it.

About all stealing being wrong, Good aligned thief exists in D&D and in Fiendish Codex : Tyrant of the Nine Hells is specified that stealing from the needy is a corrupt act ( one of those who can send you to the Lower Planes.



Even if you did, somehow, fear for your life...you could still just knock them out, tie them up or get away.....and not kill.


It depends upon the situation. I agree that if the other guy has a knife and you a Magic Missle wand you can just shoot him on a knee.
But if you're down, oozing with your own blood and the other guy is beating you into a pulp, you use whatever means you have at hand. You can have no time to think, or just a split second.

Again, it's about premeditation.

If I take a walk in the wrong part of the town with a trolling attitude, and I get attacked, and I kill someone, I have done an Evil action?

Yes.

When I killed the guy in "self defense"?

No, when I, at my inn room, coldly decided to go searching troubles carrying a Missle Wand with me.




Well, it looks like your saying ''a hungry person can commit any crime to feed themsevles and not be evil'', and that is a very odd stand. So you'd be ok with a hungry person stealing bread? Well, how about a stake? What is your dollar amount to make it go from ''non evil non crime'' to ''evil crime''? $10? $20? And does the food matter? You say bread is ok, but it there any type of food that ''crosses the line?" Like say the hungry person steals Red Bulls and ice cream, do they still get a pass from you? What if the hungry person steals cigarettes or cell phones? Is that a crime and evil as they did not steal food?

Desire is about pleasure.
Need is about pain.

Amount do not matter, motivations and mental state matters. Also circumstances.

To choose stealing over going to a charity / hospital / church to be helped over petty pride is a choice ( an evil choice ).

To steal food because no one will give you even a piece of bread, or worst because beggars are beaten to an inch of their life or worst by the guards, that is not a choice. At least, not a free choice.

To steal luxuries ( cigarettes are luxuries ) means stealing for pleasure ( Evil action ).



Hell, the Book of Exalted Deeds is clear on the point; Exalted Good characters are expected to be willing to endure any suffering, even their own death, to avoid committing any evil action.

I agree, but Exalted Good characters are saints and martyrs. I am talking about who deserves the Evil Alignment.



If a man puts a gun to another man's head and tells him to kill 3 children or die, the man being threatened has a choice to make:
He can put the children's lives above his own, and die, or he can choose to put his life above others, kill 3 children and live.
If you think that because he is threatened he doesn't have that choice, then you are wrong.


He has a choice if he can keep himself collected and lucid enough to think clearly.
If he panics , and it's really easy to panic with a gun to the head, his freedom of choice is gone.

Even if he choose to put his survival first, I would not hastily call him "evil" expecially if he's wrecked by the actions he's forced to do.

A clearly Evil character would kill those children without remorse ( or with really little ).



If you're starving in a wealthy nation like america, there are other options besides stealing. Trash is the most popular, but small rodents or begging are also options.
Starving in a 3rd world country? There are other choices, too. Even less pleasant than trash or rodents, and people choose these every day.


I agree that in a wealthy nation there are ( often ) alternatives.

About third world nation, I never experienced starvation ( which is not "hunger", it's when your body slowly and painfully digest itself, but I could safely guess it can easily strip a person of clarity.



The nature of Good is self sacrificing; putting others before yourself. The nature of Evil is selfish; putting yourself before others.
As soon as you say 'threatened', you're avoiding culpability through excuse. Being faced with a harsh choice, like being threatened or starving, is exactly the time when those that are truly Good will choose to suffer so that others might be better off. That's what being Good is about.


I agree that Good is about self sacrifice.

I don't agree that Evil is, or can be, about survival.

[Darth Ultron]

Help can not be avaiable. Or those which you ask for help can give you misdirections or bad ideas.

It's true, life does have lots of problems. But again it's simple: good finds another way to do something that does no harm. Evil is doing whatever you want, even if it does harm.



About all stealing being wrong, Good aligned thief exists in D&D and in Fiendish Codex : Tyrant of the Nine Hells is specified that stealing from the needy is a corrupt act ( one of those who can send you to the Lower Planes.

Not ''all'' stealing is wrong. It's not wrong, for example, to steal back something that was stolen from you. And not all stealing is evil. If you take an apple from an orchard your not evil incarnate.





Again, it's about premeditation.

Circumstances do matter, but it's really only the extremes. It's not evil to kill in self defense, but that is the far extreme. The rest of the time you need to find another way.




He has a choice if he can keep himself collected and lucid enough to think clearly.
If he panics , and it's really easy to panic with a gun to the head, his freedom of choice is gone.

Even if he choose to put his survival first, I would not hastily call him "evil" expecially if he's wrecked by the actions he's forced to do.

A clearly Evil character would kill those children without remorse ( or with really little ).

But you can't just say ''if someone panics'' or ''is anyway effected by anything'' really, then good and evil don't matter. If you do evil while ''panicked'' your still doing evil.

And sure the guy with a gun to his head that is forced to do something evil is not evil as they are being forced to do it. But they still have the choice not to do it...and die, true, but good is about sacrifice. Once upon a time the Enterprise-D was trapped in space and an alien threaded to kill half the crew purely out of curiosity. The Good Answer: Blow up the ship so the alien can kill no one.

[Conradine]

The really evil person is the one closing and locking doors so ''too many'' people don't ''crowd'' the lifeboat.


It's what I would do ( if no one see me, or else I would risk lynching / death penalty when rescued ) if I could think clearly. This would be the most useful and ruthlessly pragmatical

But I could don't too that. I could be too scared to do the Wrong thing and just run to the lifeboat.
I would "choose" to do that? No , I would be too panicked to do my "real" choice, the one I would do with a cold mind.

You see? Fear can hamper the ability to make choice. Both Good and Evil.
Not always, but it can happen.




Evil is doing whatever you want, even if it does harm.


I agree.
But to want something, for me, is a more serious thing that simply doing it.
And I don't agree that human beings have perfect self control and can always do clear, lucid choices under duress.


Listen, if I injected hallucinogenetics drugs into an hostage, and that hostage killed someone believing to be fighting demons, that person is clearly not accountable.

Extreme fear, extreme pain and prolonged starvation make the body release a flow of chemicals into the blood stream. It's no different than being drugged.


---


Well...
guys, mabye I'm taking this thread too seriously.

Sooorry. :smallbiggrin:



I consider "true Evil" something not exceedingly rare but also not so common.

As BOVD says, evil "is not naughty, ill tempered or misunderstood. It is black hearted, selfish, cruel, bloodthirsty and malevolent ". Something very, very serious.
Also, I consider it something that cannot be imposed or stumled on, but a free, deliberate and clear choice.


For me, to be Evil is not enough to think evil, and not even to act evil.

Is to understand you are acting Evil, that you are causing harm, with full knowledge of other options and little to no coercition, and do it anyway and to like it, consciously suppressing any feeling of remorse untill you feel none left.

[Seto]

Philosophical answer: Evil escapes any abstract definition you could try to use. In fact, part of what makes it Evil is that ultimately, we cannot make sense of it - it resists being understood or conceptualized as such. It can only be witnessed and approached through examples or incomplete statements.

Roleplaying answer: I find that finding a particular way of being Evil that results from your character's personality, as you did, is the best way to go. No character can completely embody Evil (or even a particular Evil alignment), because it's so diverse and resourceful, capable of either going with timeless classics or constantly reinventing itself. (Whereas I surmise, however carefully, that a character could embody LG or NG in a meaningful sense). As others have said, one of the most relatable/believable sources of Evil is selfishness, and putting oneself ahead of others. Why? Because most of the time it's normal to try to look out for oneself, and sometimes it's hard to tell the line, or easy to excuse crossing it.
Other sources of Evil include (but are not limited to) refusal to think/act for oneself (mostly LE), inability to act out of empathy/concern, experimentation to challenge yourself and society (CE), adherence to Evil values in which you've been raised... And possibly devotion to the concept of Evil, which theoretically makes sense in-universe, but I personally find it difficult to make a relatable character with this motivation.

[Red Fel]

This is a blatant straw men of my argument. I wrote that is unlikely ( "less probable" ) than a creature with intelligence below average is not Neutral, I've not wrote "anyone below average in incapable".

Not a strawman, but a misinterpretation. I'll grant you.

Funny how you immediately ascribe deliberate misrepresentation to that. Understandable, because I'm me, but still funny.


An action done due fear of physical mutilation is not "textbook selfishness", and - let me remind that - the overwhelming majority of law systems recognize that as a fact.

Again, let me point this out, we're really not supposed to be discussing real-world legal systems here. Even if we were, this isn't about legal liability - there are many D&D-world Evil actions which wouldn't even amount to a crime in the real world.


the prospect of financial loss is not the same of the prospect of imminent pain and / or mutilation, disfigurement ecc.
Hormones, adrenaline and other chemical are released, mental clarity is hampered. This become much more true after the actual torture begins. Survival instinct easily overcome rational thought.

You're ascribing far too much value to rational thought. And while it is important, you seem to be forgetting that, according to arbitrary D&D morality, certain acts are specifically Evil, full stop. It doesn't matter what you think or how competent you are.

Also, as a side note, if you're being tortured to the point that you can't think clearly, exactly what Evil act are you able to perform? Murder? Rape? Genocide? Not in that state, you aren't.



Drows are higly intelligent creatures with average impulse control, much more cultured than average and fully able to understand both consequences and alternatives.
Orcs are for the most adrenalinic brutes, illiterate, culturally isolated ( since pillaging does not makes for much cultural contact ), with below average intellect and short lifespans. For these reason, I would say that its probable - not certain - that an orc raider tends more toward CN than CE.

And that's straight-up racist.


Regarding coercion and "choosing" to let evil happen, ask yourself this:

Would you kill a stranger if it were the only way to prevent your death?

For an example with more context, imagine you are on a sinking ship. Only you and one other person, who you have never interacted with and who is of similar age, apparent gender, and apparent ethnicity to you, remain on deck. There is one seat left in the only remaining life-boat - if both of you try to squeeze aboard, the life-boat will sink and all aboard will drown. You are closer to the life-boat than the other person on the deck. Would you rush to the boat to take the last seat?

If you answered 'yes' (and I know I sure-as-hell did), congrats: you're Evil under any system that considers people to be morally culpable for actions taken under duress. Thus, any such system shouldn't really be using the word "Evil", because when such a system says "Evil", what it really means is "self-interested". When a person is presented with a set of options, one of which causes them more harm than any other option, they cannot be reasonably expected to take the option which causes them the most harm regardless of its or any other option's effects on other people. Any functional system of morality must be constructed around this fact.

This is what I'm talking about. Arbitrary alignment is arbitrary. You can't bring in real-world logic, real-world philosophy, or real-world law into a debate where the concepts of Good and Evil are etched in the cosmic stone of a fictional world.


Guys, do you realize that if giving up informations under torture, steal food when starving and rushing to safety when panicked are Evil actions then 99% of human population is Evil?

Actually, according to one source, more like 33%. Also, two of those things you just mentioned (snitching, fleeing) aren't really Evil at all, barring particularly extreme and rare hypotheticals.


I guess... I mean, it's DragonMagazine, so it's more of a 2nd party thing IMO, and I always felt that it wasn't considered official stuff on these forums as well. If what you quote is considered rock-solid RAW... It would be something I couldn't agree on and which would fly at my table as much as PunPun, but if DragonMagazine really is solid RAW, I suppose I have to give that point to you.

This. DMag isn't exactly the most reliable source generally. I'd even go so far as to point out that BoED and BoVD have some pretty bizarro-world stuff in there, too.


Personally, I find the concept of Evil devalued if actions done without malice are included.

Fair. Unfortunately, the people who wrote the RAW on this stuff really didn't take the time to ask us what we thought personally.


And, by the way, if there is another option but you are unaware of it, you have not that option.

If you can come up with a third option, you have that option.

And if you can reply to multiple posts in one post, instead of replying to each separately, you have that option.


" Your honor, the accused could had open the bank vault and let the civils inside; instead he choosed to not open it and let the robbers kills ten people in retaliation. He's clearly accomplice in mass murder. "

" But your honor, I didn't know the vault combination code! "

" No matter, you're still guilty!

"Objection! This argument is a nonsensical strawman, and also we aren't in a courtroom!"


This Good / Evil system sounds like a kangaroo court.

It is. I've been saying that, and will repeat it: Arbitrary morality is arbitrary. Welcome to D&D.


Well, no, that is what I would have done years ago. Actually I would search revenge on everyone involved.
But I am Evil.

No. I am Evil.


Rage can blind a person, but it's possible to control it. Lust do not strip you of control, no matter how much some people may claim to have been provoked.

But fear...
fear is horrible. You indulge in rage or lust. These things gives satisfaction.
But fear? It's a torture. It deprives you of strenght, sap your lucidity, dehumanize you into a shell of yourself.
You don't choose to be overwhelmed by fear, you are a victim of it.

So, wait. If a person kills due to rage, he's bad. If a person kills due to desire, he's bad. But if a person kills because he's super scared you guys, for serious, he's not bad?

That's a very interesting new alignment system you've come up with. Pity it's not the one D&D uses.


More the emotional state of the person when he does the action.

I experienced extreme rage and I can tell you, I was still full in control of my actions.

I experienced extreme fear: I felt dissociated, as I was out of my body watching myself. I fractured both my hands punching a wooden door to escape a building during an earthquake and vaguely remember trampling some equally panicked people in the run. I can swear you: I didn't "freely choose" to do that.

Your anecdotal experience is not a RAW argument.


I think there's something fundamental you don't grasp.
To quote; "There is always a choice. It's rarely an easy or a nice choice. But there's always a choice."
If a man puts a gun to another man's head and tells him to kill 3 children or die, the man being threatened has a choice to make:
He can put the children's lives above his own, and die, or he can choose to put his life above others, kill 3 children and live.
If you think that because he is threatened he doesn't have that choice, then you are wrong.

Very much this! Just because you don't know your options doesn't mean you don't have more. Just because your options are "suffer" and "cause suffering" doesn't mean you're excused if you choose the latter.

The point is very simple: At the end of the day, an Evil character will make the choice that most substantially benefits him, as he defines benefit. Now, some Neutral characters will function this way too, so here is the caveat that distinguishes them: The Neutral character will not deliberately engage in conduct that would cause suffering unless it is the most optimal choice for him. The Evil character, given two equally optimal choices, will generally choose the one that causes more suffering.

[Conradine]

Also, as a side note, if you're being tortured to the point that you can't think clearly, exactly what Evil act are you able to perform? Murder? Rape? Genocide? Not in that state, you aren't.


Giving up informations that will be used to kill people.
A sadist can tie you to a chair leaving you one hand free enough to bear a small knife ( but not free enough to stab him ) and break your bones one by one untill you agree to kill another helpless prisoner.
An implanted microchip ( or an appropriate spell ) can cause unbearable pain untill orders are not complied.

Another way is to forcefully administer highly addictive substances to a prisoner, then force him to obey or face withdrawal, which can be as much painful as any torture.



So, wait. If a person kills due to rage, he's bad. If a person kills due to desire, he's bad. But if a person kills because he's super scared you guys, for serious, he's not bad?

I have already explained this.



Very much this! Just because you don't know your options doesn't mean you don't have more. Just because your options are "suffer" and "cause suffering" doesn't mean you're excused if you choose the latter.


It excuses enough to draw the line between Neutral and Evil.

[Darth Ultron]

For me, to be Evil is not enough to think evil, and not even to act evil.

Is to understand you are acting Evil, that you are causing harm, with full knowledge of other options and little to no coercition, and do it anyway and to like it, consciously suppressing any feeling of remorse until you feel none left.

This is a good example of ''true evil'', but it does not make other lesser acts not evil. To steal, for example,is just about always evil...but it is not to such and extreme.

Now, I'd wonder though: do you think the reverse is true for Good? Does a person need to understand they are being good and do it anyway and like it and suppress any doubts until they have none left?

[Conradine]

Yes. To do the moral choice to be Good requires, in my opinion, to know well what are you doing and why, and to do it with determination.

Realistically speaking, I would say that 85% people are Neutral, 10% are Evil and 5% ( or less ) are Good.



That does not mean rationalization and self delusion does not existe.

Nerence ( Book of Vile Darkness ), the teacher that turns a blind eye on kids kidnappings for a monthly purse of gold, is a good example of NE that rationalizes.
Sure, he isn't actively doing evil but he accepts money for ignoring a truly horrifying crime. He's a cultured person, he has privileges, he is not in need, he is not threatened. That is "being without excuses".
Although he do not admit it, he perfectly understand both the situation and his role in it.



Also, low culture and intelligence does not automatically means lack of accountability.

Trendan Resh ( Vile Darkness, NE ) is an uneducated, primitive thug. But he has examples of alternatives under his eyes. He was not raised in a bandit culture. He knows he is breaking the laws. So he makes a choice, a clear one.

An orc raider have no laws to tell him plundering is wrong, instead he would be required to go against his culture to act differently. He can't just observe alternatives around him. His religion ( Gruumsh ) tells him to behave as a raider, and he can't choose from many alternative cults like an human usually does.

So, even if Resh has the same intelligence of an average orc ( very possible ), he is way more accountable for his actions.

[Seto]

So, even if Resh has the same intelligence of an average orc ( very possible ), he is way more accountable for his actions.

The problem is, this relies on the assumption that alignment is fair, that the moral weight of an action is decided according to accountability (which is kind of a Lawful concept to begin with). The truth is, if you introduce more Evil into the world, Evil is happy. If you advance Good's cause, Good is happy. If you make one of the two forces happy enough, they claim you for their side. It doesn't matter how much pressure you're under, or how aware of your actions' motives and consequences. The one caveat to this is that they still have to be willful actions.
A Dire Boar gutting a person is no more performing an action than a watch does when it tells you the hour; it doesn't have the capacity for choice (that's problematic in real life, but in D&D in doesn't). A mind-controlled guy does not perform actions either, but is the instrument by which someone else performs actions. (If someone throws a rock at me, I'm not mad at the rock, I'm mad at them. If someone sends me a birthday card, my gratitude does not go to the envelope, or even the Postal service, but to them).
In other words, in the real world we have all sorts of extenuating or aggravating circumstances, and that's good; in D&D it's binary, you either chose to do something (however crappy the alternative may have been) or you did not. Of course, the degree of coercion, the willingness to do Evil, etc., still make a crucial difference: but it's a difference pertaining to your character's mindset and future actions, not pertaining to the moral alignment of the action. If I've done an Evil act that I'd rather not do, I'll atone and try to set it right. Those further actions will make me as Good as I was, not the fact that I was coerced.

(That's why a dilemma that forces a Paladin to choose a lesser Evil still makes them fall by RAW. Which is why, incidentally, it's kind of a jackass move to force this kind of dilemma on a Paladin.) Your system makes sense, there's nothing wrong with it, and if you use it in your games, that's great ; it's just not RAW. (I took another route but I don't always follow RAW strictly either).

[Efrate]

Fiendish codex II has an interesting list of things which consign you to the 9 hells if you do not make reparations. For PCs only generally, but for a RAW idea it kind of sets the tone. 9 points send your soul to hell regardless of the good you did UNLESS you jump through some hoops, no matter WHAT good you did in life.

Save all of existence? A few billion souls?

Did you steal bread from other starving children 5 times in your youth? Did you ever make reparations to them, offer a sincere apology, give a donation to the church equal to a portion of your weath as a spiritual advisor has to talk to you as do penace? Did you do ALL of that? AND get an atonement spell? No? Baator for you.

Not that atonement is only for corruption 4 or higher. You can do all but the atonement spell if you have 3 or less.

The full list.

Act Corruption Value
Using an evil spell 1
Humiliating an underling 1
Engaging in intimidating torture 1
Stealing from the needy 2
Desecrating a good church or temple 2
Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain 2
Causing gratuitous injury to a creature 3
Perverting justice for personal gain 3
Inflicting cruel or painful torture 4
Inflicting excruciating torture1 5
Murder 5
Inflicting sadistic torture 6
Cold-blooded murder 6
Murder for pleasure 7
Inflicting indescribable torture 7


There is a list of lawful acts as well, that to redeem yourself do the same things but you need a chaotic cleric to atone you for. These work identical to the corrupt acts. I personally like "Following a rule you consider stupid."



Act Obeisance Value
Swearing fealty to a leader you know 1
Swearing fealty to a leader you’ve never met 2
Disciplining an underling 2
Resolving a dispute through lawful process 2
Quietly accepting a legal judgment against you 2
Executing a lawful sentence of corporal punishment 3
Following a rule you consider stupid 3
Aiding a superior to your own detriment 3
Swearing fealty to a devil 4
Obeying a leader you do not respect 4
Performing a lawful execution 5

Hell requires a lot of souls you to run you know. Devils gotta get their power from somewhere.

[Conradine]

Did you steal bread from other starving children 5 times in your youth? Did you ever make reparations to them, offer a sincere apology, give a donation to the church equal to a portion of your weath as a spiritual advisor has to talk to you as do penace? Did you do ALL of that? AND get an atonement spell? No? Baator for you.


You also need to be of Lawful alignment.

Beside that, I assume there is an "age of reason" that must be reached before corruption points start to pile up.

[Mordaedil]

Man, Red Fel hit pretty much on the mark for how I feel about this, so I'll just add something from a source I usually use as my guideline for morality in D&D (whether it is applicable is entirely up debate)

Evil can be excessive reinforcement of good morals.

If you've ever played the Ultima series, Ultima IV and V respectively, they deal very deliberately with this idea. In UIV there is no BBEG for you to defeat, you are there on a quest to become the Avatar, basically the symbol of good and order in the Ultima universe. And upon succeeding you leave the realm with a testament to your accomplishments left behind. In Ultima V, Blackthorn, an advisor to Lord British, who really looks up to you and respects you decides to pay respect to you by taking the virtues you established in the first game and making them mandatory.

The thing is, because of the checks and balances in D&D, this exact situation can't be done. If you start acting so good you become evil, a cleric would probably show up and tell you that you've fallen from the path and to turn around before it got too far.

But the lesson I think is still valid is that even an evil character can truly believe he is doing the right thing. Like Red Fel said, they desire power, but they might internally justify their desire for that power. Why? To right some wrong that was done to them earlier in their lives, but they do so, without realizing it in time, at the expense of others. Perhaps they make orphans live a better life than they did when they were growing up, but at the expense of becoming a very xenophobic country that enslaves other races and puts them to work to make up for the economic difference.

Perhaps they start killing noblemen, because they grew up hating nobility and lose sight of doing it for the right reasons and start killing nobles for mere association with those that repressed them earlier, despite being heavily set against it.

I don't believe evil characters are evil for the sake of evil. That lacks a depth that hints of the tragedy of evil. Everybody believes in what they do to be the right thing, if just for the right reward.

That said, that mustn't necessarily be the case, but your character must be slightly insane if they are evil for sake of evil.

[Knitifine]

Evil characters are those whose primary motivation is their own advancement and benefit.
Neutral characters are those whose primary motivation is the advancement and benefits applicable to themselves, their friends and their family.
Good characters are those whose primary motivation is the benefit of all people.

That's how I define it in my campaign, which typically results in a lot more alignment variance than standard assumptions.
Evil is of course, subjective to each campaign, and if the campaign uses subjective morality itself, it might be subjective to each individual.

[hifidelity2]

[S]
Anyone who's Evil has an in-group. Sometimes it's just themselves, sometimes it's their family, sometimes their religion, or their entire species, but they have one. To Evil, anybody who's not in the in-group doesn't matter. They're expendable, they're justified collateral damage, they're obstacles. If doing what's best for the in-group means attacking something that's not in the in-group, Evil does it without thinking twice because only the in-group matters.

That's not to say that looking out for yourself or the things you value is itself evil, though. What makes you Evil is when you take actions to benefit your in-group even when you know that those actions will cause harm outside your in-group.

This matches the way I play my LE character (with NE leanings)
Also "The Ends justify the means" so I have no issue with grabbing hostages etc and using them to get what I need

[TheifofZ]

I agree, but Exalted Good characters are saints and martyrs. I am talking about who deserves the Evil Alignment.

It's explicitly because Exalted good characters are saints and martyrs that I mention them. That is, they're the benchmark by which all good can be measured short of 'pure good' beings that fundamentally cannot 'evil' (IE: The [Good] subtyped Outsiders.)
And if you can use them to measure good, you can use them to measure evil, too. Look at what they would never be willing to do.
If an exalted good character would refuse a certain action on moral grounds, that action is evil. Easy measuring stick.
Of course, this only works in a roleplaying world (the one we're discussing) in which what is GOOD and what is EVIL are written down in the fundamental laws of reality, much like gravity, or the laws of motion. (Funnily enough, just like the laws of physics [again, gravity or motion,] there are spells that manipulate the nature of GOOD and EVIL. Just an interesting little aside to think on.)




He has a choice if he can keep himself collected and lucid enough to think clearly.
If he panics , and it's really easy to panic with a gun to the head, his freedom of choice is gone.

Even if he choose to put his survival first, I would not hastily call him "evil" expecially if he's wrecked by the actions he's forced to do.

A clearly Evil character would kill those children without remorse ( or with really little ).
And yet there are people that regularly panic and sacrifice themselves.
Stories abound about people who 'acted without thinking' and put themselves in harms way to protect or save someone else's life.
As long as people can, without a second to stop and weigh their choices, push someone out of the way of a car by diving in front of it, then the argument about panicking is invalid.

Even if you don't realize you're making a choice, you've still made one. As long as you chose to put yourself above others, as long as you choose to sacrifice the children to survive, even in a moment of panic, then you have done an Evil thing.

[Segev]

Regarding the sinking boat with only one seat left:

I would say it is not evil to claim it for yourself when another is also running for it. That's a Neutral act. Otherwise, the only way for both to be Good would be for both to drown, one seat left untaken on the lifeboat.

No, where the act becomes evil is when you don't just save yourself before another, but when you actively prevent another from beating you to the seat.

It's not evil to run for the seat. It is evil to physically rip another person out of it to make room for yourself. It is evil to deliberately trip, maim, or impede another so you can get there first.

A Good person would try to find a way to save the other and may not rush to beat them there. Or he might at least try to figure out which of them will better help maximize the chance of everyone else's survival.

But a Good man with a family he knows will be in dire straits without him? He'd race for that seat. He wouldn't attack or kill or trip the other guy, but he isn't going to put this stranger above his family so much that he'll sacrifice himself and their well-being for this stranger. (He would probably be more than willing to hear how to get in touch with the stranger's family to help them, however.)


While doing something evil under threat of extreme punishment (torture, loss of limb, death of a loved one, one's own death) doesn't obviate the evil of the act, it does mitigate it. It certainly makes atonement easier. It still adds up if done repeatedly. But there is a difference between the man who shoots a child for the heck of it, the man who shoots a child for a billion dollars, and the man who shoots a child because his own will be killed if he doesn't. All three commit evil acts. But the ability to atone will be greater for the last than the other two. And even for the second than the first. Their hearts are progressively less into it, and they do so with greater reluctance. The very fact one feels guilt and WISHES to atone makes it more possible than if one does not.

That may seem tautological, but it's important to remember.


As to paladins committing evil while dominated or otherwise absent their free will, I think their loss of powers until they get an atonement is more a failsafe than a punishment. If Sir Rightandgood is being compelled against his will to murder and rape and torture, I'm sure he's glad that at least he's less effective at it than he would be if he were still able to call upon divine power to aid him in his master's evil bidding.



Finally, regarding stealing. As a general rule, stealing is not in and of itself an evil act (at least in D&D cosmology). It is a chaotic one. A lot of the time, it will also be evil. But it can be neutral or even good under the right circumstances. It will always be chaotic, however. (At the risk of the No True Scottsman fallacy, I will posit that any circumstance you can name where it would be "lawful" is actually not "stealing," by definition. e.g. the repo man stealthily taking away the fancy carriage that the miller hasn't been making his payments on is lawfully reclaiming property that is unlawfully being kept by the miller, despite his stealth tactics to take said property without having to engage in violence or the threat thereof.)

[Conradine]

, without a second to stop and weigh their choices, push someone out of the way of a car by diving in front of it, then the argument about panicking is invalid.


C'mon, you can't seriously defend a similar position. :smallbiggrin:

It's obvious , self evident, that individual ability to react is different from individual to individual.

Some people are able to move, think and react in a split second, in front of danger.
Other people froze up.

People froze immoble ( or screaming ) and die because they stay in burning / falling building they could easily escape.

So, unless you say that those people freely choose to froze and die when they could easily escape, you must admit that is fully possible to panick and lose the ability to make a conscious decision.

I'm not saying it happens every time, but it can happen, and it happens.



Let me rephrase your argument for you:

As long as people can set themselves on fire and stay immoble while burning alive then the argument about insufficient self control is invalid.

As long as people can bench press 400 pounds then the argument about insufficient strenght is invalid.

As long as people can cut their own limbs with a small knife to survive then the argument about fainting from the pain is invalid.

As long as people can survive multiple gunshots to the body then the argument about dropping down at the first bullet is invalid.




Even if you don't realize you're making a choice, you've still made one.


Yeah, yeah, sure.

You know, drowning people that clings to their rescuer so tight that they cause both them and the rescuer to drown make the choice to kill and drown.

[LudicSavant]

Finally, regarding stealing. As a general rule, stealing is not in and of itself an evil act (at least in D&D cosmology). It is a chaotic one. A lot of the time, it will also be evil. But it can be neutral or even good under the right circumstances. It will always be chaotic, however. (At the risk of the No True Scottsman fallacy, I will posit that any circumstance you can name where it would be "lawful" is actually not "stealing," by definition. e.g. the repo man stealthily taking away the fancy carriage that the miller hasn't been making his payments on is lawfully reclaiming property that is unlawfully being kept by the miller, despite his stealth tactics to take said property without having to engage in violence or the threat thereof.) There's more problems with this reasoning than just the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What one guy calls "lawfully reclaiming property" another guy calls "stealing" and it's entirely possible that both sides will have legitimate legal systems (either independent or the same one) backing their case up. There are tons of wars, feuds, or diplomatically resolved disputes caused by this sort of thing throughout history.

"Law of the land" notions of alignment just don't work as a rubric for universal cosmic alignment. At all.

[TheifofZ]

Snip

Merely noting that your statement in regards to stealing, especially vis a vis the 'No True Scotsman' section, is by and large correct.
Stealing is more Chaotic than Evil, but most acts of theft will also be tainted by evil.

Any time that an act of theft is Lawful, the very definition of it means it is no longer theft.
(Definition of theft: Unlawful removal of someone's property through any means.)
This does not mean that an act of 'legal repossession' (IE: Legal theft) is unable to be evil, nor chaotic. It merely means that when a 'theft' is backed by the laws and courts of a land, it is not defined as theft. But that's more arguing semantics, and leans into discussing legality, rather than morality.

Jeeze, this should probably have been brought up earlier.


C'mon, you can't seriously defend a similar position. :smallbiggrin:

It's obvious , self evident, that individual ability to react is different from individual to individual.

Some people are able to move, think and react in a split second, in front of danger.
Other people froze up.

People froze immoble ( or screaming ) and die because they stay in burning / falling building they could easily escape.

So, unless you say that those people freely choose to froze and die when they could easily escape, you must admit that is fully possible to panick and lose the ability to make a conscious decision.

I'm not saying it happens every time, but it can happen, and it happens.


Let me rephrase your argument for you:

As long as people can set themselves on fire and stay immoble while burning alive then the argument about insufficient self control is invalid.

As long as people can bench press 400 pounds then the argument about insufficient strenght is invalid.

As long as people can cut their own limbs with a small knife to survive then the argument about fainting from the pain is invalid.

As long as people can survive multiple gunshots to the body then the argument about dropping down at the first bullet is invalid.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

You know, drowning people that clings to their rescuer so tight that they cause both them and the rescuer to drown make the choice to kill and drown.
And you, sir/madam, are making the choice to make a fallacious argument. You are claiming my argument (that some people choose to sacrifice themselves while panicked to save others) is identical to a human choosing to lock up when panicked.
I would respond by pointing out that a human not in control of their own body (oh hey, like that argument about morality while mind controlled) is unable to make and then act upon their own choices; by reiterating my statement that many people do consciously make the choice to sacrifice themselves to save others while panicked; to indicate that no human has an instinctive panic response that includes aiming a weapon and pulling the trigger, especially several times; and that while mankind has a variety of panic responses (many of them harmful rather than helpful) many people can still carry out action beyond the instinctual while panicked (Indeed, the ability to consciously think and to quash or natural and instinctive reactions, even during dire circumstances, is one that has been a great boon to our species.)

[Conradine]

But there is a difference between the man who shoots a child for the heck of it, the man who shoots a child for a billion dollars, and the man who shoots a child because his own will be killed if he doesn't. All three commit evil acts. But the ability to atone will be greater for the last than the other two. And even for the second than the first.


I agree about the last one ( the one under blackmail ).

But, personally, I would define the second as probably more evil than the first. Because the first is very probably insane, at least partially, and his plausible motivation is istinct. The second act upon malice, an intellectual act of evil.

[Segev]

There's more problems with this reasoning than just the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What one guy calls "lawfully reclaiming property" another guy calls "stealing" and it's entirely possible that both sides will have legitimate legal systems (either independent or the same one) backing their case up. There are tons of wars, feuds, or diplomatically resolved disputes caused by this sort of thing throughout history.

"Law of the land" notions of alignment just don't work as a rubric for universal cosmic alignment. At all.

Yeah. The issue that muddies the discussion of theft-as-chaotic is that even independent of "laws of man," where we're talking cosmic-scale Order, "theft" is a chaotic act because it disregards the notion of orderly ownership of property.

You absolutely can have wars between two Lawful groups who each believe that the other has stolen what is rightfully theirs. And neither is committing an inherently Chaotic act by taking it (back). They are not disregarding ownership. They are asserting it.

The Lawful "thief" is a man who genuinely believes that he has ownership rights - or is acting on behalf of one who does - over the thing he is taking.

The Chaotic thief...doesn't care, honestly. He views the "rights" to it in terms other than ownership. A CG thief might view it in terms of needs justifying use/consumption; stealing bread from a wealthy man who won't miss it to feed a starving orphan. A CN thief would be similar: he feels he has greater need for it than the person who rightfully owns it, and doesn't care about that "ownership" business.

The Neutral [whatever] thief recognizes that he's violating the law, and will probably try to find alternatives...but will not always be able to. He will then weigh the "need" he uses to justify ignoring the law against his beliefs in the law's utility before deciding whether it's okay to take the other's property. He does care, and might feel guilty, even, but he's willing to steal if he thinks the needs outweigh the rights of the owner.

The Lawful person won't resort to stealing. If he believes the rightful owner is in possession of something, he won't take it by hook or by crook, but only by trying to convince the owner to give it up (possibly in exchange for something else; possibly by begging).

Note: A Lawful Evil person will respect the property rights...but try to find a way to change the rules such that he legally owns it and can take it by law. A Neutral Evil person would prefer not to steal it because it's better if he can do it the LE way, but he isn't above taking it if he thinks it's in his best interests. A Chaotic Evil person doesn't care if you "own" it; if he can take it, it's his, so there.

[Name1]

Not that atonement is only for corruption 4 or higher. You can do all but the atonement spell if you have 3 or less.

The full list.

Act Corruption Value
Using an evil spell 1
Humiliating an underling 1
Engaging in intimidating torture 1
Stealing from the needy 2
Desecrating a good church or temple 2
Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain 2
Causing gratuitous injury to a creature 3
Perverting justice for personal gain 3
Inflicting cruel or painful torture 4
Inflicting excruciating torture1 5
Murder 5
Inflicting sadistic torture 6
Cold-blooded murder 6
Murder for pleasure 7
Inflicting indescribable torture 7



Huh, so I was wrong and snitching is only evil if you snitch on a friend or ally... who knew O_o
Also, can we just appreciate how rape doesn't corrupt you?



(Definition of theft: Unlawful removal of someone's property through any means.)
This does not mean that an act of 'legal repossession' (IE: Legal theft) is unable to be evil, nor chaotic. It merely means that when a 'theft' is backed by the laws and courts of a land, it is not defined as theft. But that's more arguing semantics, and leans into discussing legality, rather than morality.


Wait what? I get that it can be evil (which it is most of the time), btu chaotic? How can it be chaotic if it's backed by the law?

[Segev]

I agree about the last one ( the one under blackmail ).

But, personally, I would define the second as probably more evil than the first. Because the first is very probably insane, at least partially, and his plausible motivation is istinct. The second act upon malice, an intellectual act of evil.

You could make that argument, but madness (of the sort epitomized by sadism) isn't a mitigating factor for evil behavior. Typically, madness is only really a defense against an accusation of evil if the madness literally made you unable to recognize what you were doing is harmful to others.

"Meet the Pyro" is a great example of that kind of exculpatory madness. Done horrifyingly.

Most Batman villains are NOT that kind of insane. The Joker revels in the malice of his actions; he is CE through and through.

That is the kind of "shoots a child for kicks and grins" that I was getting at, and that is worse than "is willing to shoot a child if it benefits him."

Mercenary Bob might be an evil SOB who'll do anything for his own gain, but he's not going to go around making life miserable for people without having solid reason to do so. Sadist Sam is going to revel in making everybody suffer for his own amusement. Bob might even feel guilty for it after he does it and really thinks about what he's done; it'll be easier for him to atone because he has a conscience about it. (He's still evil.) Sam...doesn't feel guilt. He's thrilled to be doing what he's doing.

[Segev]

Wait what? I get that it can be evil (which it is most of the time), btu chaotic? How can it be chaotic if it's backed by the law?

It can't; that was kind-of the point.

Law cares about the rules. Law can oppose Law over arguments over what the rules are, or which rules take precedence.

Chaos doesn't care about the rules. Chaos can oppose Chaos because their interests or even principles conflict.

[LudicSavant]

You absolutely can have wars between two Lawful groups who each believe that the other has stolen what is rightfully theirs. And neither is committing an inherently Chaotic act by taking it (back). They are not disregarding ownership. They are asserting it.

The problem here is that there is no actual difference between a guy asserting that he ought to own something and disregarding a contrary claim to ownership. It's seriously two ways of saying the same thing.

[Segev]

The problem here is that there is no actual difference between a guy asserting that he ought to own something and disregarding a contrary claim to ownership. It's seriously two ways of saying the same thing.

In practice, there's little difference. Both have a guy saying "I'm taking it."

But there's still a distinction. The Lawful guy honestly believes he has ownership. It belongs to him. (Or at least that he's taking it on behalf of the guy who does.) "I am taking it because it is not yours to keep. It belongs to [owner]."

The Chaotic guy could say that... but he doesn't mean it in the literal sense. He's taking it because he wants to, and he doesn't CARE about whatever frippery the current owner uses to justify his "right" to own it. Nor does he feel a need to claim he has a right to it based on ownership. He might feel a need to justify it morally - "I am taking it because you don't need it as much as whoever I'm stealing it for does" - but he won't care to refute the possessor's ownership of the item.


The Lawful person says, "You are not the rightful owner." The Chaotic person says, "Who cares who owns it; I'm taking it."

And that IS relevant, because if the Lawful person can be persuaded that he's wrong and the guy does own it, he'll stop trying to take it (or even return it). The Chaotic person would not care. (The CG person might care if he learned that the need of the person from whom he stole it was greater than he previously believed, however. Heck, even the CN person might care about that.)

[LudicSavant]

It can't; that was kind-of the point.

Law cares about the rules. Law can oppose Law over arguments over what the rules are, or which rules take precedence.

Chaos doesn't care about the rules. Chaos can oppose Chaos because their interests or even principles conflict.

This is not a helpful differentiation.

Literally all human beings follow some set of rules. Even random number generators follow rules. You'd have to narrow down some specific rules which Chaos doesn't follow and which Law does.

[Segev]

This is not a helpful differentiation.

Literally all human beings follow some set of rules. Even random number generators follow rules. You'd have to narrow down some specific rules which Chaos doesn't follow and which Law does.

Chaos follows "principles," at best. They don't have a code, and even if they uttered one that encompassed their principles, they'd violate it if they felt the wording was "off" from the spirit they wished to pursue.

Law follows codes. The wording is important, because it defines the principles in concrete terms. Law does not break the word of its code, because to do so brings into question the validity and consistency of their principles.

The distinction is actually pretty clear: a Lawful person will not take something if they think it belongs to somebody else. They must genuinely believe that the person from whom they're taking it doesn't own it before they'll take it.

Why this matters goes to motivation and prevention. If somebody Lawful is trying to take something from you and you learn they think it belongs to your neighbor (who's been lying about it for months to try to bully you into giving it to him), but you can prove to him that it's yours and your neighbor is just a liar and would-be thief, the Lawful somebody will stop trying to take it from you.

If somebody Chaotic is trying to take something from you, it doesn't really matter if they believe that it belongs to your neighbor or not. They've got some other motivation for the theft. They may - if they're of a semantically pedantic mindset - engage in debate over whether it qualifies as theft or not based on whether or not you own it, but even if you persuade them that it's yours, they won't stop taking it.

The Lawful person can be motivated to take it from you for your neighbor by simply being convinced it belongs to your neighbor. The Chaotic person is motivated by something else, because he doesn't care if you or your neighbor is the thief.

[LudicSavant]

Chaos follows "principles," at best. They don't have a code, and even if they uttered one that encompassed their principles, they'd violate it if they felt the wording was "off" from the spirit they wished to pursue.

Law follows codes. The wording is important, because it defines the principles in concrete terms. Law does not break the word of its code, because to do so brings into question the validity and consistency of their principles.

The only difference you've established is how well the person is able to articulate their rules/principles, not any actual difference in rules/principles.

[Name1]

That makes me wonder... if you are a child and you break someone's toys, it's generally a bad thig you did. But are there rules about breaking your stuff?

For example:

Wanda went to school today and found out that one of her classmates has a ant farm. So after coming home, she wants a bigger and better farm than he has (you know how children are). So her father, who has a lot of influence, grants her the wish and they go build what's essentially a big ant farm and then go get the inhabitants. Wanda wants many different things on her farm, so they go to the forest to pick up elves, the mountains to pick up dwarves, the cities to get humans... You get what I mean.

So everything goes well for a few generations, but then Wanda decides that she wants more exotic pets, and the way she does it is by getting an elf and a human and make them breed to add a half-elf to her collection. Now they don't want to, but that's not a problem, there are spells for that. However, after the fifth successful attempt, one of the spells went wrong and the human is on the verge of escaping, so she has to put him down.

Does that turn her alignment to evil, as she broke her human?

Or for a different example, Fred's computer freezes all the time. Now he likes his computer, but now it's gone too far, as the system crash corrupted the save-file of his game, so he, in a fit of rage, nukes his computer in a microwave. Now his computer is broken.

Does his alignment change as a result of that action?

[TheifofZ]

Wanda, yes. Fred, no.

Living feeling creatures opposed to non-sentient objects.
Breaking an item you own intentionally is a neutral act; it has neither good nor evil ramifications.
Breaking a living thing you own, ie, killing it, is usually evil.
Of course, that ignores the fact that if you own a sentient living thing, that alone makes you evil... But hey.

[Segev]

The only difference you've established is how well the person is able to articulate their rules/principles, not any actual difference in rules/principles.
Not just how they articulate them. How they act based on them. What motivates them.

You don't get a Lawful repo man to take a shiny carriage for you by simply offering him money. He has to also believe you rightfully own it. You can get a Chaotic thief to take it for you just by paying him to do so...as long as you're paying him enough that he won't decide it's worth more to keep the carriage, himself. (Note: the Lawful repo man won't keep it, himself; he'll give it to you because he believes it's yours.)


That makes me wonder... if you are a child and you break someone's toys, it's generally a bad thig you did. But are there rules about breaking your stuff?

For example:

Wanda went to school today and found out that one of her classmates has a ant farm. So after coming home, she wants a bigger and better farm than he has (you know how children are). So her father, who has a lot of influence, grants her the wish and they go build what's essentially a big ant farm and then go get the inhabitants. Wanda wants many different things on her farm, so they go to the forest to pick up elves, the mountains to pick up dwarves, the cities to get humans... You get what I mean.

So everything goes well for a few generations, but then Wanda decides that she wants more exotic pets, and the way she does it is by getting an elf and a human and make them breed to add a half-elf to her collection. Now they don't want to, but that's not a problem, there are spells for that. However, after the fifth successful attempt, one of the spells went wrong and the human is on the verge of escaping, so she has to put him down.

Does that turn her alignment to evil, as she broke her human?We're veering into slavery and murder, here, which are both generally considered evil in D&D alignment terms.


Or for a different example, Fred's computer freezes all the time. Now he likes his computer, but now it's gone too far, as the system crash corrupted the save-file of his game, so he, in a fit of rage, nukes his computer in a microwave. Now his computer is broken.

Does his alignment change as a result of that action?It's his computer. While you might be able to make an argument that losing one's temper and breaking stuff is chaotic (see: Barbarian Rage), it's not going to be enough on its own as a general rule. He's not hurting anybody else (so not evil). He's not taking anybody else's property without permission (so not chaotic). His alignment isn't really impacted.

[Name1]

Of course, that ignores the fact that if you own a sentient living thing, that alone makes you evil... But hey.

So if the ownership of sentient living thigs is bad (as in, Int score 3+), then what happens if she get's them Feebleminded during the process of aquiring them?

[LudicSavant]

Not just how they articulate them. How they act based on them. What motivates them. Nothing in your posts has made such a differentiation. You just described the same acts and motivations in different terms, a la "Mialee is Chaotic because she's devoted to learning about her art (arcane arts), Ember is Lawful because she's devoted to learning about her discipline (martial arts)."


The Chaotic thief...doesn't care, honestly. He views the "rights" to it in terms other than ownership.

All ownership is is any concept of who has the rights to something. The fact that the Chaotic thief is using a different term to describe the same thing does not actually change the act or motive.

[Zanos]

The fact that you're trying to draw equivalency between murdering a sentient being you've been keeping as a slave after lobotomizing and microwaving your computer leads me to believe that you are Evil.

@Conradine, you seem to be rather intently arguing that creatures are not as culpable for acts performed under duress. I would point out that exalted characters who break their vows, paladins who commit evil acts, and clerics who violate their deities codes under a mental compulsion all need to receive an atonement spell before their powers are restored. If someone who literally does not have control over their actions is at least partially responsible for them, I see no reason why someone who at least has an admittedly horrific choice would not also be at least partially responsible.

[Conradine]

Also, can we just appreciate how rape doesn't corrupt you?

I was definetly consider rape a subcategory of "torture". The degree depends upon the situation.




@Conradine, you seem to be rather intently arguing that creatures are not as culpable for acts performed under duress. I would point out that exalted characters who break their vows, paladins who commit evil acts, and clerics who violate their deities codes under a mental compulsion all need to receive an atonement spell before their powers are restored. If someone who literally does not have control over their actions is at least partially responsible for them, I see no reason why someone who at least has an admittedly horrific choice would not also be at least partially responsible.


Partially responsible for actions done under extreme duress? Yes.
Enough to lose Exalted status, paladinhood, cleric powers? Yes.

Enough to lose Good alignment? Mabye; in my opinion no. ( a Good servant that reveals vital information after the second or third broken bone should keep his Good alignment ).

Enough to be Evil? Definetly no. Evil is serious buisness as much as Good.

True Good and True Evil cannot, in my opinion, be coerced actions.



In game consideration: if Good actions cannot be coerced ( everyone agrees on that ) but Evil actions can, to the degree of actions done under torture to be considered fully Evil ( enough to change alignment to Evil ), then Evil would have such an unsurmontable advantage over Good than the multiverse would be heavily unbalaced toward Evil.

A balanced universe , were Evil and Good are more or less equivalent, is possible only if we don't give Evil a game-breaker advantage.


If we want a setting were being Good is next to impossible and being Evil is as easy as giving up to torture, ok.
But it's more Ravenloft than core D&D.

[Quertus]

Well, Red Fel has been pretty active in this thread, and I don't like being the lesser of two evils, so I'll stick to just a few comments on things I've read.


Fear and pain hamper rational reasoning stripping of freedom of choice.

There are some who would claim that who you are in that moment, when rational thought does not get in the way, is who you really are.


It's a very big claim to say actions done under duress can be evil.

No bigger than the claim that they (actions done under duress) cannot be evil.


Personally, I find the concept of Evil devalued if actions done without malice are included.

This... sounds like a great way to encourage masses of remorseless evil, and reap lots of souls. I approve.


Rage can blind a person, but it's possible to control it. Lust do not strip you of control, no matter how much some people may claim to have been provoked.

But fear...
fear is horrible. You indulge in rage or lust. These things gives satisfaction.
But fear? It's a torture. It deprives you of strenght, sap your lucidity, dehumanize you into a shell of yourself.
You don't choose to be overwhelmed by fear, you are a victim of it.

Desire is about pleasure. Need is about pain.

You desire a pretty girl. You need water.

Well, then, I need water, and I need pretty girls. :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, you have experienced overwhelming fear, and can therefore groc it. Fine. That does not in any way invalidate the concept that other overwhelming emotions can exist, for other people, or possibly even for you, in circumstances you have yet to encounter.


So, wait. If a person kills due to rage, he's bad. If a person kills due to desire, he's bad. But if a person kills because he's super scared you guys, for serious, he's not bad?

To... huh, what do I say when taking an opposing position when talking to you? It just doesn't feel right to call it "playing devil's advocate". :smallconfused: Anyway, suppose D&D had rules for mundane fear, rage, lust, etc taking control of your character away. Is there any precedent for how the alignment system reacts?

To take it to a further extreme, does D&D alignment care what your body does while it is possessed?


Just because your options are "suffer" and "cause suffering" doesn't mean you're excused if you choose the latter.

The point is very simple: At the end of the day, an Evil character will make the choice that most substantially benefits him, as he defines benefit. Now, some Neutral characters will function this way too, so here is the caveat that distinguishes them: The Neutral character will not deliberately engage in conduct that would cause suffering unless it is the most optimal choice for him. The Evil character, given two equally optimal choices, will generally choose the one that causes more suffering.

This is probably the most relevant to my personal take on D&D evil.


And yet there are people that regularly panic and sacrifice themselves.
Stories abound about people who 'acted without thinking' and put themselves in harms way to protect or save someone else's life.
As long as people can, without a second to stop and weigh their choices, push someone out of the way of a car by diving in front of it, then the argument about panicking is invalid.

Even if you don't realize you're making a choice, you've still made one. As long as you chose to put yourself above others, as long as you choose to sacrifice the children to survive, even in a moment of panic, then you have done an Evil thing.

Your position is stronger than I would take without proper scientific experimentation.

With just this limited data, I would only say things like, "There are some who would claim that who you are in that moment, when rational thought does not get in the way, is who you really are."

Now, if we could collect hundreds or thousands of humans, and measure their brain activity while forcing them into these situations, that would be a start. If a significant portion of individuals "acted without thinking" the same way (altruisticly, violently, selfishly, etc) repeatedly, we might be able to conclude, as you did, that the choice has already been made, and is a part of who the person truly is.

However, without proper scientific experimentation, it could just as easily be the product of mood, what was on their mind at the time, random chance, or any number of other possible causes.

We need to prove that a statistically significant portion of our sample set react consistently in such situations in order to claim that these actions are, or can be, the result of decisions that have already been made.


Regarding the sinking boat with only one seat left:

I would say it is not evil to claim it for yourself when another is also running for it. That's a Neutral act. Otherwise, the only way for both to be Good would be for both to drown, one seat left untaken on the lifeboat.

No, where the act becomes evil is when you don't just save yourself before another, but when you actively prevent another from beating you to the seat.

It's not evil to run for the seat. It is evil to physically rip another person out of it to make room for yourself. It is evil to deliberately trip, maim, or impede another so you can get there first.

A Good person would try to find a way to save the other and may not rush to beat them there. Or he might at least try to figure out which of them will better help maximize the chance of everyone else's survival.

But a Good man with a family he knows will be in dire straits without him? He'd race for that seat. He wouldn't attack or kill or trip the other guy, but he isn't going to put this stranger above his family so much that he'll sacrifice himself and their well-being for this stranger. (He would probably be more than willing to hear how to get in touch with the stranger's family to help them, however.)

Me, I'm much more likely to grapple the man, or kill someone already on the lifeboat, to make room for one of mine.


C'mon, you can't seriously defend a similar position. :smallbiggrin:

It's obvious , self evident, that individual ability to react is different from individual to individual.

Some people are able to move, think and react in a split second, in front of danger.
Other people froze up.

People froze immoble ( or screaming ) and die because they stay in burning / falling building they could easily escape.

So, unless you say that those people freely choose to froze and die when they could easily escape, you must admit that is fully possible to panick and lose the ability to make a conscious decision.

I'm not saying it happens every time, but it can happen, and it happens.

You know, drowning people that clings to their rescuer so tight that they cause both them and the rescuer to drown make the choice to kill and drown.

The argument is more, "if you have a response hard-wired into you, that says more about you than the choices you consciously make".

[Conradine]

My position is the exact opposite.

The true self is the rational self, the chosen self.
The istinctive self is nothing more than the structure inhabited by the rational self, the non chosen self.

Hard wired response are that, hard wired. Automatisms.
Responses under extreme duress are flawed by body chemicals.


What is the difference between sentient creatures ( able to do moral choices ) and animals ( unable to do moral choices ) ?

Only one thing: the rational self.

No rational self, no moral choices. Is that simple.

[2D8HP]

There are some who would claim that who you are in that moment, when rational thought does not get in the way, is who you really are.We are what we do when we think that no one witnesses us.
The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.
Anyway, suppose D&D had rules for mundane fear, rage, lust, etc taking control of your character away. Is there any precedent for how the alignment system reacts?https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/PendragonRPGCover.jpg
That would be the (King Arthur) Pendragon
Traits and Passions systems (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendragon_(role-playing_game)#Personal_Traits) designed to model Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Gawain_and_the_Green_Knight) types of temptations.
Yup. Pendragon is a perfect example of how to handle moral issues. D&D is the poster child for how not to. I bought four editions of Pendragon, and it is the RPG that I most want to play, and yet have never played.
:frown:

[Segev]

Nothing in your posts has made such a differentiation. You just described the same acts and motivations in different terms, a la "Mialee is Chaotic because she's devoted to learning about her art (arcane arts), Ember is Lawful because she's devoted to learning about her discipline (martial arts)."I'm sorry I'm failing to get my point across, because this is not what I'm intending to say.

Yes, the motivations determine whether they're living up to Law or Chaos in the action, here. But the motivations matter because they go to how you get them to do the action(s) in the first place, and how you persuade them to stop.

Let's look at it from an orthogonal example. Murder is evil, by definition. Killing is not necessarily evil, because not all killing is murder. (The second premise must be accepted for Paladins - for example - to be able to kill evildoers and play traditional D&D at all.)

An Evil man might be trying to kill you for any number of reasons, but all of them likely wrap back around to "it's beneficial to him." Whether it's for his personal pleasure, to advance his agenda, or just because he's being paid, it's for his own gratification, and he doesn't care a whit whether this is murder or not. You won't persuade him to stop killing you by persuading him that you aren't in some way deserving of it (so heinous a monster that a death penalty is warranted to prevent your further depredations, actively engaged in harming innocents in a way that must be stopped by your death, etc.).

A Good man won't murder you. If he's trying to kill you, he honestly believes that you deserve it. That your death is justified because you willfully are causing so much harm to innocents and your death is the only way to stop it. This can be as simple, mind, as you being a bandit assaulting a caravan; you're willing to kill them, so the Good mercenary guard is justified in killing you to stop you.

In practice, both are "the same" with "no difference," because in both cases, the man you're fighting is trying to kill you. The difference is in motivation, and that matters because how somebody got him to try to kill you (or how you provoked him to it) will differ, as will what you can do to convince him to stop. If he's Evil, you can convince him to stop by persuading him that leaving you alive will be in his best interests. If he's Good, you can convince him to stop by persuading him that you don't deserve to be killed - i.e. that killing you is murder. A Good man who genuinely believes you must die for the greater good and that your past crimes justify it won't be persuaded by promises of his own personal benefit; an Evil man who is profiting from your death won't be persuaded by proof that killing you is the most heinous of murders.


This is why the distinctions between what motivates a Lawful man or a Chaotic man to take something you consider "yours" also matter, despite both situations involving a foe forcefully (whether through guile or actual violence) taking something from you. The Chaotic man is willing to commit theft. The Lawful one is not. The Chaotic man doesn't care if you "own" it or not. The Lawful man won't take it if he believes you do.



All ownership is is any concept of who has the rights to something. The fact that the Chaotic thief is using a different term to describe the same thing does not actually change the act or motive.
I disagree. The Chaotic man is perfectly willing to acknowledge that the baker owns the bread. He has a right to it, legally. It's his. The Chaotic Good man just doesn't think the baker needs that bread nor the coppers it could earn him selling it as badly as whoever the CG thief is going to give the bread to. The Chaotic Neutral man doesn't think it will particularly hurt the baker to lose that bread or its representative coppers, so feels no guilt about taking it. The Chaotic Evil man doesn't CARE if the baker's family will starve without it, because the CE man wants it.

It isn't that the CG guy thinks the poor orphans own the bread. It's that he thinks they need it more. No amount of proof nor argument that the baker legitimately owns the bread is going to sway the CG thief because the CG thief doesn't care about ownership. He is happy to acknowledge it. He just doesn't respect it.

The Lawful man would care, and would respect it.

Ownership is about rights to a thing, yes. But the point is that the Chaotic person doesn't CARE about those rights; he cares about something else which he feels supercedes them. (The CE guy feels "the power to take it" supercedes them, believing "rights" to be an illusion at best. The CN guy doesn't care as long as he can say he's "not hurting anybody." The CG guy only cares about doing the most good, regardless of petty "rights" that get in the way of it.)

[Red Fel]

Hard wired response are that, hard wired. Automatisms.
Responses under extreme duress are flawed by body chemicals.

This position is unsupported by RAW. There are no mechanics for adrenaline, or instinctive reactions. Even things like Intimidate or Diplomacy, which reduce your check, still let you make a check. You can still choose, it is simply harder.

There is mechanical domination, such as via magic. But barring that, everything that your character does is a deliberate action. That's just how the game works. Saying otherwise is like saying, "Suddenly, my Paladin's fear takes hold, and he murders everyone in the city. But it's not deliberate, so it doesn't count." That's not how it works; everything your character does is deliberate unless a mechanic says otherwise. You are presumed to always be in control.

You keep talking about real-life laws, and chemistry, and reactions, and none of that figures into discussions about morality in a fictional game with an objective moral system.

[LudicSavant]

The Chaotic man is perfectly willing to acknowledge that the baker owns the bread. He has a right to it, legally. It's his. It's totally possible for a single person to account for multiple conceptions of ownership. This description is no different than your "Lawful" people recognizing that two different legal systems make two different claims to ownership (but only respecting one of those claims), or your "Lawful" people deciding that something should be appropriated because of their personal code of conduct (even though someone else's personal code of conduct says otherwise).



The Lawful man would care, and would respect it. Now you're just contradicting yourself. You admitted earlier that a Lawful man may not respect a different code from his own. You are drawing a distinction without a difference. You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

[Segev]

There's a hilarious bit in a fanfic called "Harry Potter and the Natural 20," where the main character (a wizard from a D&D world who was magically summoned into HP-verse, but still operates on D&D 3.5 mechanics...and is aware of them as laws of nature) decides that, since there are no rules for how pain affects somebody's ability to act, he'll just keep acting normally while being Crucio'd. It hurts, but since there are no action penalties for "being in pain" and Crucio isn't written up with its own debuff rules...why should the pain slow him down?

I bring this up because, technically, there's nothing compelling a PC to flinch from pain. So yes, your character has volition whenever you have control over him. Including whether to kill that small child or let your fingers be slowly gnawed off by the devil that's trying to get you to kill that child. Sure, you lose those fingers, but D&D alignment holds you responsible for the choice, and has no sympathy for the pain you, the player, aren't feeling (even though your PC is).

[Segev]

It's totally possible for a single person to account for multiple conceptions of ownership. This is no different than your "Lawful" people recognizing that two different legal systems make two different legal claims to ownership.If a Lawful person recognizes two different legal systems and respects both of them, he's in trouble where they conflict. This is possible. Heck, if he subscribes to a legal system that is self-contradictory or leads to a paradox, he's in trouble. Such things typically lead Lawful people to seriously re-examine their codes, and look to revise them.

The difference between a Lawful person "re-evaluating and revising" his code and a Chaotic person claiming to do the same is that the Lawful person doesn't do this every time his code is inconvenient. A Chaotic person claiming to do this is really just treating his code as a guideline, and picking whatever of his principles he most feels he should follow right now. A Lawful person is having an existential crisis, and will come out of it either with a stronger, more consistent code...or with less of a Lawful alignment as he resolves the paradox by cheating.


Now you're just contradicting yourself. You admitted earlier that a Lawful man may not respect a different code from his own. You are drawing a distinction without a difference.A Lawful man respects at least one code. By definition. He will respect ownership under that code. "Ownership" is not (necessarily) the same as "need." There ARE legal systems which define it as such, and discussing their consequences goes beyond the scope of this thread (and the rules of this forum).

But to examine somebody who lives by such a code and is Lawful vs. a CG thief who steals to give to those "in need," we only have to look at the extent to which they pursue this. If your code dictates that "ownership" corresponds to "who needs it most," it becomes imperative to figure out who is in the most need out of - at the minimum - all candidates you can perceive. The Lawful person trying to re-assign possession of something to the owner must figure out who needs it most. Even if two parties genuinely NEED it, if one needs it more, his code demands he re-assign possession to the more needy. The CG individual might feel badly for the even-more-needy beggars, but if he realizes that the baker can't afford to lose that bread, he's not going to steal it for the beggar.

Chaos treats codes as guidelines. Things to do most of the time, and goals to which to aspire, but things which should be bent and morphed and adapted to circumstances. Law treats codes as rigid rules to follow, because failure to follow them fails the underlying philosophy and leads to unintended consequences. The rules are there to tell you want to do in every circumstance. Even if it's hard or unpleasant or makes your heart ache, it's for the best to stick to them.

Ownership is a rule. Chaos will ignore it where it gets in the way of principle. Law will never ignore it.

Lawful people can disagree over the codes they follow. This doesn't make them not Lawful.

[LudicSavant]

Ownership is a rule. Chaos will ignore it where it gets in the way of principle. Law will never ignore it.

Lawful people can disagree over the codes they follow. This doesn't make them not Lawful.

Saying that Chaotics will act in line with their principles, and that Lawfuls will act in line with their code, is saying the same thing. You're just switching out synonyms here.

Chaotic people disagreeing over the principles they follow and Lawful people disagreeing over the codes they follow is also the same thing.

[Seto]

The difference between a Lawful person "re-evaluating and revising" his code and a Chaotic person claiming to do the same is that the Lawful person doesn't do this every time his code is inconvenient. A Chaotic person claiming to do this is really just treating his code as a guideline, and picking whatever of his principles he most feels he should follow right now. A Lawful person is having an existential crisis, and will come out of it either with a stronger, more consistent code...or with less of a Lawful alignment as he resolves the paradox by cheating.
[...]
Chaos treats codes as guidelines. Things to do most of the time, and goals to which to aspire, but things which should be bent and morphed and adapted to circumstances. Law treats codes as rigid rules to follow, because failure to follow them fails the underlying philosophy and leads to unintended consequences. The rules are there to tell you want to do in every circumstance.

Yeah, that's one metric I often use to measure Law and Chaos (it's one among others, not the be-all-end-all, but I find it useful) : Lawful treats their principles as laws (even if it's unpleasant, you don't bend them unless you absolutely have to, and then oftentimes you come to reject the whole principle), Neutral as rules (you don't bend them unless upholding them would cost you a lot), Chaotic as guidelines (if a principle doesn't feel appropriate anymore, might as well drop it or adapt it).

[LudicSavant]

To quote the Tome of Fiends...


Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular.

Rigidity: Not a Rubric for Law
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as being more "rigid" as opposed to "spontaneous" in your action. That's crap. Time generally only goes in one direction, and it generally carries a one to one correspondence with itself. That means that as a result of a unique set of stimuli, you are only going to do one thing. In D&D, the fact that other people weren't sure what the one thing you were going to do is handled by a Bluff check, not by being Chaotic.

[Name1]

To quote the Tome of Fiends...

Wait, Tome of Fiends is RAW? :smalleek:
Why wasn't I informed of that? :smallfurious:
I wanted to use some of the stuff in it for ages and it never worked out because all DMs said they wouldn't allow non-official stuff :smallsigh:

[LudicSavant]

Wait, Tome of Fiends is RAW? :smalleek:

No, it is not RAW. It was quoted because it contains an explanation for why "rigidity" and "adherence to self" do not make sense as rubrics for differentiating Law and Chaos.

[Segev]

Saying that Chaotics will act in line with their principles, and that Lawfuls will act in line with their code, is saying the same thing. You're just switching out synonyms here.

Chaotic people disagreeing over the principles they follow and Lawful people disagreeing over the codes they follow is also the same thing.

No. I'm deliberately not using them as synonyms. A code is an algorithm, a set of prescriptive and proscriptive rules which are examined and followed. It usually supports a set of principles (though how well a given code does so will vary).

A principle is a foundational belief in what "should be." It's a goal, and a guidepost towards which you look and try to move.

A principle is a metaphorical tower that you want to reach. A code is the map to it.

A Lawful person will follow that map devotedly, believing that it will get him to that tower, and that deviation from the map will draw him down false paths, directing him away from it because he will stumble in hidden pitfalls or encounter not-yet-seen walls barring his path.

A Chaotic person just keeps his eyes on the tower. He might be willing to go along with the map if it doesn't seem to lead him away from it, but he's going to abandon the map the moment it's not useful, having perhaps followed it only by coincidence. He's going to work towards the tower he can see, and that's the only guidepost he's going to hold to. Whatever he thinks he has to do to get there will be what he does, regardless of whether he'd previously voiced a rule about what he does to get there that this contradicts.

Everybody, regardless of alignment, is capable of consistency. The consistency of a Chaotic person is in his goals and guides. What he's TRYING to achieve. The consistency of a Lawful person is in his code and methods. HOW he does it, because he believes that code is its own goal...or that it is the best path to the end.


It isn't about "adherence to self." It's about whether you trust that keeping your eyes on the tower and heading towards it will get you there, or whether you trust that following the map, even when it seems to be going away from that tower, will ultimately let you avoid obstacles that bar you from reaching it.

[LudicSavant]

A code is an algorithm, a set of prescriptive and proscriptive rules which are examined and followed. Indeed. And as it happens, all minds operate according to algorithms. Any time you make a choice, you are following an algorithm, whether you can articulate the algorithm or not.

As such, "does/does not follow algorithms" is not a valid way to distinguish between minds. All minds will be in the "does" category. This is why I pointed out that "follows codes" is not a meaningful statement.


A principle is a metaphorical tower that you want to reach. A code is the map to it. And, what, you think that Chaotic people don't have a map and don't follow algorithms? :smallconfused:


A Chaotic person just keeps his eyes on the tower. For what does he look at the tower, if not for his brain to construct a map?

[Segev]

Indeed. And as it happens, all minds operate according to algorithms. Any time you make a choice, you are following an algorithm, whether you can articulate the algorithm or not.

As such, "follows algorithms" is not a valid way to distinguish between minds.

Perhaps, but that's missing the point.

There is a difference between somebody who consciously and rigorously follows a set of rules he lays out and obeys to the letter, and somebody who is following an algorithm but isn't consciously aware of it and makes choices based on nuanced, situational modifiers which he could not or would not spell out in words.

All your comment does is retreat from the discussion of Law vs. Chaos by trivializing the decisions. One could similarly say there's no difference between D&D and GURPS because they're both just using dice to abstractly model the chance that somebody can succeed at something based on arbitrary numbers written on a page. On a level, that's true. They're both RPGs that do that. But there are still significant differences between them.

The same is true of Law following a well-defined algorithm and Chaos "following an algorithm" that is essentially obscured and not well-defined in terms of step-by-step logic that anybody can follow.

You may as well also state that emotions are no different than logical evaluation of a situation, because they represent an internal process of which we're not consciously aware measuring all the same inputs and coming to surprisingly useful conclusions about how to deal with them (under most circumstances). And yet, they certainly get treated as very different an awful lot. And for good reason.

TL;DR: You can make that argument, but you're trivializing it to the point that your position has no meaning in order to make it broadly true.

[LudicSavant]

There is a difference between somebody who consciously and rigorously follows a set of rules he lays out and obeys to the letter, and somebody who is following an algorithm but isn't consciously aware of it and makes choices based on nuanced, situational modifiers which he could not or would not spell out in words.

Indeed there is a difference. This has already been addressed.


The only difference you've established is how well the person is able to articulate their rules/principles, not any actual difference in rules/principles.
___

The same is true of Law following a well-defined algorithm and Chaos "following an algorithm" that is essentially obscured and not well-defined in terms of step-by-step logic that anybody can follow.

Again...


The only difference you've established is how well the person is able to articulate their rules/principles, not any actual difference in rules/principles.

[Segev]

Indeed there is a difference. This has already been addressed.


___


Again...

Except that I spent a great deal of time articulating the difference between "rules" and "principles," and you've just plain ignored it. As evidenced by not quoting any of it nor addressing it.


To put it very, very simply: principles are that to which you aspire. They're the city on the hill that you hope to reach and be worthy of. A code is a specific list of rules you follow which you believe will get you to that city, will make you worthy of being a citizen thereof.


A Lawful person will adhere to that list of rules, applying them rigorously in all cases because he believes that, even if they take him in a different apparent direction, they'll get him to that city.

A Chaotic person will not have a list of rules he cares about; all he's worried about is a broad question, "What would a person who is in that city do?" Or, put another way, he'll just keep heading for that city, keeping it in his sight and moving that way.



That is the difference between principles and rules. If you believe I make no distinction between them, please address the distinction I've attempted to make and demonstrate why you believe it is not one.

[Niek]

What seems to be being gotten at is that Law prioritizes following the letter of the rule, while Chaos prioritizes following the spirit, in situations where the two conflict. This says nothing about which rules either individual happens to subscribe to

Or, in other terms, Law is deontologist and Chaos is utilitarian

[Segev]

What seems to be being gotten at is that Law prioritizes following the letter of the rule, while Chaos prioritizes following the spirit, in situations where the two conflict. This says nothing about which rules either individual happens to subscribe to

Or, in other terms, Law is deontologist and Chaos is utilitarian

That sounds like a good restatement of what I'm getting at.

Chaotic people aren't purposeless. They just don't have time for silly rules and regulations and limitations that get in the way of those purposes. Chaotic Good people might have some semi-conflicting purposes, because they don't want to hurt people in the process of achieving their personal goals, but they still resolve things by immediate prioritization and doing what seems good at the time.

Lawful people aren't automatons. They just believe that a well-defined how-to list will get them to their goals. They don't rewrite them on a whim; they follow the rules as long as they believe the rules really do lead to their goals. Even if inobviously right now. (To some degree, Lawful people tend to operate more on faith than Chaotic ones, especially when they adhere to Byzantine codes.)

A Lawful person (who isn't suffering a crisis of faith in their particular code) doesn't dither over options; he does his best to figure out what his rules say he should do, and then follows that. A Chaotic person doesn't waste time analyzing every tiny detail for minute differences between one choice or another; he picks the choice he thinks is best and moves on, even if that's the opposite of what he did last time for some reason not even he can define.


Lawful Evil people love the notion of OTHERS being slaves to the rules, but they also recognize that they best can enslave others if they, themselves, play by them. So they do, even when that means they lose. It just proves they're all the more brilliant when they win next time.

Chaotic Evil people have only themselves and what they desire as a "good" to pursue. Anything goes to achieve it. They can be smart about it, but the most they're going to care about rules is what the consequences are to break them.

[LudicSavant]

Except that I spent a great deal of time articulating the difference between "rules" and "principles," and you've just plain ignored it. As evidenced by not quoting any of it nor addressing it.

I did quote it, and address it. :smallannoyed:


That is the difference between principles and rules. If you believe I make no distinction between them, please address the distinction I've attempted to make and demonstrate why you believe it is not one.

I have already recognized and accepted your intended distinction between rules and principles, and moved on to a different point.

[Segev]

I did quote it, and address it. :smallannoyed:



I have already recognized and accepted your intended distinction between rules and principles, and moved on to a different point.

Okay... the post I quoted and was replying to seemed to be harping on that. So since I clearly missed this different point, and you were still raising it by quoting me, would you mind explaining what this different point is, please?

[LudicSavant]

Okay... the post I quoted and was replying to seemed to be harping on that. So since I clearly missed this different point, and you were still raising it by quoting me, would you mind explaining what this different point is, please?

Oh, now I think I see how it may have been misinterpreted. I said "The only difference you've established is how well the person is able to articulate their rules/principles, not any actual difference in rules/principles."

You read "not any actual difference in rules/principles" as "not any actual difference between the terms: rules and principles."
What I meant was "not any difference between rules or principles held by two characters of different alignments."

I was not saying (in that particular quote) that the terms rules and principles meant the same thing. I was saying that it appears as though (under your model) a Chaotic and Lawful character could both have the same sets of rules and/or principles, with the only difference between the characters being that one can explain their rules as step by step logic, while the other cannot articulate what their algorithm is.

Which, I might add, Niek's statement agrees with:

This says nothing about which rules either individual happens to subscribe to

[Segev]

Okay.

I agree with Niek's comment, because Law and Chaos say nothing about what rules or principles people hold. Only how they pursue and/or adhere to them.

In data mining, there is a concept called "Minimal Description Length." The concept is that you have a complete rule that you want to transmit through a bit-encoding scheme. You've already established that your bit encoding cypher is the most efficient possible. You have to pay $1 per bit, however, so you want to send the rule in as few bits as possible.

You can transmit either a very, very precise rule, covering every if/then in exhaustive fashion, or a very broad and general rule with a ton of exceptions. There is, of course, middle ground, with increasingly complex and precise rules that require fewer and fewer exceptions.

The goal is to figure out what combination of precision and exceptions requires the fewest bits possible.

This translates, I think, fairly well to the difference between Law and Chaos.

A Chaotic person has some broad principles, and tons of exceptions, most of which he'll come up with on the spot. A Chaotic person will treat each exception differently due to minute differences in the situation and context and what came before.

A Lawful person has very specific rules. There are no exceptions. It's a complete rule set that covers every contingency. A Lawful person will, if he encounters a gap in his rules, usually have a default rule, and might have to "make something up," but he'll do his best to align it so it doesn't conflict with his other rules in the set and will from thence forth apply it in all similar circumstances.


And that's assuming they share the same broad principles. This is not guaranteed, even if they're both Good (and especially not if they're both Evil).

[LudicSavant]

A Chaotic person has some broad principles, and tons of exceptions, most of which he'll come up with on the spot. A Chaotic person will treat each exception differently due to minute differences in the situation and context and what came before.

A Lawful person has very specific rules. There are no exceptions. It's a complete rule set that covers every contingency. A Lawful person will, if he encounters a gap in his rules, usually have a default rule, and might have to "make something up," but he'll do his best to align it so it doesn't conflict with his other rules in the set and will from thence forth apply it in all similar circumstances.

Okay, so let's take two characters, who shall be referred to as LC (for "Lawful Character according to Segev's conception of Law") and CC (for "Chaotic Character according to Segev's conception of Chaos").

So, what is the difference between:

LC: "I have this specific rule with no exceptions: Don't murder people. Killing people in situation "self defense" does not count as murder."
CC: "I have this broad general rule "don't kill people" but there is this situational exception "self defense" in which I can kill people."

And, more importantly, why is this difference so important that they're cosmic opposites that smite each other?

Edit:
Note that we can extend this example significantly further in terms of minimum description length, on both sides, while keeping them prescriptively equivalent. For example, if LC follows a country's legal code, there are a lot of cases clarifying what is and isn't murder, and a lot of situational caveats and mitigating circumstances baked into the law. In fact, modern legal codes tend to be ever-expanding in this regard, with each new situational ruling setting new precedents. Likewise, said legal codes also have means for changing any given laws as soon as they become sufficiently inconvenient. They also have means for making up new laws whenever it suits lawmakers to do so.

[Seto]

In addition, Lawful persons are more likely to consider that their rules are derived from something external to or greater than them (this can mean "my superiors", "objective morality", or "the order of things") to which they bow. Chaotic persons are more likely to consider their principles as coming from their own will, being internally motivated, or emerging somehow in relation to themselves ("I do this because I am this kind of person", or because "I want to be this kind of person").
They both may be right or deluded, depending on the case. And this is not a hard-and-fast rule either, but, similar to the likelihood of them bending their rules, I find it helps.

[Segev]

Okay, so let's take two characters, who shall be referred to as LC (for "Lawful Character according to Segev's conception of Law") and CC (for "Chaotic Character according to Segev's conception of Chaos).

So, what is the difference between:

LC: "I have this specific rule with no exceptions: Don't murder people. Killing people in situation "self defense" does not count as murder."
CC: "I have this broad general rule "don't kill people" but there is this situational exception "self defense" in which I can kill people."

And, more importantly, why is this difference so important that they're cosmic opposites that smite each other?

Because LC actually has a longer list of sub-clauses defining when it's "self defense" and when it isn't. CC, meanwhile, doesn't actually list the exceptions unless somebody corners him and convinces him that he really, really has to explain why it was okay for him to kill that guy when his rule is "don't kill people."

The difference in approach is stark when put into practice. CC looks like a horrible hypocrite to anybody who thinks rules are iron-clad. He believes that killing is wrong, but he shows no particular remorse for his "sin" of murder when he kills somebody for reasons he finds justified. One might be able to figure out what makes him feel justified in general - self defense, defense of others, the guy is left-handed, revenge - but CC is going to decide each time whether he feels like the "exception" applies. He might make up a new one, or ignore an old one. He'll tend to be consistent, but he doesn't believe any two situations are so identical that he can define a rule that would cover both. Even if that rule is a specifically-defined exception.

LC, meanwhile, if he does subscribe to exception-based rules, would have each exception detailed and spelled out, and would follow them.

I am sorry my example wasn't as good as I thought. I can see why it fails to get my point across.




Let me try again to phrase what I'm getting at: CC and LC are both consistent in their behavior, overall. CC looks like a hypocrite to LC because CC will break broad rules of the principle in the name of serving what he thinks is "right." LC looks like a jerk to CC because LC will follow the rules even when the rules seem to be "wrong."

CC's faith is in his judgment of what will serve the principle NOW. LC's faith is in the rules' ability to serve the principle even when he can't see it.


Or another way: LC's rules are external. He might use internal judgment to choose them, or even to modify them, but he won't do so trivially nor often; he trusts his rules to show him the "right" choice. CC's rules are internal, and perhaps ill-defined, but he trusts his judgment to get him to the "right" choice.

[Conradine]

To Red Fel.

1- I made just a short mention about real world law systems, only to prove that fear hampering free will is a commonly accepted notion, and stopped immediately as soon as you mentioned that

2- Your example about the Paladin must be a joke since Paladins are immune to fear...

3- Fear spells and effects cause character to run and scream, no matter what the characters want to do

4- Intimidation by torture works in a different way than normal Intimidation, there are rules for that both in BoVD and in Fiendish Codex 2

5- It's quite a straw man to talk about "murdering a town because in fear", since it's a prolonged and complex action. To unvoluntarily trample someone under a Fear effect, instead, is a situation covered by the rules.





There's a hilarious bit in a fanfic called "Harry Potter and the Natural 20," where the main character (a wizard from a D&D world who was magically summoned into HP-verse, but still operates on D&D 3.5 mechanics...and is aware of them as laws of nature) decides that, since there are no rules for how pain affects somebody's ability to act, he'll just keep acting normally while being Crucio'd. It hurts, but since there are no action penalties for "being in pain" and Crucio isn't written up with its own debuff rules...why should the pain slow him down?

I bring this up because, technically, there's nothing compelling a PC to flinch from pain. So yes, your character has volition whenever you have control over him. Including whether to kill that small child or let your fingers be slowly gnawed off by the devil that's trying to get you to kill that child. Sure, you lose those fingers, but D&D alignment holds you responsible for the choice, and has no sympathy for the pain you, the player, aren't feeling (even though your PC is).


Yes, ok. If characters are flesh automatons animated by free willed souls totally in control of they actions unless magically compelled, then all the speaking about being coerced become meaningless.

This is playing D&D as a videogame, not a rpg.

[LudicSavant]

To Red Fel.

...

2- Your example about the Paladin must be a joke since Paladins are immune to fear...

Paladins become immune to fear at level 3, therefore not all paladins are immune to fear. Unless Red Fel specified a Paladin of that level or higher, he's in the clear on at least that part :smalltongue:


Because LC actually has a longer list of sub-clauses defining when it's "self defense" and when it isn't. CC, meanwhile, doesn't actually list the exceptions unless somebody corners him and convinces him that he really, really has to explain why it was okay for him to kill that guy when his rule is "don't kill people."

But CC in the example clearly had the sub-clauses for "self defense" as part of his mental programming, even if he didn't articulate that exception until he was cornered.

Is the difference here just CC's relative ability or willingness to communicate? Would his alignment flip if he could hand you a printout of the code that runs his brain?


Let me try again to phrase what I'm getting at: CC and LC are both consistent in their behavior, overall. CC looks like a hypocrite to LC because CC will break broad rules of the principle in the name of serving what he thinks is "right." LC looks like a jerk to CC because LC will follow the rules even when the rules seem to be "wrong."

Sure. They look like jerks to each other, but it seems like the primary issue (in the self defense example) is just miscommunication. Is that really a good justification for cosmological opposites smiting each other? It feels thin to me.


Or another way: LC's rules are external. Didn't you give "follows his personal code of honor" as an example of LC guy before? That'd be internal rules, wouldn't it?

Internal vs External rules is a distinction you could potentially draw though. It would just be a rather odd one. It would mean that the archetypal Paladin following his personal code of honor (as opposed to trying to follow rules set down by someone else) is not Lawful. It also is another case where it may be difficult to justify these things as cosmological opposites smiting each other, because the king who wants everyone to follow his own internal rules would be Chaotic, while everyone following the king's rules would be Lawful.

[Seto]

Didn't you give "follows his personal code of honor" as an example of LC guy before? That'd be internal rules, wouldn't it?

Internal vs External rules is a distinction you could potentially draw though. It would just be a rather odd one. It would mean that the archetypal Paladin following his personal code of honor (as opposed to trying to follow rules set down by someone else) is not Lawful. It also is another case where it may be difficult to justify these things as cosmological opposites smiting each other, because the king who wants everyone to follow his own internal rules would be Chaotic, while everyone following the king's rules would be Lawful.

I'm not Segev, but: in the Lawful sense of "personal code", this code, however internal it may have been at first, is made explicit, externalized by the character. It is subsequently a personal code that remains set in stone, however much the character changes, and functions as external. The character's code is clearly distinct from his mood, and they're not supposed to interact. The character may of course rewrite some part of their code, but it's a big deal.
There is no such distinction between a Chaotic character's internal code and their stream of consciousness. Or rather, there is a distinction, but it's a fluid one. It is internal, remains so, and in that regard interacts with the context, the whims of the character, and is prone to being altered.

As to your second point, I see no theoretical problem with a tyrant being Chaotic, and those who accept his authority as legitimate being Lawful.

[Segev]

I'd say that "follows a personal code of honor" is Lawful iff that code is something he can and does articulate and specifically, consciously studies. If it's something that, even if he felt "bad" about adhering to in a particular circumstance, he'd stick to it because he trusts that it's keeping him on the right path even when his own judgment and lack of information would mislead him.

It's Chaotic if that "personal code" is something that bends and morphs to fit the circumstances.

A Chaotic person won't adhere to any rules that make him "feel bad" about the immediate circumstances. He will trust his gut and his judgment, and won't tend to go with something that seems like it's going to let the rules get in the way of his principles.

A Lawful person will trust that even if the rules seem to get in the way of his principles, they're guiding him such that he'll avoid a BIGGER violation of them later.


Both LC and CC believe that Mob Boss (MB) should be taken off the streets. They both even agree that, if MB were in jail, that'd be sufficient, but that MB being dead would also solve the problem. Neither would necessarily shed a tear over MB's death; they don't see it causing more problems than it solves.

LC, however, adheres to a code where you don't take down people just because you 'know' they're guilty. You have to have proof. He also believes that, even though he knows HE is a paragon of honesty, not all who could be in his position are, and thus that he must adhere to a set of rules which limit his power in order to limit the power of others who would abuse his position if they had it.

CC thinks that's nonsense. Knowing that he, CC, is a good and honest man, and that he isn't being motivated by selfishness or anything of the sort, CC trusts his judgment and the evidence he has to prove to himself that MB is the truly guilty party.

MB can hide behind all sorts of "you can't prove it was me" shenanigans to protect himself from action by LC. CC, on the other hand, will kill MB if he doesn't think he can jail him effectively. Because CC believes that the petty rules just get in the way of doing what should be done.

This sounds like an argument for Chaos being superior to Law in terms of effectiveness, but that's just because it's a lot harder to see the consequences of a Chaotic pursuit of a philosophy on a personal level. You have to back up and see it on a broader scale. The rules that "get in the way" of LC doing what "has to be done" are there to prevent hopefully-rare occurrences. But those rare occurrences happen and add up when those rules aren't in place.

Just because CC's cousin, Chaotic Vigilante (CV), feels that he also knows what is what doesn't mean his own judgment is as good as CC's. He gets fooled by false evidence, and lets anger cloud his judgment so personal revenge overrides genuine adherence to principle. LC points to CV as reason why LC restrains himself, and why CC should restrain himself. CC just thinks the problem is that CV has poor judgment.

It really is about approach. LC trusts the "judgment" of a set of rules in place to protect people from those whose judgment is not so great, because he knows that not only is his own judgment not ALWAYS perfect, but that there are many who have worse judgment than he. CC trusts his own judgment, and feels that the right way to handle those with poorer judgment is to stop them, while leaving those with good judgment free to do whatever needs doing.


That's the external/internal divide.

Yes, the "external" code could be personal. But it's something consciously followed, even when one's "internal gut" tells you not to. The Chaotic man will follow that internal gut, because he trusts it over any specifically-worded "code." Even if he wrote the words himself.

[LudicSavant]

It is subsequently a personal code that remains set in stone, however much the character changes

What do you mean by set in stone? Can't be amended or updated? If Lawful means your model cannot be amended or updated, that would make Lawfulness a severe character flaw, since the nature of all learning is updating your model.

It would also mean that most legal systems wouldn't qualify as Lawful, since just about all of them (with the exception of absolute dogmatism) allow for revision.


As to your second point, I see no theoretical problem with a tyrant being Chaotic, and those who accept his authority as legitimate being Lawful.

Okay, as long as it's consistent.

[Seto]

What do you mean by set in stone? Can't be amended or updated? If Lawful means your model cannot be amended or updated, that would make Lawfulness a severe character flaw, since the nature of all learning is updating your model.

It would also mean that most legal systems wouldn't qualify as Lawful, since just about all of them (with the exception of absolute dogmatism) allow for revision.

No, that was an hyperbole. They can be amended, as I pointed out two sentences later. I just meant that it's not easy or insignificant to amend them, as with legal systems. If, however, they must be revised, they won't be revised without significant thought - the typical Lawful behavior will be, if your judgment seems to go against the rule and you don't have time to think about it, to trust the rule and go with it for now, and you'll think about it later. You've chosen to follow those rules for a reason, they're solid and carefully thought out; judgments are fleeting and easily misguided. So, go with the rule.
(Of course, a Chaotic character would tell you that rules do not suffice, because they cannot anticipate the complexity of an actual situation, whereas a judgment call, however imperfect, has the advantage of being tailored to this very situation. So, rules are meant to guide judgment, but when they conflict, go with judgment.)

Segev made much the same point in the post below mine, maybe with clearer words.

[Mehangel]

I know I am a little late to the party, but I just wanted to express some thoughts on the subject of good and evil. Most players at the table of which I game firmly believe that maybe 99% of all people are neither of Good or of Evil alignment (Statistical outliers do exist, hence the 1%). There are however Good and Evil actions, which we as people commit every day (or almost every day), and to be honest, we commit more Evil actions than Good. That does not however make the individual Evil.

Thus for all the examples of actions which some people consider 'grey area' such as: 'The poor and hungry stealing food' or 'the tortured person giving up information that they know will cost the lives of innocents' these actions ARE Evil, but they do not make the person evil. That is not to say that individuals such as paladins who are held up to a higher code won't fall because of them.

[Flickerdart]

Thus for all the examples of actions which some people consider 'grey area' such as: 'The poor and hungry stealing food' or 'the tortured person giving up information that they know will cost the lives of innocents' these actions ARE Evil, but they do not make the person evil. That is not to say that individuals such as paladins who are held up to a higher code won't fall because of them.

Stealing is Chaotic, not Evil. Giving up information under torture is also, if anything, Chaotic, but I would not actually assign it any alignment.

[Darth Ultron]

So, unless you say that those people freely choose to froze and die when they could easily escape, you must admit that is fully possible to panick and lose the ability to make a conscious decision.

Except this leads to ''anyone can do anything and everything is OK.'' Everyone, if they did or not, will say ''oh, when I did X I had lost the ability to make decisions.'' And, amazingly, anytime they do anything they ''loose the ability to make decisions''.



In game consideration: if Good actions cannot be coerced ( everyone agrees on that ) but Evil actions can, to the degree of actions done under torture to be considered fully Evil ( enough to change alignment to Evil ), then Evil would have such an unsurmontable advantage over Good than the multiverse would be heavily unbalaced toward Evil.


This is how the universe works. Evil does have that advantage.

Take a typical evil person, and then ''torture'' then to do a good act like save someones life. Ok, they are still evil and saving the life does not matter.

Take a good person, and ''torture'' them to do an evil act like kill some one. Ok, they are no longer ''full' good as they have done an evil act and it matters very much.




LC: "I have this specific rule with no exceptions: Don't murder people. Killing people in situation "self defense" does not count as murder."
CC: "I have this broad general rule "don't kill people" but there is this situational exception "self defense" in which I can kill people."

And, more importantly, why is this difference so important that they're cosmic opposites that smite each other?


Your not making CC Chaotic enough. It's more like: "I have this broad general rule "don't kill people'', most of the time...if I feel like it or if there are witnesses or if I might get into trouble or if the killing might cause something to happen that might bother me or inconvenience me and sometimes I kill in something called ''self defense'' by others, but I just use it to stay out of trouble or hassle or jail by pretending to go along with whatever they say that is.


I know I am a little late to the party, but I just wanted to express some thoughts on the subject of good and evil. Most players at the table of which I game firmly believe that maybe 99% of all people are neither of Good or of Evil alignment (Statistical outliers do exist, hence the 1%). There are however Good and Evil actions, which we as people commit every day (or almost every day), and to be honest, we commit more Evil actions than Good. That does not however make the individual Evil.


The vast majority of people are neutral and commit various good and evil acts in a day, and stay neutral. Very few are pure neutral, and will fall into neutral good or neutral evil.

To be Good or Evil, you have to do a lot of such actions everyday and do some major ones every couple of days or so.

[GalacticAxekick]

Good maximises the overall happiness of all sentients.
Evil doesn't.

Notable considerations

Good is not selfless. Because you yourself are a sentient, yours gains and losses are considered in determining whether your action improved or decreased overall happiness. Self-destruction for the minor benefit of others is an odd kind of evil, and harming others for the great benefit of one's self is an odd kind of good.
Evil is not necessarily selfish. Intending to benefit a specific person or demographic at the cost of overall happiness is still evil. Intending to benefit no one is evil if it costs overall happiness.
It's the thought that counts. Sincerely intending to raise overall happiness makes your actions good, whether or not they're misinformed. Sincerely intending to lower it makes your actions evil.
Actions are aligned but people aren't. Nobody is truly, perfectly good or evil. Moral alignment is more a measure of tendency than anything, where neutral represents the mixed tendencies of a fairly average person.

Chaotic vs Lawful would be Internal vs External source of judgement, imo. A lawful character doesn't necessarily uphold her governments laws, but she follows some set of guidelines from outside of herself in order to achieve her aims. A chaotic character finds guidelines exclusively within her own judgement. A neutral character, again the most realistic of the three, uses a thorough mix of both.

[Conradine]

Except this leads to ''anyone can do anything and everything is OK.'' Everyone, if they did or not, will say ''oh, when I did X I had lost the ability to make decisions.'' And, amazingly, anytime they do anything they ''loose the ability to make decisions''.


What are you saying exactly with "exept it leads" ?

If you mean that a fantasy court attorney in a fantasy trial could plead temporary insanity for each and every client, yes, that could happen.

If you mean that admitting sometimes duress can strip a sentient being of his rational mind would imply that it happens everytime, then no, it's a non sequitur.



This is how the universe works. Evil does have that advantage.


Actually, the core D&D universe is roughly balanced.

[Seto]

Good maximises the overall happiness of all sentients.
Evil doesn't.

Notable considerations

Good is not selfless. Because you yourself are a sentient, yours gains and losses are considered in determining whether your action improved or decreased overall happiness. Self-destruction for the minor benefit of others is an odd kind of evil, and harming others for the great benefit of one's self is an odd kind of good.
Evil is not necessarily selfish. Intending to benefit a specific person or demographic at the cost of overall happiness is still evil. Intending to benefit no one is evil if it costs overall happiness.
It's the thought that counts. Sincerely intending to raise overall happiness makes your actions good, whether or not they're misinformed. Sincerely intending to lower it makes your actions evil.
Actions are aligned but people aren't. Nobody is truly, perfectly good or evil. Moral alignment is more a measure of tendency than anything, where neutral represents the mixed tendencies of a fairly average person.

That's textbook utilitarianism. Which is a fine philosophical doctrine, but that's not at all what D&D goes with. (Actually D&D doesn't go with a very clear moral doctrine at all). Killing a Good Outsider is always Evil (yes, even if it brings more happiness to more people). "Harming others for the great benefit of one's self" is not "an odd kind of good" in D&D, it's unambiguously Evil. Eating the bare minimum so you can give all your money to orphanages may not be healthy, but it's Good.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

If your concern is people's happiness, go with Neutral, man. We actually have a reasonable approach to morality.

[Conradine]

Hope I'll not go off topic, I want to make a consideration about NE alignment.

Often it's described as "it will follow the rules untill they get in the way".


I think that there can be quite a level of variantion on NE behiavour toward rules.
Some NE could like some kind of order in their life, some others could dislike rules and limitations. Both will break or follow rules and laws according to their own best interest, but the first will enjoy following advantageous rules, the second will enjoy more breaking disvantageous ones.

[Darth Ultron]

If you mean that admitting sometimes duress can strip a sentient being of his rational mind would imply that it happens everytime, then no, it's a non sequitur.

But if you let one person do anything with no consequences as they say ''oh, I was crazy for a second'', then why would you not let 1,000 people do so, or everyone to do so?

And sure, the one in a trillion times someone ''goes crazy'' you might forgive them...but all the rest of the time, nope.

[QUOTE=Conradine;21271272]

Actually, the core D&D universe is roughly balanced.

Why would you think that?

[Necroticplague]

Why would you think that?

Because there are planes associated with all the alignments, all infinite in size. Thus, there is an equal amount of evil and good in the universe (namely, there is an infinite amount of both).

[LudicSavant]

It's more like: "I have this broad general rule "don't kill people'', most of the time...if I feel like it or if there are witnesses or if I might get into trouble or if the killing might cause something to happen that might bother me or inconvenience me and sometimes I kill in something called ''self defense'' by others, but I just use it to stay out of trouble or hassle or jail by pretending to go along with whatever they say that is. In that case, the person is Bluffing about their values to satisfy others, rather than actually having those values. That is not the scenario that Segev described.

[Conradine]

But if you let one person do anything with no consequences as they say ''oh, I was crazy for a second'', then why would you not let 1,000 people do so, or everyone to do so?


Are you talking about building a fantasy law system or about deciding if a fantasy character was or was not able to decide rationally in a specific situation?

Fantasy law system: it depends on circumstances.

About deciding if an action was or was not a moral choice, I would take into account the specific situation, talking with the player.


Anyway, as a rule of thumb, the more premeditated and efficent the action, the more implausible is that the fictional moral agent ( the person who did the action ) was out of his mind.
That is counter-balanced by the entity of the threat pending upon the fictional moral agent.




And sure, the one in a trillion times someone ''goes crazy'' you might forgive them...


If we choose to play in a fantasy setting where people are free souls wrapped in flesh, ok.

If we choose to play in a fantasy setting where people resemble real world people, then losing mental clarity is way easier than you think. I know that many people believe they could hold pain , stay clear minded and lucid and make full conscious moral actions; but reality is different.

[GalacticAxekick]

That's textbook utilitarianism. Which is a fine philosophical doctrine, but that's not at all what D&D goes with. (Actually D&D doesn't go with a very clear moral doctrine at all). Killing a Good Outsider is always Evil (yes, even if it brings more happiness to more people). "Harming others for the great benefit of one's self" is not "an odd kind of good" in D&D, it's unambiguously Evil. Eating the bare minimum so you can give all your money to orphanages may not be healthy, but it's Good.
Alright, but this thread is asking how we define evil (and by extension, good), not what D&D handbooks prescribe. The players, not the handbooks, are the ultimate authority after all.


Because there are planes associated with all the alignments, all infinite in size. Thus, there is an equal amount of evil and good in the universe (namely, there is an infinite amount of both). That's nominal, not actual. That's the source material saying "there is an equal amount of good and evil". Depending on how the player defines good and evil, the source material might be saying "there is an equal amount of good and evil" while presenting more evil, or conditions that empower evil.

The "good" plane might contain what a player defines as evil, for instance.

Or while the good and evil planes are equal, the normal world between them is skewed towards what a player defines as evil.

[Conradine]

The core setting is "Good and Evil are balanced".
Actually, I start from this premise and go on.

Can Good and Evil be balanced if Evil actions can be coerced and Good actions cannot? No, expecially if we take into account large-scale coerction factors ( like hunger and diseases ).

Therefore, moral actions cannot be coerced if the system has a chance to be balanced.

[Necroticplague]

Well, to view it from a cosmic alignment sense (i.e, dissasociated from moral sense), it's clear that coercion counts somewhat. All Pacts (both Primeval and Insidious) are automatically void if coerced by mind control or threats against their life. However, holding souls of others hostage isn't considered coercion (i., "your soul or life": coercion. "Your soul or their soul": not coercion), while most people would probably consider it on a similar level to other forms of coercion.

On a similar and opposite direction, while all Sacred Vows can be broken by magical compulsion, such situations usually allow for Atonement (except for Poverty, because screw you, apparently). However, intentionally breaking your vow, even by nonmagical compulsion, is a one-way 'no feat for you'.

So, at a cosmic level, because the decisions about Good or Evil are just divine fiat, the cosmic considerations of coercion are just as (if not more) arbitrary as everything else. Thus, alignment has little bearing on morality.

side note:Incidentally, what would 'suitable penance' be for Vows broken because of things others did to you (i.e, rape for Chasity, being drugged for Abstinence)? Seems kinda hard to to traditional penance (i.e, trying to make things right with the victim) when you're the victim.

[Segev]

Except this leads to ''anyone can do anything and everything is OK.'' Everyone, if they did or not, will say ''oh, when I did X I had lost the ability to make decisions.'' And, amazingly, anytime they do anything they ''loose the ability to make decisions''.


[QUOTE=Conradine;21271272]But if you let one person do anything with no consequences as they say ''oh, I was crazy for a second'', then why would you not let 1,000 people do so, or everyone to do so?

And sure, the one in a trillion times someone ''goes crazy'' you might forgive them...but all the rest of the time, nope.
These two quotes illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're discussing, Darth Ultron. We're not talking about whether any given non-omniscient third party observer "forgives" people for their evil acts or not. We're talking about the fundamental truth behind their actions.

It doesn't matter what you claim; you either did or did not have volition when you took an action. Sure, if you're trying to build a legal system whereby a non-omniscient judge or jury has to determine somebody's guilt under the law, you can't just take "Oh, I was unable to make a choice at that moment" at its face value. (Real world laws often do have clauses to allow for acts without thought - it's both why insanity is a valid plea, and why coercion is a valid affirmative defense for a lot of crimes. But again, that's not what we're discussing here; we're discussing cosmic Good and Evil.)

Cosmic Good and Evil are simply facts of what you are and what you've done. This is not dependent on what you can convince anybody else to be true. It's not even dependent on what you can fool yourself into believing. If you committed the act of your own volition - regardless of what you claim later - you're guilty (or at least responsible for, if "guilt" isn't the right term) of that act.

The point being, it doesn't matter if a character CLAIMS they had no choice. It only matters if they did or not.

If your concern is that players - whom you've expressed strong distrust for in the past - will try to claim their characters "lost control" when the player made the conscious choice to engage the act, then you just tell them "no." Because you can use the rules of the game and whether it was the PLAYER's choice or not to judge whether the character was coerced. (Unless you're playing a game where the player doesn't have 100% control over his character's volition, in which case some voluntary acts on the character's part may be against the player's will. But D&D - which we're discussing here - has no such mechanics.)


Your not making CC Chaotic enough. It's more like: "I have this broad general rule "don't kill people'', most of the time...if I feel like it or if there are witnesses or if I might get into trouble or if the killing might cause something to happen that might bother me or inconvenience me and sometimes I kill in something called ''self defense'' by others, but I just use it to stay out of trouble or hassle or jail by pretending to go along with whatever they say that is.
No, that's a CN character at best. CC was, IIRC, CG. It's probably CE, since he's willing to kill people if it's convenient enough.

CN has a rule against killing. He is willing to make exceptions to that rule. The fact that he has that rule suggests that he's CN to CG, as CE people wouldn't even have a general rule like that. "There are people I should not kill because they're useful to me, or it will screw me over somehow" is more CE's 'general rule' for why not to kill.

If CC has the general rule, "don't kill people," it will be when and why he chooses to make an exception that will tell you whether he's CG or CN. He won't have a specific list of exceptions that he's too concerned with following to the letter. But you'll be able to detect general patterns. He might kill in the heat of battle, but not typically be the one to pick a fight. Or he might pick fights, but only with people actively engaged in hostilities with those he wants to protect. He might even kill if he thinks it's "for the greater good," which may lead to cold-blooded murder. That one starts to really make it likely he's more CN than CG, but argument can still be made depending on circumstances. Murdering MB to end a reign of terror over a city may be within CG's bounds.

Please note that, because we're discussing a Chaotic person, all of this is by definition a bit fuzzy. His general rule, "don't kill people," could be anything from a reciprocal "because you don't want to give others reason to kill you" to a Good-aligned "because it's wrong." And his exceptions will be situational. He might be able to explain in every single case why that rule does or does not apply, but like all exceptions, they'll be case-specific.


Incidentally, what would 'suitable penance' be for Vows broken because of things others did to you (i.e, rape for Chasity, being drugged for Abstinence)? Seems kinda hard to to traditional penance (i.e, trying to make things right with the victim) when you're the victim.

Likely purification rituals of some sort, since the violation that cost you your Vow is likely more about how you've been soiled than about your spirit being flawed.

To take it to a slightly more mundane but easily-seen analogy, if you are going to the holy temple and they require spotless white robes and cleanly washed bodies before you're allowed in, lest you sully the place with dirt, they won't let you in even if you did everything you could to try to protect yourself, but malicious kids dropped a muddy frog down the back of your robes and shoved you down into the mud. However, as it definitely wasn't your fault, they'll express sympathy for your trial and help you wash up, providing a clean robe after you've taken a bath. Now you're clean again, so you can go in.

On the other hand, somebody who willfully or carelessly dirties themselves is going to get far less sympathy, and may not be permitted in at all (if we're being truly analogous to the Vows), since he'd PROMISED he'd stay clean and deliberately broke that sacred promise.

[Conradine]

All Pacts (both Primeval and Certain) are automatically void if coerced by mind control or threats against their life. However, holding souls of others hostage isn't considered coercion (i., "your soul or life": coercion. "Your soul or their soul": not coercion), while most people would probably consider it on a similar level to other forms of coercion.


Actually, according to Fiendish Codex II, holding LIVING hostages and threats against third parties are considered coercition. It's not specified but I guess that souls held hostage by any other means than ortodox damnation ( like Soul Binding spells ) count as threat against third parties too.


If all these rules are followed, each and every soul that ends up damned in Baator ends there by his own free choice. Therefore, to meddle with other's freely choosen eternal destiny would be quite reasonably an act of hubris.


Hey guys. Don't you feel that is somewhat meaningful... the highest authority source about Good ( Pelor ) and the highest authority source about Evil ( Asmodeus ) agree upon that concept: evilness and damnation cannot be coerced.





To take it to a slightly more mundane but easily-seen analogy, if you are going to the holy temple and they require spotless white robes and cleanly washed bodies before you're allowed in, lest you sully the place with dirt, they won't let you in even if you did everything you could to try to protect yourself, but malicious kids dropped a muddy frog down the back of your robes and shoved you down into the mud. However, as it definitely wasn't your fault, they'll express sympathy for your trial and help you wash up, providing a clean robe after you've taken a bath. Now you're clean again, so you can go in.


You know... I never thought about me as a really good person, not even before going on full "screw-the-world" mode.

But when I thought about a true Good character, I never envisioned images of immaculate purity and cleanliness, or shining temples with marble floors.

Actually, when I think about a "true Good" character, I think about somebody that hang out without shame with beggars, prostitutes and other parias, that do not shun even lepers and has words of forgiveness for everyone no matter how wicked, as long there is repentance.

Dunno where I got that mental image, probably reading some fantasy book. Because we are talking about fantasy, be it clear. Any reference to real facts or persons is purely coincidental.

[Segev]

You know... I never thought about me as a really good person, not even before going on full "screw-the-world" mode.

But when I thought about a true Good character, I never envisioned images of immaculate purity and cleanliness, or shining temples with marble floors.

Actually, when I think about a "true Good" character, I think about somebody that hang out without shame with beggars, prostitutes and other parias, that do not shun even lepers and has words of forgiveness for everyone no matter how wicked, as long there is repentance.

Dunno where I got that mental image, probably reading some fantasy book. Because we are talking about fantasy, be it clear. Any reference to real facts or persons is purely coincidental.

I appreciate your position, and actually agree with it. I think you missed my point.

Besides, I wasn't discussing real-world good and evil, nor even purity and taint. I was discussing it specifically in the context of the rules surrounding Vow feats.

My own faith would never, ever require any sort of "atonement" from a victim for what was done to them. A rape victim would not be considered to have violated any laws of chastity; he's a victim of another's multiple sins, and while he deserves any help the Church is capable of giving him to recover his mental and spiritual sense of worthiness, it in no way is his fault and is not a burden of sin for which he needs to repent or atone in any way. Similarly true of anybody who is drugged against their will, or otherwise has something done TO them which, if they'd voluntarily taken it on, would have been a sin.

I won't go further than saying my own beliefs and where the Church to which I belong stands on that; we're not here to discuss real-world morality quite that in-depth (lest it violate forum rules).

The concept behind the Paladin who is forced to commit evil against his will (e.g. domination) or the Exalted character losing a Vow feat because they were forcibly compelled to violate its letter (rape, forcible drugging, dominated into stabbing somebody, etc.) is that the act was done with their body. They are soiled, through no fault of their own. The soiling must be cleansed. If harm was done to another with them as the instrument, restitution must be made. The atonement spell is to allow such cleansings, after any restitutions needed have been made. As it requires a "penance," that can be the restitution, or, where none is really possible due to the nature of the violation, some sort of ritualized or symbolic cleansing.

That's all I was getting at.

The whole "clean robes" thing was meant to illustrate that even if you didn't voluntarily become unclean, you ARE unclean. Not to suggest that literally getting physically dirty is somehow not Good. Nor even that hanging out amongst the unclean for purposes of helping them is not Good.

[Necroticplague]

Actually, according to Fiendish Codex II, holding LIVING hostages and threats against third parties are considered coercion. It's not specified but I guess that souls held hostage by any other means than ortodox damnation ( like Soul Binding spells ) count as threat against third parties too.


If all these rules are followed, each and every soul that ends up damned in Baator ends there by his own free choice. Therefore, to meddle with other's freely choosen eternal destiny would be quite reasonably an act of hubris.


Hey guys. Don't you feel that is somewhat meaningful... the highest authority source about Good ( Pelor ) and the highest authority source about Evil ( Asmodeus ) agree upon that concept: evilness and damnation cannot be coerced.Actually, in order to even void the contract on those grounds, you need to invoke your right to a trial on those grounds, then beat the a devil in a duel of lawyering. Note that it can by nullified on those grounds, not prevented in the first place. So it's entirely possible to end up in Hell by coercion if you don't know that you can protest that, or aren't skilled enough at lawyering to prove you were coerced.