PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Shifts and Unintentional Goodness



Ursus the Grim
2017-01-20, 11:23 AM
I have never seen a DM shift a player's alignment from Evil towards Good. This might be bias caused by the fact that Evil characters are far less common than Good ones - but I also don't recall ever reading a player's story about his alignment being pushed towards the light. Lots of stories about punishing the Paladin with the orc baby though.

I like playing Lawful Evil characters because I am a sociopath I enjoy making cold, calculated, in-character decisions. I began pondering contingency plans for averting a TPK if my character were the last one standing. After deciding that he'd stay to try to save his friends (yes, friends), I figured he would also be indignant - a la 'nobody makes me bleed my own blood.'
Unfortunately, such a situation might be misconstrued as heroism!

Thus, I wondered if my DM might shift my jerkass Lawful Evil character towards Good as a result of the character's actions. I don't think the DM would do so, as being selfless and Good seem to be the norms for adventurers and there really isn't a good reason for the DM to care if I'm acting more 'Good.'

Thus, I suspect there is a double standard - I don't think most DMs are as willing to shift characters away from Evil as they are to shift towards it. Is this because alignment shifts are a useful tool for keeping your players in line? Or is this because characters being Good is generally assumed and not worth making note of?

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback, anecdotes, and thoughts on the topic.

tl;dr: Have you ever had a character shift away from good towards evil? Was it the result of action or DM-assisted character development? What were the circumstance?

Cozzer
2017-01-20, 11:51 AM
Well... I think part of it is that Evil is easy, while Good is hard. So a GM can "challenge" a Good alignment as a way to challenge the character or the player: "but are you good/determined enough to stay Good in this situation?!"

(Like all possible challenges a DM can issue to the players, it can be twisted into the kind of stupid, pointless, GM-power-trip "challenge" that forces Paladins to eat babies because the only alternative is worse)

Challenging an Evil alignment, on the other hand, makes no sense. An Evil character, in general, already makes the optimal choices for his own survival. You could challenge the degree of evil ("but are you evil enough to kill your own son for an increase in power?"), but even if the player "fails" the challenge and doesn't sacrifice the son, the character simply keeps being as evil as he already was.

You could challenge a Lawful Evil character by presenting choices that are advantageous to him but break the laws, for example, but you're challenging his Lawfulness, not his Evilness.

kyoryu
2017-01-20, 12:01 PM
If you're constantly doing things for the benefit of others with no immediate or even potential payoff, that'd shift your alignment to Good.

That involves a bit of mind-reading, though :)

Satinavian
2017-01-20, 12:20 PM
Once i had an Evil cleric and also feared a DM imposed shift to good because i would have needed to look for a new god ruleswise and i choose the god for aspects and fluff and thus had to pick something evil because the god was NE. But i was not particularly interested in behaving like a jerk.

DM never shifted alignments in the whole group, so it was fine. Didn't need my backup plan to aimlessly cast evil spells like protection from good or deathwatch to perform enough evil deeds to counter my good deeds.


But i have never seen the shift to Good enforced anywhere else either. I think, there are two reasons :

- Atonement is a nice story arc. But if the subject doesn't actively pursue it, doesn't feel bad for past transgressions and it just happens because he is living like an average person, it looses most story appeal
- Forcing people to good against their personal desire just demonstrates how utterly stupid and broken the alignment system actually is. Suddenly it takes effort to be evil and it becomes a goal of characters to do evil just to do evil and not get an alignment shift instead of doing evil because of the benefits of the acts themself.

Millstone85
2017-01-20, 12:36 PM
Atonement is a nice story arc. But if the subject doesn't actively pursue it, doesn't feel bad for past transgressions and it just happens because he is living like an average person, it looses most story appealIt is no atonement at all. Regret is step one. Then there is the pursuit of acts of good that even the character themself thinks can never truly repair what they did. Then comes forgiveness from another character whose opinion we should care about, like a victim or a god.

I am playing a character with a heavy past who is trying to settle in a respectable position. But I am playing this as being solely about tranquillity, leaving the alignment a solid NE.

Segev
2017-01-20, 01:21 PM
Let's examine an example. Say a drow priestess of Lolth is a wonderful sample of CE in her behavior. She's loyal to her goddess because her goddess gives her power, but other than that she's capricious and cruel, enjoying accumulating wealth and power for herself and lording it over others, and finding it out-right funny when somebody didn't see her sudden but inevitable betrayal coming at the moment it most amused or benefitted her.

To her, her daughter's lack of interest in hurting other people is...odd. Okay, perhaps it's just a taste thing; she doesn't get off on it the same way her mother does. But when she takes it to a point where she refuses to do so even for her own benefit...that's a sign of weakness. That's quite disturbing. Maybe some weakness is okay (the priestess admits, to herself, at least, that her daughter is a weakness of hers; she wouldn't enjoy her daughter's suffering, and might even be pained by it), but when it starts extending to strangers...that's a serious problem.

Unfortunately for the priestess, her daughter eventually succumbs to this weakness. She lets the wrong person live, and dies for it. Perhaps she failed a test. Perhaps the person to whom she showed mercy lacked this weakness, and slew her with the same glee her mother had shown many times before. This breaks the priestess's heart. Sure, she exacts a roaring rampage of revenge; it's both cathartic and pleasing to Lolth, and it cements her power against fools who'd try such things if they thought her weak enough to spare them afterwards. But she still is hurt.

Years later, she encounters a slave who, for some ineffable reason, reminds her of her daughter. Though it is a weakness, she treats the slave well. Thinking the slave not somebody in whom she needs to groom strength, she unwittingly lets down her guard, and actually indulges the slave's weakness towards others. At first, just by not arguing with the slave. Maybe laughing at the slave's empathy, but never chastising the slave for weakness. She is, after all, just a slave, and encouraging strength in a slave can be hazardous.

The trouble comes when she realizes that she is actually hurt, a little, when she sees how hurt her slave is by cruelties. Perhaps it happens, at least once, without her quite realizing it: her slave pleads with her to grant mercy to another, and, whimsically, she indulges her slave. She even enjoys watching the relief wash over this slave that she cares about. Caprice is okay, but to her horror, after a lengthy period of denial, the priestess might realize that the "capricious mercy" has become a pattern of sparing those her slave most pleads for.

Now, here's where we reach a failure to mirror a "fall" from goodness: one act of gross evil can be enough to cause people to question if you're really "good." One act of pure mercy, however, doesn't start to excuse all the evil one has done before.

However, it IS possible to see a path for this priestess out of CE and into CN, if her slave's influence drives her to be weaker and weaker, until she actually has to weigh her weakness - her own empathy for others' suffering - against her pragmatic whims.

Perhaps it is important, then, for us to consider that one act of evil likely only, at most, pushes our LG hero towards LN. And rarely if ever should it cause their alignment to change before it becomes a pattern. One evil act doesn't make the NG hero TN. It only means he's guilty of wrongdoing.

Mordar
2017-01-20, 01:38 PM
Thus, I suspect there is a double standard - I don't think most DMs are as willing to shift characters away from Evil as they are to shift towards it. Is this because alignment shifts are a useful tool for keeping your players in line? Or is this because characters being Good is generally assumed and not worth making note of?

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback, anecdotes, and thoughts on the topic.

tl;dr: Have you ever had a character shift away from good towards evil? Was it the result of action or DM-assisted character development? What were the circumstance?

Well, in a vacuum I think that it is far easier to move from Good towards Evil than from Evil towards Good, particularly unintentionally.

I believe this to be so primarily because Evil characters can do Good deeds in the service of (their or their masters) evil design. Saving the rest of the party may appear to be a Good act, but really it might just be the most efficient way to accomplish the goal of taking over the kingdom (or whatever). Evil characters can even do things to appear Good while in their hearts still being Evil. They have the "freedom" to choose actions based on their whims and goals, and there is not a moral code to which they must cleave. Additionally, there exists the idea that it really only takes one intentional evil act to make one Evil, so if they are felt to be helping too many old ladies across the street or getting kittens down from trees, all they have to do is swipe the Girl Scouts' cookie money and they're right back to where they began. Thousands of drops of Good don't remove the taste of Evil without specific and prolonged intent.

Good characters, however, can virtually never do Evil deeds in the service of Good. Sure, there might be some choices they have to make where both options have negative outcomes, but that is not the same as an intentional evil act. The moral code of Good, if you will, does not allow such a failing, at least not without atonement. Killing the little girl because the prophecy says she might become the Evil Queen just can't be done and remain Good. There must be proof first. One drop of Evil spoils the Good, almost always without regard for intent.

tl;dr: An Evil character can do Good things for their own ends/in the service of Evil and remain true to themselves. A Good character cannot do Evil things, even in the service of Good, and not be tainted by the act.

- M

Ursus the Grim
2017-01-20, 02:20 PM
Killing the little girl because the prophecy says she might become the Evil Queen just can't be done and remain Good. There must be proof first. One drop of Evil spoils the Good, almost always without regard for intent.

tl;dr: An Evil character can do Good things for their own ends/in the service of Evil and remain true to themselves. A Good character cannot do Evil things, even in the service of Good, and not be tainted by the act.

- M

This seems to be the consensus here, and I just can't accept it.

For starters, it throws the idea of a 'balanced axis' of alignments right out the window. A chaotic character might obey the law to facilitate greater chaos. A lawful character might bend a rule to promote peace. An evil character might play good for the greater evil. But a good character can't play evil for the greater good?

I guess that's part of the reason I would love Wizards to finally purge alignment from their system altogether and switch to something like their 'color wheel.'

Specifically, Good is the only alignment that gets 'unwinnable' situations. Enter the Orc Baby Little Girl again.

Assumptions:
1. The Good character knows that, if allowed to live, the little girl will kill hundreds of Good people.
2. The little girl cannot be averted from this course for any arbitrary reason ("she's the larval stage of Malevolus, the Eater of Babies.")
3. The Good Character has a binary choice: kill the 'not-yet-Evil' girl and save hundreds of Good people OR spare the 'not-yet-Evil' girl and damn hundreds of Good people.

In your view, this situation will necessarily result in a Good character acting Evil, correct? Despite the two options being direct opposites, they're both Evil?

Millstone85
2017-01-20, 02:49 PM
Ah, trolley problems. Always a fun ride.

Ursus the Grim
2017-01-20, 03:25 PM
Ah, trolley problems. Always a fun ride.

Yeah. I guess that's the simplest one to use.

I always pull the lever that results in the least amount of deaths. I can't remember if I normally push the overweight man onto the tracks to save people. I think I do.

I've been told that's unusual, but I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist or philosopher.

Millstone85
2017-01-20, 03:41 PM
I've been told that's unusual, but I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist or philosopher.That's because the lever problem and the fat man problem are supposed to be objectively equivalent, yet the psys expect you to say "yes" in the first but "no" in the second because the lever creates an emotional distance between you and your victim.

It should be called the trolly problem.

Arbane
2017-01-20, 04:02 PM
From Grognards.txt (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=115495):


Did someone mention alignment in a D&D thread?

On Twin Faerun, a druid(me) in a town is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the druid can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows trolleys. The druid is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the druid can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single lawful neutral cleric, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the druid steers the trolley to the right. If the cleric on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty elves (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the elves' caravan will be crossing later that night). One of the elves that will be killed would have grown up to become a Lawful Evil tyrant who would make good utilitarian halflings do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become Drizzt, while a third would invent the Vancian Magic system.

If the druid chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a Chaotic Good bard on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local temple that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows hearts. If the bard on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the cleric on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten dwarves: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local temple for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the carvan of elves will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the wizard responsible for putting the druid at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis spells available, however the druid does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the druid's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other druids and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the druid chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue (Chaotic Good), while if the druid chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result (Lawful Evil). Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the druid in such a manner that the druid is never sure if it is being deceived.


QUESTION: What should I do to avoid losing my powers?

:smallamused:

In other news, the alignment system is still b0rked.

----

On a slightly more serious note, the Pathfinder group I'm currently in is mostly Neutral-to-Good characters, but of course we have That One Guy who insisted on playing an evil character, and excusing all his jackassery with 'But I'm Evil! I'm just playing my character!", so any advice on showing him the error of his ways in OR out of character (without PvP) would be appreciated.

Ursus the Grim
2017-01-20, 04:05 PM
That's because the lever problem and the fat man problem are supposed to be objectively equivalent, yet the psys expect you to say "yes" in the first but "no" in the second because the lever creates an emotional distance between you and your victim.

It should be called the trolly problem.

Ah-ha!

I remember being told that most people don't throw the lever either way because they think not taking action absolves them of the choice.

:smallamused:

Arbane
2017-01-20, 04:08 PM
Ah-ha!

I remember being told that most people don't throw the lever either way because they think not taking action absolves them of the choice.

:smallamused:

Not fans of Rush, obviously. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Millstone85
2017-01-20, 05:06 PM
For starters, it throws the idea of a 'balanced axis' of alignments right out the window.While it is not nearly as pronounced as on the good-evil axis, I believe the asymmetry exists on the law-chaos axis too. A chaotic character will more easily decide to "fall in line for now" than a lawful character will decide to "bend the rules this time". The chaotic character has more freedom, obviously.

But really, did the law-chaos axis ever have as much weight as the good-evil one? It is not as strange to see Roy and Elan working together as it is to see either of them working with Belkar.

Jay R
2017-01-20, 05:26 PM
In one 2e game, I had to continually explain to the DM that no, my Thief was not Lawful Good; he was Neutral Good. He was obeying the Law at present because he was adventuring with a Paladin and finding it far more lucrative than picking pockets, and didn't want to risk the income stream.

It was a purely selfish decision for a purely selfish reason.

Mordar
2017-01-20, 06:20 PM
This seems to be the consensus here, and I just can't accept it.

For starters, it throws the idea of a 'balanced axis' of alignments right out the window. A chaotic character might obey the law to facilitate greater chaos. A lawful character might bend a rule to promote peace. An evil character might play good for the greater evil. But a good character can't play evil for the greater good?

I guess that's part of the reason I would love Wizards to finally purge alignment from their system altogether and switch to something like their 'color wheel.'

Specifically, Good is the only alignment that gets 'unwinnable' situations. Enter the Orc Baby Little Girl again.

Assumptions:
1. The Good character knows that, if allowed to live, the little girl will kill hundreds of Good people.
2. The little girl cannot be averted from this course for any arbitrary reason ("she's the larval stage of Malevolus, the Eater of Babies.")
3. The Good Character has a binary choice: kill the 'not-yet-Evil' girl and save hundreds of Good people OR spare the 'not-yet-Evil' girl and damn hundreds of Good people.

In your view, this situation will necessarily result in a Good character acting Evil, correct? Despite the two options being direct opposites, they're both Evil?

A balanced axis doesn't mean the same level of requirement or adherence on both ends of the axis, though. Consider this: Evil characters don't have to toe the goody-two-shoes line of thinking about others when they act. Good characters don't have to worry about the law, heroes or mobs with torches and pitchforks running after them because they were "just trying to have a little fun". Both sides have their pros and cons. Pun kind of intended.

I do think, based on our culture/society/group altruism that the expectation is that people who do one or more evil acts are, at the very least, not good. Sure, he might always clean up after his dog, bring his mother to dinner every Sunday and not steal from the store...but that whole eating people thing just spoils it all. More accurately, one damning activity is enough to stain the soul. Now, a Good character can pretend to be evil...so long as he doesn't do Evil...and still be good. But killing those warehouse guards to get in good with the Thieves' Guild causes forfeiture of the Good card.

Now, the reason I think the Little Girl scenario has a Good out is that the character can't truly know point #2. Sure, you're probably in an unwinnable scenario (home of the "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" line), but no matter the logic, killing the girl before she has become whatever she might become is a non-Good thing. Maybe a smart thing, certainly a pragmatic thing, and quite possibly the best thing. Just not a Good thing.

But like I said above, the place on the axis carries it's own benefits and drawbacks. Evil gets to off the girl without missing a beat, but eventually you can't even go out for a bite to eat without watching over your shoulder. Good has to struggle with the moral dilemma, but eventually the good king and all the swell folk like you so much they give you your own parade.


In one 2e game, I had to continually explain to the DM that no, my Thief was not Lawful Good; he was Neutral Good. He was obeying the Law at present because he was adventuring with a Paladin and finding it far more lucrative than picking pockets, and didn't want to risk the income stream.

It was a purely selfish decision for a purely selfish reason.

This made me think of something potentially entertaining...

There is a law against gnomes being in trees. There is a gnome in a tree. A character pushes the gnome out of a tree with a stick. What was the character's motivation?

Chaotic Evil: I hear I can get away with pushing gnomes out of trees with sticks. First, I'll sharpen the stick...
Chaotic Neutral: I chased the gnome up the tree...what do I do now?
Chaotic Good: I appreciate that gnome's sense of freedom. I better help him down before John Q. Law comes around...
Neutral Evil: I pushed a halfling into the street, a dwarf into the lake, an elf into an orc...might as well cross "gnome" off the list.
True Neutral: I wonder if I can get something out of "helping enforce the law"?
Neutral Good: Looks like those little gnomes are thinking about climbing trees too. I better show them that it's a bad idea.
Lawful Evil: There is a law against gnomes being in trees, and there's a stick. And a gnome. Of course I get to push the gnome out of the tree!
Lawful Neutral: There is a law against gnomes being in trees.
Lawful Good: There is a law against gnomes being in trees, and I better get him down before someone comes along and does worse to him than push him out of the tree. I'll catch him!

Surely you guys can come up with some better ones...

- M

Dr paradox
2017-01-20, 06:21 PM
Yeah, I'm on board with the idea that the alignment scales aren't the perfect balance that Grim is suggesting. Mostly because that implies that Good and Evil are more like teams than inclinations, where Good is only good because it opposes evil and evil is only evil because it opposes good. That's the line of thinking of those awful "Avenging Templar Paladins" that see the sword as the only tool of good.

Good can also be exemplified through self-sacrifice, charity, mercy, liberty, temperance, et cetera, in other words, actions that don't involve stomping on other people. Evil is mostly characterized, at least in modern times, as actions that harm others, whether by killing a village or by lying to someone just to cause them emotional anguish.

There can't really be "unintentional" goodness, at least where this alignment system is concerned. If a soldier in World War I had shot and killed Adolf Hitler in the trenches, would that make that soldier a more moral person than any of his fellows?

Thrudd
2017-01-20, 06:43 PM
It needs to be decided if alignment is based on intentions or actions. Since it is impossible for the DM, or anyone other than the player, to know what the internal motives of the character are, if alignment depends only on intentions and motivations then it is very hard to justify altering the alignment without the player's consent.

A character that has good intentions but makes a mistake or is forced to choose the lesser of two evils never intended evil and would never willingly perform evil (according to the player), therefore the alignment cannot change. Likewise, an evil character that is never seen to actually commit evil, but according to the player is only acting thus because it is most advantageous to their personal success or greed, also cannot be shifted in alignment. However, in this scenario, it is rather hard sometimes to distinguish between neutral and evil and chaotic, for example. There is a lot of room for interpretation.

However, I think it makes more sense to treat alignment as defined more by actual actions, since internal motivations are not something that can be seen by the DM. The alignment at the beginning of the game is a declaration of the player's intent for how that character will act (or has acted in their pre-game life). As the game progresses and choices and actions are made, the DM should note how often a character takes actions and behaves in a manner that can be judged decidedly "good" or "evil", and if there is a preponderance of one or the other, the character's alignment shifts toward that preponderance. If the party doesn't do anything especially good or evil, then they shift toward neutral. This should result in neutral being the most common and "easiest" alignment. Only characters that go out of their way to help others, or to harm others for their own benefit, will stay good or evil for very long. It is still somewhat easier to be evil rather than good, but if you are claiming to be evil you need to actually do evil things more often than not. Just going along with the party, being a team player and never rocking the boat, you're probably neutral. Evil and good are the extremes. Good characters go out of their way to help and protect others without demanding reward, and actively look for opportunities to do so. Evil delights in cruelty and causing pain and harm, and characters will go out of their way to seek opportunities to do this. If you help others, but only because it's your job or you're being paid, or you hurt people sometimes but only if it is most expedient or convenient and only to the extent necessary for what you're doing, you won't betray your friends but you won't die for them, either, then you're probably neutral.

Dr paradox
2017-01-20, 06:53 PM
...Good characters go out of their way to help and protect others without demanding reward, and actively look for opportunities to do so. Evil delights in cruelty and causing pain and harm, and characters will go out of their way to seek opportunities to do this. If you help others, but only because it's your job or you're being paid, or you hurt people sometimes but only if it is most expedient or convenient and only to the extent necessary for what you're doing, you won't betray your friends but you won't die for them, either, then you're probably neutral.

Hm. That's actually a pretty good way to think of it. On the other hand, I disagree that the DM can't know a character's intentions, since any player I've met who's interested in their shifting alignment is looking to explore that with other people, and the DM should feel free to ask, "Okay, so you let that prisoner go after torturing them for information. What was your reasoning there?"

"I want him to spread word of the terrors I can inflict, and I want others to see my vile reputation etched forevermore in his scars."

"There's no point to killing him. I'm here to get the job done, more bodies is just wasteful."

"I saw a lot of my deceased husband in him, and I couldn't bring myself to do it."

Sure, there are limits, like if an evil character keeps donating to charity and saving kittens from trees, but insists that he's playing "the long game" without ever doing anything actually evil, but that's why we've got human DMs.

One of my favorite characters was a Neutral Good fella who was a galley slave that escaped after a shipwreck. His biggest character hook is that the slave-holding crew had some survivors, and he's both paranoid they'll turn him in, and ashamed that he didn't even have the wherewithal to really escape himself. As a result, he's dedicated to tracking down the survivors and murdering them. The character was generally a stand up guy, but he would do anything to kill these people, including the one of them that had become a priest and sought redemption. My DM was pretty surprised at this, but we discussed the reasoning behind it, and he shifted my alignment to True Neutral.

Darth Ultron
2017-01-20, 10:16 PM
Specifically, Good is the only alignment that gets 'unwinnable' situations.

This is not true. The trick is the gamers think. After all most will say evil is ''cool'', and then admit good is ''sorta cool too, but not as cool as evil''. The fall from evil to good is easy, the fall from evil to good is hard.

And the vast majority of ''evil'' in the vast majority of games is very ''lite evil''. Most games like some evil stuff, but shy away quick from a lot of things. Even the Book of Vile Darkness was very tame evil. So most games don't have ''dark'' evil, just the more ''friendly'' evil. So that makes it easy to be evil, as the character only need to do token evil things that the player is comfortable with.

Tough I can speak from experience that if you run adult and mature evil game, not many players will go dark. Most players only like ''fun evil'' and will shy away from ''dark evil''. So you can have the exact same ''fall from evil'' that good characters get with the ''fall from good''.

Give a character a dark, vile and evil enough action to do or not do, and very often a player won't do or not do it.

Segev
2017-01-21, 01:43 PM
On a slightly more serious note, the Pathfinder group I'm currently in is mostly Neutral-to-Good characters, but of course we have That One Guy who insisted on playing an evil character, and excusing all his jackassery with 'But I'm Evil! I'm just playing my character!", so any advice on showing him the error of his ways in OR out of character (without PvP) would be appreciated.It's as simple, and as hard, as confronting him about it, OOC. Tell him that his "evil" character is making the game less fun for the rest of you, and to either find a way to play "evil" that doesn't cause these problems, or to play non-evil characters.

If you want some discussion points, the biggest is probably to point out that real evil characters who hang out with other people regularly don't poop where they eat. And they metaphorically eat with the party. Focus his evil where it won't make the party mad at him. Ask him to imagine how the other PCs would act IC if they weren't restrained by the fact that you're all sitting at a table together and don't want PVP. Point out that he's essentially using "evil" as a license for PVP while expecting the rest of the party to let him get away with it, consequence-free. That's not "playing his character." That's bullying.

Then draw a line in the sand; one of three things will occur: 1) He'll stop being a jerk to the party; 2) The party will resort to PvP, as that's "just playing your characters;" or 3) he's going to be kicked out of the game.

Note that (1) can mean changing how he plays his current character, or replacing him with a character for whom "doesn't act like a jerk" is "playing his character."


That's because the lever problem and the fat man problem are supposed to be objectively equivalent, yet the psys expect you to say "yes" in the first but "no" in the second because the lever creates an emotional distance between you and your victim.

It should be called the trolly problem.


Ah-ha!

I remember being told that most people don't throw the lever either way because they think not taking action absolves them of the choice.

:smallamused:
The trouble is that the fat man question is functionally different. Outside of the ludicrously arbitrary restraints of the hypothetical, in the case where you have "a fat man" on hand, you can ask his permission, or try to persuade him, or throw yourself on the track instead. (There is no reasonable way "a fat man" is sufficiently more fat than you such that your body would not provide sufficient stopping power, but his would. Certainly not to any degree you're capable of judging in the short time the trolley problem tries to pretend you have.)

Refusing to act is, in fact, making a choice, but it is also absolving you of responsibility for the consequences. One can argue that you might have some moral duty if you know of a situation wherein you can unambiguously help without causing harm to you or others, but the trolley problem explicitly is not such a case.

Personally, I lean slightly towards the notion that choosing to change who dies is more wrong than leaving it be, but I don't have a solid grounding on that other than "acting is more damning than failing to act." By the same token, though, acting (to do good) is more praiseworthy than failing to act (to do good). So maybe those balance out, since acting to save life is the converse.

In truth, it's a no-win situation. There's not really a moral choice, here. The trolley problem is deliberately set up so that people will die. Nothing you can do as the subject being asked the question will change that. You're not even, as the backhanded effort to still smash you with moral guilt would suggest, "playing god" if you choose to take action.

The truth of the trolley problem is that it's removed the moral issue. You don't have the right to pick who lives and who dies, but as it will happen either way, you may as well. Choose based on what you think will result in the best outcome. (That's what all the parody about "but the guy on the left will go on to kill 30 people, but one of those 30 people he kills would have gone on to kill millions" nonsense is trying to confuse. By the time you start ascribing omniscience to the trolley operator, he has an Omniscient Morality License and is no longer "you.")


This is not true. The trick is the gamers think. After all most will say evil is ''cool'', and then admit good is ''sorta cool too, but not as cool as evil''. The fall from evil to good is easy, the fall from evil to good is hard.

And the vast majority of ''evil'' in the vast majority of games is very ''lite evil''. Most games like some evil stuff, but shy away quick from a lot of things. Even the Book of Vile Darkness was very tame evil. So most games don't have ''dark'' evil, just the more ''friendly'' evil. So that makes it easy to be evil, as the character only need to do token evil things that the player is comfortable with.

Tough I can speak from experience that if you run adult and mature evil game, not many players will go dark. Most players only like ''fun evil'' and will shy away from ''dark evil''. So you can have the exact same ''fall from evil'' that good characters get with the ''fall from good''.

Give a character a dark, vile and evil enough action to do or not do, and very often a player won't do or not do it.
I was ready to say I was surprised to agree with you on a subject, but, upon rereading this before replying, I think you're missing the point.

The point is not how "cool" either alignment is, nor about how vile a player is willing to go.

The point of the OP is a question of why it seems easier to "slip from good to evil" than to "slip from evil to good."

My answer to this is that it's really more a question of being easy to slip from good to neutral, and just as easy to slip from evil to neutral. I think people tend to associate "neutral" with being far closer to "good" than it really is, and thus make the mistake of thinking that a lot of the evils that neutral people will perform are "automatically" dropping them all the way to evil.

In truth, a True Neutral person is willing to do some pretty nasty stuff. They're NOT above murder. They just don't revel in it, as a general rule, and don't tend to view it as a first resort. And that's just scratching the surface.

Despite what D&D says, I would argue that most modern Western Society people who hold to the social mores of that shared culture are in the "good" range. Maybe not in the Exalted Good range, maybe somewhat gray-ish "good," but still well above the Neutral zone.

Societies which are more okay with "us vs. them" tribalism leading into out-and-out violence and warfare, including such things as kidnapping and forcible adoption into the tribe are closer to actually being Neutral. Most of those still view murder as bad, and see people who revel in it as horrific. But they're not above it when it's the best personal solution.

To really get to EVIL, you need a society that is cruel internally as well as externally. A society which revels in its cruelties, and which actively views kindness and mercy as weaknesses, no matter to whom they're shown.

Darth Ultron
2017-01-21, 03:06 PM
The point is not how "cool" either alignment is, nor about how vile a player is willing to go.

The point of the OP is a question of why it seems easier to "slip from good to evil" than to "slip from evil to good."

Being cool and the limits of a persons view of things as a huge impact. It's a very metagame problem.

Lets take ''cool'' first. A huge number of players find a lot of evil acts cool. They will gleefully do all sorts of evil things they find fun and cool. Tell a player of a character to do something evil like ''kill your character's family'' and they will just laugh and say ''ok''. The same is true of like ''kill all the people in town and turn them into undead'' So this makes the ''fall'' towards good skewed. The fall towards evil is easy to do and understand, and the fall towards good would be the same, objectively, except for the ''Cool Gamer Viewpoint''. And that viewpoint, messes everything up. A person has limits on to how evil they will become, but a character controlled by a RPG gamer does not. The act of the fall towards good does not happen as most gamer players are playing ''cool fun evil''.

Now, the second part comes in: the limits. A player will happily do ''cool evil tings'' that fall under their personal limit. Fictional murder, death, raising the undead and assassinations are all fun and cool types of evil that players will do. So when the Elder Evil says to a character ''kill your family'', the player will just yawn, have the character kill them, and be like ''ok what next.'' So, the character can't fall to good when all the evil acts are kept under the players personal limit of evil and the limit they are willing to role play. Most games have such limits, and most players will demand them. They are fine with un and cool evil, but only to a point. And they will reuse to even play if the evil goes ''past the point''. And, that is exactly where the fall towards good happens.

Just picture a game with a evil character and the player just having a great time being all ''fun and cool evil.'' Now picture the character being given a choice to do some horrible, vile, unspeakable(and untypeable) evil. I'm not going to give an example, but just think of and evil fictional act you would never, ever even what to pretend to do in a game and if it came up you'd leave the game immediately. Something that evil. And right there is where you get the fall towards good. Where an evil character would say ''no'' and not do the act. But as the vast majority of games can't go past the limits, that can never happen.



Despite what D&D says, I would argue that most modern Western Society people who hold to the social mores of that shared culture are in the "good" range. Maybe not in the Exalted Good range, maybe somewhat gray-ish "good," but still well above the Neutral zone.

I agree most people are good. Even all the players that love to play ''cool evil'' would never, ever, ever do such things in real life. They just have fun pretending about it.

Segev
2017-01-21, 11:12 PM
I'm sorry, Darth Ultron, but your reply still misses my point entirely. It isn't even disagreeing; it's just demonstrating a lack of comprehension of what I'm saying.

I say that to try to get your attention refocused, so you don't read this explanation assuming your earlier reply addresses the topic.


The question is not about why it's hard to get a player to "do good" or "do evil" to "fall" towards the alignment from the other. It isn't about player perception at all.

The question is why, conceptually, it's harder to conceive of somebody "unintentionally" turning good from being evil. The perception is that all it takes is one or few well-intentioned extremist actions to slip from Good to Evil, but a few equivalent "good slip-ups" by an evil person won't budge them off the evil alignment.

It has literally nothing to do with whether the player thinks the actions are "cool" or not.

NichG
2017-01-22, 01:45 AM
This seems to be the consensus here, and I just can't accept it.

For starters, it throws the idea of a 'balanced axis' of alignments right out the window. A chaotic character might obey the law to facilitate greater chaos. A lawful character might bend a rule to promote peace. An evil character might play good for the greater evil. But a good character can't play evil for the greater good?

Of course a good character can play evil for the greater good. They become Evil in the cosmic sense, but continue doing what they feel is right. When viewing their actions, others may consider them villains, or heroes, or be confused about the matter and have endless debates about how that person should be considered. Most characters don't actually suffer any mechanical effects for an alignment shift, much less have any way to directly or instinctively detect it themselves.

The issue is in reading an alignment shift as an instruction from the GM to behave a certain way (either to match your previous alignment better, or to intentionally overshoot to match your new alignment). But you can also just act and let the cosmos think what it may.

Anyhow, I don't see the need or attraction of perfectly balanced equal and opposite ideals. That seems to rob them of their meaning. If one ideal says 'purity matters' and the other says 'corrupt everything!' then it makes sense for those concepts that 'a drop of evil ruins the good'. Removing that for sake of making an artificial balance makes it feel less like it's about anything, its another move towards ideals just as team uniforms.

Darth Ultron
2017-01-22, 09:48 PM
It has literally nothing to do with whether the player thinks the actions are "cool" or not.

So, your not talking about the game, any game or RPG at all, just a vague theoretical? OK.

Well, then the fall towards good happens all the time. Fiction is Full of it. I can give tons of examples. It is not ''hard'' to picture at all. Though it might be rare in a lot of games as it's not the ''type'' of game people like to play.

Take the generic assassin, they kill anyone for money for years. Then they are given the job of killing a small child. They refuse, stop killing people and settle down on a farm to raise the kid happily ever after. This is a fall from evil to good. Of course it would also be more dramatic for the evil person to sacrifice themselves for another and they fall towards good.

Hawkstar
2017-01-23, 01:26 AM
Of course a good character can play evil for the greater good. They become Evil in the cosmic sense,
Not necessarily, unless their ends are not truly Good. Otherwise, every leader would be some flavor of Evil.

Aquillion
2017-01-23, 01:54 AM
Honestly, I feel that DMs forcing players to change their alignment is usually a bad thing, because it discourages people from playing nuanced, complicated characters out of fear that the DM will make them change alignment.

I don't want a situation where you're unable to have your amoral assassin also love his mother out of fear that the DM will declare you neutral and prevent you from gaining any more levels until you've kicked enough puppies to qualify as evil again.

NichG
2017-01-23, 03:32 AM
Not necessarily, unless their ends are not truly Good. Otherwise, every leader would be some flavor of Evil.

Every leader being some flavor of evil isn't necessarily inconsistent. 'What is their alignment?' is a different question than 'Would I consider them a good person?'

But practically speaking and given D&D alignment, there's no reason you couldn't have Good aligned leaders, though Neutral would be common.

Efrate
2017-01-23, 05:09 AM
I think it comes down to effort. If you fall to good from evil, its difficult. The system is designed in a way that evil actions have a much greater impact, and are in some cases more or less insurmountable. Its easy to be evil, its hard to be good. The hellbred entry comes to mind from FC2 (dnd 3.5). They are souls whose past actions damn them to the nine hells, unless they do some enormous good dead. Destroy an evil artifact, prevent the revival of a evil god, or something to that extent. That same books details a list of deeds which consign you to hell. On the lawful front and the evil front.

Kill any 3 sentient creatures, regardless of circumstance, and not receive a special atonement and a quest? You are going to hell. Good job Paladin/Cleric, you saved the town from 3 orcs, lived a heroic life, then go to hell at the end. On the lawful front, obeying an order you think is foolish 5 times IIRC. Anyone who has been in the armed forces or know someone who has knows how this goes.

The system itself, at least in 3.5 is set up where not only is good hard, not even counting exalted good, but evil is so easy and simple that it takes nothing to get one way. To go to good takes monumental effort, or a very evil but somehow awesomely good spell. Plus, evil gets so many cooler toys. The designers wanted the PCs to be super goody twoshoes with falls awaiting everywhere, danger on all sides. Its just simpler to say "Yeah I will lie to that merchant that these jewels are authentic. Easy money." or "We just gotta kill them before they attack, so lets do some knife work in the night."

hamishspence
2017-01-23, 05:50 AM
Kill any 3 sentient creatures, regardless of circumstance, and not receive a special atonement and a quest? You are going to hell.

Actually it used the term "Murder" rather than "kill" - so, in the context of acquiring Corruption points, circumstance matters a lot.

The Hellbred transformation applies to anyone who dies repentant without having atoned - so - commit 2 murders (Murder has a minimum of 5 corruption points, and 9 corruption points is the trigger for going to the Nine Hells), be extremely repentant, seek to atone but die before achieving it- you become a Hellbred.



It's also worth noting that Alignment and Afterlife Destination are not one and the same - the point of Corruption is that it overrides Alignment for Afterlife Destination purposes. You can change alignment more easily than you can Remove Corruption- according to the 3.5 DMG, it's possible, though rare, for an Evil character to jump to Good just by having a total "change of heart".

Satinavian
2017-01-23, 05:54 AM
The system itself, at least in 3.5 is set up where not only is good hard, not even counting exalted good, but evil is so easy and simple that it takes nothing to get one way. To go to good takes monumental effort, or a very evil but somehow awesomely good spell. Plus, evil gets so many cooler toys. The designers wanted the PCs to be super goody twoshoes with falls awaiting everywhere, danger on all sides. Its just simpler to say "Yeah I will lie to that merchant that these jewels are authentic. Easy money." or "We just gotta kill them before they attack, so lets do some knife work in the night."But that is the only kind of group and story where that actually works. If the charcters are not intended to be good, the whole "fall from goodness" stuff is useless. If the PCs don't try to get a good alignment and are happy with just living decent lives, the whole atonement stuff is useless. If it is incredibly hard to be good and little transgressions make you evil, then nearly all NPC allies of the PCs, their families, their questgivers ... all should be evil.

hamishspence
2017-01-23, 06:00 AM
According to Heroes of Horror - it is possible for an anti-hero, committing [Evil] deeds with good intentions - to maintain a Neutral alignment (chances are they will be racking up a lot of Corruption points in the process though.

On the smaller scale, the same could apply to the ordinary NPC whose (minor) evil deeds happen to have similar good motivations.

Segev
2017-01-23, 08:05 AM
So, your not talking about the game, any game or RPG at all, just a vague theoretical? OK.Pretty much. The question isn't, "Why don't players' characters ever seem to 'fall' from evil to good?" but rather, "Why is it so much easier to theoretically fall from good to evil than the other way around, through unintentional 'sins' against the alignment you currently hold?"


Well, then the fall towards good happens all the time. Fiction is Full of it. I can give tons of examples. It is not ''hard'' to picture at all. Though it might be rare in a lot of games as it's not the ''type'' of game people like to play.

Take the generic assassin, they kill anyone for money for years. Then they are given the job of killing a small child. They refuse, stop killing people and settle down on a farm to raise the kid happily ever after. This is a fall from evil to good. Of course it would also be more dramatic for the evil person to sacrifice themselves for another and they fall towards good.

Sparing one small child (after a lifetime of evil) doesn't typically get treated as if you've taken a dive into the Light Side. Murdering one small child (after a lifetime of good) often does get treated as if you've taken a dive into the Dark Side.

The question is why that is, and whether that is accurate, or should be questioned. Whether evil really is a lot easier to "slip" into than good, when you intended to maintain the opposed alignment.

Mr. Assassin who refuses to kill the kid isn't going to have his DM asking, "Do you think maybe you've just slipped up on being 'evil' and should be marked as 'good' now?" But Mr. Good Wizard who kills a small kid might well face a DM asking, "Do you think maybe you've just slipped up on being 'good' and should be marked as 'evil' now?"

Darth Ultron
2017-01-23, 08:18 AM
Pretty much. The question isn't, "Why don't players' characters ever seem to 'fall' from evil to good?" but rather, "Why is it so much easier to theoretically fall from good to evil than the other way around, through unintentional 'sins' against the alignment you currently hold?"

OK




Sparing one small child (after a lifetime of evil) doesn't typically get treated as if you've taken a dive into the Light Side. Murdering one small child (after a lifetime of good) often does get treated as if you've taken a dive into the Dark Side.

The question is why that is, and whether that is accurate, or should be questioned. Whether evil really is a lot easier to "slip" into than good, when you intended to maintain the opposed alignment.

Mr. Assassin who refuses to kill the kid isn't going to have his DM asking, "Do you think maybe you've just slipped up on being 'evil' and should be marked as 'good' now?" But Mr. Good Wizard who kills a small kid might well face a DM asking, "Do you think maybe you've just slipped up on being 'good' and should be marked as 'evil' now?"


Well, then it is just bias.

If you, or even ''most' people think that killing one innocent is enough to fall from good, why don't you think saving one is enough to fall from evil? Why the double standard? Do you have a magic number of innocent people an evil person would need to save to become good? After all your example is the classic trap that jerk DM's do to players of good characters.

This comes down to more just the view of things as people will never ''forgive'' and ''evil'' person, no matter what. Once a person ''does evil'' they can ''never, ever be good again''. This is just one world view, however. And in D&D, if you do a major good act, your alignment will shift towards good....the same way your alignment shifts for any major act. For example, take a neutral druid....who abandons the forest and joins the fight against evil and acts good....he will shift his alignment towards good. Now ''the people'' might not forgive an assassin that becomes good and lives on a farm....BUT that is just public option as the ex-assassin's alignment would change. People don't get to vote on alignment, it's cosmic.

Keltest
2017-01-23, 08:43 AM
OK





Well, then it is just bias.

If you, or even ''most' people think that killing one innocent is enough to fall from good, why don't you think saving one is enough to fall from evil? Why the double standard? Do you have a magic number of innocent people an evil person would need to save to become good? After all your example is the classic trap that jerk DM's do to players of good characters.

This comes down to more just the view of things as people will never ''forgive'' and ''evil'' person, no matter what. Once a person ''does evil'' they can ''never, ever be good again''. This is just one world view, however. And in D&D, if you do a major good act, your alignment will shift towards good....the same way your alignment shifts for any major act. For example, take a neutral druid....who abandons the forest and joins the fight against evil and acts good....he will shift his alignment towards good. Now ''the people'' might not forgive an assassin that becomes good and lives on a farm....BUT that is just public option as the ex-assassin's alignment would change. People don't get to vote on alignment, it's cosmic.

Because good and evil are not equal. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. Most evil people don't generally think of themselves as evil, they always have some sort of justification for their actions, or line they wont cross. But going out and burning and pillaging innocent villages, then building an orphanage afterwards, doesn't negate the fact that you were just burning and pillaging innocent villages.

Its not a cosmic balancing act on your soul, where continual deeds of your current alignment give diminishing returns, a monstrous person who is occasionally (or even frequently) nice, is still a monstrous person.

Its also worth remembering that a single evil deed wont necessarily cause you to lose a good alignment either. The chaotic good cat burglar who accidentally pushes a guard down some stairs when he gets caught isn't suddenly an awful person even if he did just murder a guy.

NichG
2017-01-23, 09:01 AM
Consider a person who periodically picks 1 person completely at random to kill, but then saves the lives of N randomly chosen people in distress or trouble. This person consistently maintains this pattern of behavior (its not just, they killed someone long ago and now they save people; they are continuing to act this way).

How large would N have to be before you would feel safe having them as a neighbor. How large would N have to be before you'd consider letting your kids carpool to school with this person?

hifidelity2
2017-01-23, 09:08 AM
In the D&D game I play any alignment shift is normally at the instigation of the player NOT the DM with the DM wanting reasons why you want /believe you should to shift

Having said that we tend to be rather relaxed about alignment

Generally, esp long running characters, are more complex than simple Good v Evil , Law v Chaos


I started a game with an NE Illusionist / Assassin
He was happy to join a party that included a NG cleric and a fighter than became a Paladin because the “Evil” they were fighting would have destroyed the world and so it was in his interest to do so

Over the years (both real and game time) he become friends with them, was “adopted” by a noble family and someone that become a CG saint and so started to act less selfishly
As a result I shifted the alignment to LE. However he had a very “fixed” hierarchy about who he would help

1. Family (The adopted family)
2. Party
3. Anyone who has treaded him honourably (including some who have tried to kill him)
4. Everyone else


So to my Family I am LG, to the party I am LN/LE, to others who I respect I am LE and everyone else I don’t care

Oh yes and the fighter became a Paladin because I knighted him (a house rule is that a Paladin must be knighted to gain all his powers and I knighted him as head of a Knightly order following valour on the battlefield)

Segev
2017-01-23, 09:38 AM
Essentially, while I've voiced this sentiment in this thread already, it's this thread that has mostly led me to this conclusion:

Neutral people are not "generally nice." They're not safe people to be around. No, they won't all kill you as soon as look at you, but killing is on the table for most of them. They have to have a "good" reason, but they don't have to have an overriding reason. You can't trust to their better nature not to lie, cheat, or steal from you.

Conversely (and where people more often seem to focus), they're not "generally mean," either. They don't revel in your misery. They might enjoy some Schadenfreude, but they're not going to delight in genuine suffering for its own sake without some serious social pressure to do so. They have serious lines they won't cross.

But nothing about it not being "right" will keep them from stealing from somebody if they think they either need it more or that other person won't notice/can afford it. They might give to a beggar out of sympathy, pity, or genuine goodness of their heart, but they're just as likely to keep it for themselves.

But absent something to prevent them from doing so, neutral people cannot be trusted not to resort to violence - even lethal violence - when it benefits them "sufficiently."

Societies where you can generally leave your door unlocked, or better still, leave it unlocked and leave a note on the door for travelers about where food in the pantry is and a polite request to clean up after themselves...and have it all work as intended, are flat-out Good. (Lawful Good, in particular, if the "guests" can be counted on to do exactly as requested; Neutral Good will do as requested unless they think of something even nicer to do, and Chaotic Good will tend to try to live up to the spirit of the request but may break a rule or two.) This actually supposedly used to happen in the American frontier.

To contrast, a LN society which did similar would have to have rules requiring it, or most people wouldn't do so. They might feel safe leaving their doors unlocked (unlawful entry being, well, unlawful), but they wouldn't leave instructions for travelers on how to come in and take care of themselves.


The difference, in a nutshell, between Neutral and Evil isn't that Neutral won't murder for its own convenience; it's that Evil will see it as a first resort, and probably gets a thrill out of doing it.

hamishspence
2017-01-23, 09:55 AM
True Neutral is the most common alignment for humans in a D&D world.

As for "morally Neutral" (TN, CN, LN, I could see it exceeding 1/3. Some settings might have the vast majority of people be Neutral, with only a tiny proportion Good or Evil - others might have 30% of people be Good (or 30% Evil: Eberron appears to be one of these).

As for violence - it likely depends on whether it's a career for that person. A TN commoner is far less likely to have "killing be on the table for them" than a TN adventurer, I'd think.

Keltest
2017-01-23, 10:39 AM
True Neutral is the most common alignment for humans in a D&D world.

As for "morally Neutral" (TN, CN, LN, I could see it exceeding 1/3. Some settings might have the vast majority of people be Neutral, with only a tiny proportion Good or Evil - others might have 30% of people be Good (or 30% Evil: Eberron appears to be one of these).

As for violence - it likely depends on whether it's a career for that person. A TN commoner is far less likely to have "killing be on the table for them" than a TN adventurer, I'd think.

I'm inclined to agree. Violence may be on the table for neutral people, but it is rarely an effective solution to a problem. A neutral individual can still generally be counted on to be a safe neighbor, for example, so long as you don't, say, break into their home. they can still be polite and friendly, and will indeed generally go out of their way to be nice to people they are close with.

hamishspence
2017-01-23, 10:44 AM
Or, as the SRD puts it:


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

"Honest but temptable" sums it up.

GungHo
2017-01-23, 11:14 AM
Not fans of Rush, obviously. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

That was a strange song. How can you "choose" free will? Seems like one of those "got it or don't" things. I realize what the point of the song was, but it's one of those refrigerator things. I'm well aware of the determinism/in-determinism and compatabilists/incompatabilists, etc, but don't care to go that far down the rabbit hole.

Anyway, to the alignment thing, I think there's some cultural bias at play when it comes to the "one bad apple" effect when it comes to good vs evil acts and which way the balance goes, and that bias took root in how the Paladin plays, and I think it grew into how people approached alignment in general. There's also the old bar joke involving goats.

Segev
2017-01-23, 12:10 PM
I personally think, for it to be consistent, Neutral has to go beyond "honest but temptable."

I agree, however, that a TN peasant farmer is less likely to resort to violence than a TN adventurer, if only because it will generally be less effective for him. It's more likely to turn out bad.

TN people also will still have a tendency towards a sense of community; it is a survival trait. And most beings instinctively grasp the concept of avoiding defecation where they eat. However, I would put most thuggish bullies - the high school kind, and the tavern brawler "town toughguy" kind - in Neutral territory. They're not outright evil; even if they enjoy lording the power bullying gives them over others, and laugh at others' (relatively minor, from their perspective) suffering, they have standards. They may or may not kill in a fit of rage, but would probably be shaken by it if they did. But they could talk themselves into non-flash-in-the-pan, hot-blooded murder if they saw enough benefit. "Enough" will vary, but has to be pretty big. And likely accompanied by a "they deserved it" justification.

TN people are still a reason you need guards, and personal security. Make yourself too rich and tempting of a soft target, and most TN people will "give in to temptation." Again, they will each have lines they're less than willing to cross, but that line will vary for differing acts of violation.


Yes, you can be safe in TN company where you wouldn't be in NE company. But the main difference is in how attractive a target you have to be before the company becomes dangerous.

Likewise, though, it's harder to get charity and kindness from TN company than NG company. The main difference is in how sympathetic a charity case you have to present.

Keltest
2017-01-23, 12:26 PM
I personally think, for it to be consistent, Neutral has to go beyond "honest but temptable."

I agree, however, that a TN peasant farmer is less likely to resort to violence than a TN adventurer, if only because it will generally be less effective for him. It's more likely to turn out bad.

TN people also will still have a tendency towards a sense of community; it is a survival trait. And most beings instinctively grasp the concept of avoiding defecation where they eat. However, I would put most thuggish bullies - the high school kind, and the tavern brawler "town toughguy" kind - in Neutral territory. They're not outright evil; even if they enjoy lording the power bullying gives them over others, and laugh at others' (relatively minor, from their perspective) suffering, they have standards. They may or may not kill in a fit of rage, but would probably be shaken by it if they did. But they could talk themselves into non-flash-in-the-pan, hot-blooded murder if they saw enough benefit. "Enough" will vary, but has to be pretty big. And likely accompanied by a "they deserved it" justification.

TN people are still a reason you need guards, and personal security. Make yourself too rich and tempting of a soft target, and most TN people will "give in to temptation." Again, they will each have lines they're less than willing to cross, but that line will vary for differing acts of violation.


Yes, you can be safe in TN company where you wouldn't be in NE company. But the main difference is in how attractive a target you have to be before the company becomes dangerous.

Likewise, though, it's harder to get charity and kindness from TN company than NG company. The main difference is in how sympathetic a charity case you have to present.

See, I would call thuggish bullies evil, even if they don't kill. Neutral people are willing to use violence, yes, but they generally don't do so unless forced to. Neutral is defined by neither taking particular pleasure in the suffering of others, nor being willing to go out of their way to prevent it. They aren't going to pick a fight with somebody just for the lulz, or because they have something they want.

kyoryu
2017-01-23, 12:39 PM
Essentially, while I've voiced this sentiment in this thread already, it's this thread that has mostly led me to this conclusion:

Neutral people are not "generally nice." They're not safe people to be around. No, they won't all kill you as soon as look at you, but killing is on the table for most of them. They have to have a "good" reason, but they don't have to have an overriding reason. You can't trust to their better nature not to lie, cheat, or steal from you.

Well, I disagree with you, actually. I think someone willing to murder, cheat, steal, etc. is Evil. The fact that they don't do it *all* of the time doesn't make it better. They still have a disregard for others.

A Neutral person is selfish, but only up to the point of actually stamping on other people. But they won't go out of their way to help anybody. "What's mine is mine, what's yours is yours".

Good is a higher standard than just not murdering people. Good requires actually going out and sacrificing in some way for the benefit of others.

Most people are neutral.

That doesn't mean that a neutral person won't ever cross a little over into the grey area, but they won't just decide "hey, I can get away with this and it'll get me a lot of money, so I'mma kill this guy".

Feel free, of course, to view it differently. But please do understand that your definition is not the only one.

Darth Ultron
2017-01-23, 01:43 PM
Because good and evil are not equal. .

Well, in games like D&D they are. Most games that use alignment or good and evil have the two opposing sides, for example the Light and Dark sides of the Force. And they are most often equal too. Unless your just talking about vague non game related stuff.



The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. Most evil people don't generally think of themselves as evil, they always have some sort of justification for their actions, or line they wont cross. But going out and burning and pillaging innocent villages, then building an orphanage afterwards, doesn't negate the fact that you were just burning and pillaging innocent villages..

Again, not all games have the ''everyone wants to pretend to be good'' idea. Plenty of games have people that want to be evil and will say they are evil. And your view point of ''everyone says they are good'' is just one view point. Plenty of people will say they are evil and think they are evil.

Segev
2017-01-23, 02:11 PM
Oh, I get that my definition isn't the only one.

Where I'm coming from, though, is the notion that whatever you believe "true good" to be, and whatever you believe "true evil" to be, the moral-axis "neutral" has to be halfway in between. Equally easy and equally hard to reach from either extreme. The "good requires self-sacrifice, and anybody who is willing to commit murder is evil" approach brings up the conceptual problem that this thread started asking about.

So, if "kills an innocent" should be able to knock you southward no further than "spares an innocent" should be able to knock you northwards.

Or, perhaps it should. "Kill an innocent" is not necessarily actually mirrored by "spare an innocent." Killing innocents is evil more, perhaps, because it's a reflection of your lack of respect for others' rights to life. So you need an equal expression of a respect for others' worth as independent beings to reflect an equal northward on the alignment chart.

Still, if one act can't redeem an Evil man up to Good, no act should be able to damn a Good man down to Evil.

Which is why I suspect that Neutral encompasses a certain tolerance for murder. "One act" might shove somebody from Good to Neutral, because "one act" might do the same from Evil to Neutral.

kyoryu
2017-01-23, 02:39 PM
Which is why I suspect that Neutral encompasses a certain tolerance for murder. "One act" might shove somebody from Good to Neutral, because "one act" might do the same from Evil to Neutral.

I don't quite buy into the "credit card" model of good/evil.

Some minor levels of theft/etc? Sure. But murder's a pretty hard line.

And sparing an innocent isn't a Good act. It's Neutral. The person isn't in a better place because of what you didn't do - you just didn't put them in a worse place. Now, *saving* someone that is about to be murdered *is* a good act... you're putting yourself in harm's way to help another, with no obvious gain yourself.

Can a sufficiently Good act slide someone from Neutral to Good? I don't see why not. But I also think that it's not a Utilitarian-like "balance sheet", but rather the acts you engage in reflect what's actually inside of you - you're not Evil because you've murdered someone, but rather you murder because you're Evil. That's a bit simplistic, of course, as desensitization and acclimation can occur both ways - as you get used to being in a Good/Evil environment it will become more normal to you.

A Good person sacrifices of themself for others with no expectation of gain.
A Neutral person is self-interested, but not to the point of harming others (I'd probably get more technical and say something like "violating another's natural rights")
An Evil person is self-interested, and does not care if they harm others to get their way.

And that's really, to me, the mirroring - The Good person sacrifices for others, the Evil expects/forces others to sacrifice for them.

Now, a given *act* may be Good/Evil, and a Good person can perform an Evil act, and vice versa.

For instance, a Good person might steal. If they've been trying to work, have begged, and done everything else in order to feed their family and are at their last options, a Good person might steal some food. They'll agonize over it, probably hate themselves for it, and if they're really Good will try to make restitution for it in the future.

An Evil person will steal just because they're a bit hungry and they can get away with it.

Segev
2017-01-23, 02:42 PM
It's less about the "credit card" and more about the straight-forward question: Is it easier to perform acts which will slide you from Good to Neutral to Evil than it is to perform acts that will go the opposite direction?

kyoryu
2017-01-23, 06:26 PM
It's less about the "credit card" and more about the straight-forward question: Is it easier to perform acts which will slide you from Good to Neutral to Evil than it is to perform acts that will go the opposite direction?

Right, and that's what I don't agree with - I don't think it's "N deeds move you this direction". I think "behavior of this sort indicates that, internally, you are <x> alignment".

2D8HP
2017-01-24, 12:52 AM
True Neutral is the most common alignment for humans in a D&D world....
For Wilderness hermits maybe, but most people?
Lawful neutral

From:
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

in the february 1976 issue of the strategic review (http://annarchive.com/files/strv201.pdf)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg


From:
Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett

'They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today.'

- Lord Vetinari

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/vetinari/images/vetport.jpg

Efrate
2017-01-24, 02:10 AM
Lord Vetinari would give Red Fel a run for his money. Great LE character.

The what you feel in your heart is what you are argument is kind of BS to me, because mechanically it matters. No one but you know whats in your players heart, so that kind of a cart blanche to do whatever; "but I feel I was doing good/the right thing" does not make you good.
Its set up to be oil and water. No matter how much water, a lone drop of oil stays separate, and with any quantity of oil, add as much water as you want and its still separate. Since PCs are assumed and heavily encouraged to be Good, there just isn't a real quantifiable way to go the other way. There isn't a blackguard who saves a puppy loses his class features, he doesn't have a code of conduct. Paladins are the poster boys for falling, and that does get extrapolated out, but there is minor support for that.

As for corrupt acts, murder is never qualified as separate from killing. Its a RAW vs. RAI but there is that. Also causing gratuitous injury (critical hits?) is also a thing. These are left open and not laid out in any shape, but the fluff and crunch surrounding Baator is that it is highly unfair and against you, as the alignment system is. For a good characters especially.

"A lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished." FC2 pg. 30

That seems to imply that without extraordinary effort and jumping through the hoops you are almost doomed from the start. And the acts of obeisance makes you essentially lawful for the previous clause. The system itself is against you going back. The very few NPCs in published stuff who are reformed are highly exceptional, and usually had direct diefic intervention or something to get them back.

I think its a design issue, but there isn't a whole lot of support to go the other way because that is not how the designers envisioned people wanting to play. Its heroes and bad guys, and you gotta be the best around so you don't go the bad guys' route. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the horrible spell from BoED that rewrites someones personality from scratch programming them to be good, which is a good if not sanctified spell IIRC. I would have to reread BoED again to see what else is there but its more about not being/falling into evil than redemption.

hamishspence
2017-01-24, 02:12 AM
It's 3.0 (and later) that has has TN or "Unaligned" as the most typical alignment of humans.

Implying that Lawful Neutral is somewhat less common - and that being Lawful takes a bit of commitment.

TN has changed somewhat since Gygax's day.



As for corrupt acts, murder is never qualified as separate from killing. Its a RAW vs. RAI but there is that.

The three killing-related Corrupt acts in FC2 are Murder, Cold-Blooded Murder, and Murder For Pleasure.

BoVD makes a point that "ordinary" killing isn't necessarily Murder.

The two combine to suggest that "ordinary" killing won't result in Corruption points.


"A lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished." FC2 pg. 30
The rules for the Hellbred Transformation override this - they specifically say that a character who would normally go to Baator becomes a Hellbred instead if they die repentant - giving them a second chance at earning redemption.

I would have to reread BoED again to see what else is there but its more about not being/falling into evil than redemption.

It had quite a bit - a set of diplomacy rules for redeeming characters, plus several paragraphs of text on how redemption is important - how it may apply to PCs and NPCs.

veti
2017-01-24, 04:03 AM
"Falling to Good" happens a lot in fiction, it's called "redemption" and it's one of the five basic story arcs. Severus Snape. Marisa Coulter. Gary King. Spike. Gru. To name only examples from this century.

In games, however? Not so common.


Lord Vetinari would give Red Fel a run for his money. Great LE character.

Vetinari is LN at worst, arguably even LG. He cultivates an image of ruthlessness, but when has he actually harmed, or caused to have harmed - anyone?

Even his top secret political prisoner, Leonard of Quirm, is as happy as he'd ever be if he were free.

Rynjin
2017-01-24, 04:18 AM
From Grognards.txt (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=115495):



:smallamused:

In other news, the alignment system is still b0rked.



Ha, what a ridiculous dilemma. You avoid losing your powers by picking the most selfish option. Which does your Druid prefer to happen?

If it's a Good act and you shift alignments, you shift to Neutral Good, you're fine.

If it's an Evil act and you shift alignments, you shift to Neutral Evil, you're fine.

If it's a Neutral act you don't shift alignments, you're True Neutral, you're fine.

Druids are easy.

Fiery Diamond
2017-01-24, 05:31 AM
Consider a person who periodically picks 1 person completely at random to kill, but then saves the lives of N randomly chosen people in distress or trouble. This person consistently maintains this pattern of behavior (its not just, they killed someone long ago and now they save people; they are continuing to act this way).

How large would N have to be before you would feel safe having them as a neighbor. How large would N have to be before you'd consider letting your kids carpool to school with this person?

This question has a non-numerical answer for many people, such as myself. In other words, even if N was "every single person on the planet," ignoring the time constraints that would put on his whole cycle, it STILL wouldn't be enough for me to even feel safe having them as a neighbor, let alone the carpool situation.

I, too, dislike the credit card thing.

I tend to think of Neutral as broader than either Good or Evil, though. That is, a "good person" can be either Good or Neutral, depending on the specifics, and a "bad person" can be either Neutral or Evil, depending on the specifics. And obviously someone who falls between "good person" and "bad person" will naturally fall into the Neutral category. Treating it this way actually makes it pretty easy for you to classify most humans as Neutral while still leaving room for Good and Evil to be meaningful.

That guy who just generally keeps to himself and is civil but not actually nice, never goes out of his way to inconvenience someone else or keep from inconveniencing someone else? Neutral - not strong enough inclination one way or the other. That guy that's just generally pleasant and nice that everyone likes because he brings cookies to share with his coworkers just cuz he feels like it but never sticks his neck out for anyone? Neutral - not strong enough inclination one way or the other. That guy who's generally a complete jerk and is hateful to everyone and tries to make any interaction with him difficult but never actually hurts anyone? Neutral - not strong enough inclination one way or the other. That guy who has this whole heroic crusade going on but tortures people who commit unspeakable acts because they deserve it? Neutral - has strong points toward Good and Evil; if the system allowed it, I'd actually prefer to ping this guy BOTH Good and Evil rather than using Neutral, but I prefer using Neutral than saying "Oh he did Evil stuffs so he's Evil".

Dr paradox
2017-01-24, 05:55 AM
"Falling to Good" happens a lot in fiction, it's called "redemption" and it's one of the five basic story arcs. Severus Snape. Marisa Coulter. Gary King. Spike. Gru. To name only examples from this century.


Gary King? From the World's End? I mean... he's a pitiful jackass as the film opens, but he's not evil, just a narcissist who does far more damage to himself than to any of the people he drags along. And by the end of the movie, he's

personally responsible for the actual end of the world. He's given up alcohol, but his life appears to consist of rolling around the wasteland deliberately antagonizing bars full of people who are justifiably pissed at the robots, until he can chop them apart with his big awesome sword. There's a spiritual redemption, in a sense, and he finds reserves of inner strength that one might have thought had fossilized and withered decades earlier, but it's pretty hard to argue that he went from "Evil" to "Good" over the course of the film.

Unless you meant a different Gary King entirely, in which case forget I said anything.

Cazero
2017-01-24, 06:08 AM
Vetinari is LN at worst, arguably even LG. He cultivates an image of ruthlessness, but when has he actually harmed, or caused to have harmed - anyone?

Even his top secret political prisoner, Leonard of Quirm, is as happy as he'd ever be if he were free.

Lord Vetinari have mimes hanged upside down in scorpion pits. Disproportionate retribution for an imagined slight. That's enough to make him evil.
Just because he acts for the greater good of his city doesn't make him any less evil. It only tells us that he is very efficiently pursuing a non-evil goal, namely make his city better. He has no qualm against murdering some people to get the city in a better shape. He would rather have it done lawfuly through the cops for various reason, one of them being his own amusement.

hamishspence
2017-01-24, 06:15 AM
Vetinari kind of evolves - late-period Vetinari comes across as more benevolent than early-period.


I tend to think of Neutral as broader than either Good or Evil, though. That is, a "good person" can be either Good or Neutral, depending on the specifics, and a "bad person" can be either Neutral or Evil, depending on the specifics. And obviously someone who falls between "good person" and "bad person" will naturally fall into the Neutral category. Treating it this way actually makes it pretty easy for you to classify most humans as Neutral while still leaving room for Good and Evil to be meaningful.

I prefer "majority" to "most" in this context, given lack of "neutral alignment tendencies" for humans. Something like 30% Good 30% Evil 40% Neutral - as is implied by some sources. In Eberron, it's suggested that some 30% of random passer-bys in a city will be Evil.

Segev
2017-01-24, 09:39 AM
Right, and that's what I don't agree with - I don't think it's "N deeds move you this direction". I think "behavior of this sort indicates that, internally, you are <x> alignment".

Oh, I agree. I'm using the terms more to describe what happens from the perspective of play.

Yes, "The Paladin is LG because he behaves like it," is the truth of what's going on. "The Paladin kicked a puppy; that causes him to become less good," is not technically what is happening, but it's the best you can do with the mechanics. Technically, yes, it's, "The Paladin must be less good than we thought; he kicked a puppy," or "The Paladin has demonstrated that he's not as good as we thought by kicking that puppy." But in mechanical terms, the Paladin doesn't fall when he becomes the kind of person who could kick puppies on a regular basis; he falls when he's kicked enough puppies that his alignment is declared to have shifted.

Yes, his alignment probably TRULY shifted sooner than that, but it was his actions which cemented it.



The thing is, though, that this is hazardous as a basic tool of alignment determination, because it's asymmetric for good vs. evil. An evil man whose player wants him to stay evil only has to come up with justifications as to why his actions were selfish and pragmatic in nature, no matter how seemingly kind and generous. "I'm just doing it for the good PR" is a really good one. A good man whose player wants him to stay good can't get away with the same thing. "He did it for the greater good" is practically a call-sign for "about to fall" in modern parlance.

When intent only matters if you're evil, it makes it a system where evil is easier to maintain than good. It also makes "evil" as a prerequisite meaningless. "Er, yeah, my rogue going into Ur Priest is evil. Even if he's been kind and generous to a fault and utterly heroic in his motivations. Uh, that was just to lull people into a false sense of security. Yeah. And to win over allies. Totally. He's really a cold and conniving monster. Who never shows it, because, um, it, er, doesn't benefit him to show it. Really."

This is why I'm rethinking the thresholds, and putting Neutral at a darker place than it usually holds.

hamishspence
2017-01-24, 09:43 AM
Oh, I agree. I'm using the terms more to describe what happens from the perspective of play.

Yes, "The Paladin is LG because he behaves like it," is the truth of what's going on. "The Paladin kicked a puppy; that causes him to become less good," is not technically what is happening, but it's the best you can do with the mechanics.

A possible mechanical approach - by kicking puppy, a small amount of Evil energy from the Cosmic Force of Evil is invited into the paladin's soul - tainting it.

Segev
2017-01-24, 09:45 AM
A possible mechanical approach - by kicking puppy, a small amount of Evil energy from the Cosmic Force of Evil is invited into the paladin's soul - tainting it.

Oh, sure. I don't care for that approach, but you could fluff it that way, and it would have rammifications for your setting. I do prefer kyoryu's version, where alignment is just a statement of where you are, morally and ethically.

Mechanically, the two are identical, because both are influenced by your actions. Whether your actions change your alignment, or the judgment of what your alignment is changes based on your actions (under the assumption that your actions REVEAL your alignment), it's the same thing in terms of "determine whether Bob's alignment needs to be changed on his character sheet."

Red Fel
2017-01-24, 09:50 AM
Lord Vetinari would give Red Fel a run for his money. Great LE character.

I agree that he's a great LE. There's a reason I put him in my handbook. (Go give it a read, if you haven't, shameless plug shameless plug.)

... Just be careful with the rest of your phrasing, hm?


Vetinari is LN at worst, arguably even LG. He cultivates an image of ruthlessness, but when has he actually harmed, or caused to have harmed - anyone?

Even his top secret political prisoner, Leonard of Quirm, is as happy as he'd ever be if he were free.

He's a pragmatic former assassin who stays in power by a combination of absolute competence and absolute terror. He embodies Law just by keeping the trains running on time, and embodies Evil by embracing the essence of Ankh-Morpork, which, let's face it, is a fricking horrifying place when you think about it. By design.

Sure, the city is better with him than without him, and he rarely acts until the public demands it, but that doesn't really necessarily make him benevolent - it just makes him careful.

Also, the mimes.


Lord Vetinari have mimes hanged upside down in scorpion pits. Disproportionate retribution for an imagined slight. That's enough to make him evil.
Just because he acts for the greater good of his city doesn't make him any less evil. It only tells us that he is very efficiently pursuing a non-evil goal, namely make his city better. He has no qualm against murdering some people to get the city in a better shape. He would rather have it done lawfuly through the cops for various reason, one of them being his own amusement.

This.

Also, organizing resistances to his own rule specifically to undermine them, if memory serves. It's like he read the Evil Overlord handbook, and The Prince, and thought, "I could do that," and then did.

Segev
2017-01-24, 09:57 AM
Also, organizing resistances to his own rule specifically to undermine them, if memory serves. It's like he read the Evil Overlord handbook, and The Prince, and thought, "I could do that," and then did.

I've occasionally contemplated a member of the aristocracy or even the out-and-out dictator who made a point of organizing the revolutionary rebellion against the current powers that be, with himself at the head. The intent being that he leaves an easy place for malcontents that his legions of terror can't easily stamp out to go, and, by being in charge of both, it doesn't matter if the rebellion cells are crushed (as there can always be more, even if he has to make sure to be the one starting them up) or the rebellion overthrows the rulership (because, as the charismatic leader of the rebels, he installs himself - possibly under his alter ego's name - as the new ruler).

The trickiest part is making sure that the rebellion stays unified and organized to follow his figurehead title. And to subvert any "third option" rebellions which might start up, so he's the head of those, too.

Hawkstar
2017-01-24, 11:03 AM
Most humans appear Lawful as Gygax described, but that's from an ethnocentric viewpoint. When you start looking at the criminal element within cities, and roving barbarians/bandits outside them, and depraved citadels dedicated to the worship of Demons, THAT is where it starts to balance away from Lawful. To get "Humans are true neutral", you have to look outside "The vaguely Medieval Farming Village"

I'd argue the Bully is evil, even though he doesn't kill.

But the farmer who praises Pelor, is hospitable to guests and visitors, dilligently works his fields and raises his kids, yet joins in burning the witches on too little evidence or owns slaves isn't Evil (Even though those are Evil acts).

And just because I wouldn't trust someone around me doesn't mean they're Evil. They could be Good (Hard, though, due to how strong Good is related to trust), or Neutral.

2D8HP
2017-01-24, 12:04 PM
....I've occasionally contemplated a member of the aristocracy or even the out-and-out dictator who made a point of organizing the revolutionary rebellion against the current powers that be, with himself at the head.....


May I suggest:

The Man Who Was Thursday (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday)
.




.....But the farmer who praises Pelor, is hospitable to guests and visitors, dilligently works his fields and raises his kids, yet joins in burning the witches on too little evidence....

No evidence!

She turned me into a Newt!

...I uh got better.

:amused:

Nothing to see here!

veti
2017-01-25, 09:30 AM
Lord Vetinari have mimes hanged upside down in scorpion pits. Disproportionate retribution for an imagined slight. That's enough to make him evil.

This hanging-mimes-over-the-scorpion-pit thing is often mentioned, and is incidentally one of his most popular policies, but never actually done. In fact, if you consider "the presence of live scorpions" to be an essential feature of a scorpion pit, I doubt if Ankh-Morpork even has one.


'Never build a dungeon you wouldn’t be happy to spend the night in yourself,’ said the Patrician, laying out the food on the cloth. ‘The world would be a happier place if more people remembered that.'


What the Iron Maiden was to stupid tyrants, the committee was to Lord Vetinari; it was only slightly more expensive, far less messy, considerably more efficient and, best of all, you had to force people to climb inside the Iron Maiden.


Just because he acts for the greater good of his city doesn't make him any less evil.

In the first place, yes it does. Someone who does evil for a good end is, all other things being equal, less evil than someone who does them for an evil end. Because one person is striving to make an imperfect world a better place, while the other is working to make it a worse place. How is this even controversial?

In the second place:


He has no qualm against murdering some people to get the city in a better shape.

Name one person he's murdered, or had murdered, to "get the city in a better shape". (As far as I can recall, the only person he's generally believed to have killed personally - and even this happened off-page so there's room for doubt - was Mad Lord Snapcase. And that was, what, 30 years ago?) Then explain how you deduce his lack of qualms about doing it.


It occurred to him that this was an extremely dangerous thing and he might probably have to have someone killed one day, although it would be with extreme reluctance.

Red Fel
2017-01-25, 09:59 AM
In the first place, yes it does. Someone who does evil for a good end is, all other things being equal, less evil than someone who does them for an evil end. Because one person is striving to make an imperfect world a better place, while the other is working to make it a worse place. How is this even controversial?

Going to disagree, using one simple point: The phrase "for the greater good" is frequently used to justify acts of Evil. That's why you have to say greater good - if it was simply Good, you wouldn't have to say anything. You have to say, "This is all for the greater good," because people are saying, "But it looks so bad!"

Photo evidence:

https://media.giphy.com/media/aCFS2kg8qop32/giphy-downsized-large.gif

As to your second point - a reluctant willingness to kill is still a willingness to kill. And your quote emphasizes that, although reluctant, he is willing to do it, for the greater good.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/iLwVLQc0oEnyE/200_s.gif

Satinavian
2017-01-25, 10:15 AM
Would still count him as Neutral.

Occasionally doing evil stuff is something a neutral can do and still remain neutral as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

awa
2017-01-25, 10:17 AM
Going to disagree, using one simple point: The phrase "for the greater good" is frequently used to justify acts of Evil. That's why you have to say greater good - if it was simply Good, you wouldn't have to say anything. You have to say, "This is all for the greater good," because people are saying, "But it looks so bad!"

Photo evidence:


As to your second point - a reluctant willingness to kill is still a willingness to kill. And your quote emphasizes that, although reluctant, he is willing to do it, for the greater good.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/iLwVLQc0oEnyE/200_s.gif

well it depends on if its actually for the greater good and if it will work.

Killing an innocent person bad
Killing an innocent person infected with a plague that will kill thousands if allowed to spread. Sill not good but a good person might do it for the greater good and i would not call them bad for it (assuming their information is actually correct and a better way is not available.)

Your image isn't for the greater good, that was killing people to win a contest for the prettiest town if i recall.

Just because they say its for the greater good does not make it so.
edit
In regards to vetrinari that's a weird case because hes the government, a government being reluctant to kill is a good thing a government being unwilling to kill is a bad thing, because some threats need to be removed.

Keltest
2017-01-25, 10:28 AM
I'm inclined to agree that there are certain specific circumstances where an evil act will, ultimately, result in more good done than a good act would, and people who act on that with an understanding of what they are doing could convincingly be called neutral. However there are also lots of bad people who fail to recognize when those circumstances are, and lie to themselves about it so they feel better about themselves while doing unnecessarily evil things.

Ursus the Grim
2017-01-25, 10:37 AM
It seems like at this point we're mostly arguing real-world merits of certain distasteful actions. While I'm not surprised this is the direction it went in, I also don't have a whole lot to contribute on this point.

I will say that I'm in the camp of 'For The Greater Good' counts as 'Good', assuming that the Greater Good is not some trivial matter (killing innocent people for the vanity of a town council, for instance.)

hamishspence
2017-01-25, 10:44 AM
This hanging-mimes-over-the-scorpion-pit thing is often mentioned, and is incidentally one of his most popular policies, but never actually done. In fact, if you consider "the presence of live scorpions" to be an essential feature of a scorpion pit, I doubt if Ankh-Morpork even has one.




When it's the "omnicient narrator" talking about it, rather than the members of the Guilds talking about it - it's a bit less ambiguous. That said, I'm told that the Discworld Diary books (specifically, the Fool's Guild one) portrays mimes as the enforcers for the Fools Guild, which is basically a spy network with entertainment as its cover.

A young Vetinari was sent to kill Lord Winder some 30 years before "the present" (Night Watch) and Winder was so shocked he had a heart attack before Vetinari could stab him (Winder had held the Patricianship for at least 11 years) . Mericet (a senior Assassin examiner in Pyramids) is said to have killed "one of the dead Patricians" - given the timeline, this was probably Snapcase.


I'm inclined to agree that there are certain specific circumstances where an evil act will, ultimately, result in more good done than a good act would, and people who act on that with an understanding of what they are doing could convincingly be called neutral.

In the context of 3.0 to 3.5 I would agree - and say that the "flexible neutral anti-hero" as described in Heroes of Horror, fits the bill quite well (having a consistent pattern of evil acts of this kind, rather than them being rare and unusual).

Segev
2017-01-25, 11:31 AM
When discussing morality from the internal perspective, whether it be "what you should think about to judge if you're moral" or "what we know of the inner workings of a fictional character's mind thanks to the omniscient perspective of the narration," we can consider accurately what their intentions are.

If "the greater good" is actually a selfish motivation of their own aggrandizement, it's quite different from "the greater good" being a genuine concern for other people as individuals and as groups.

The well-intentioned extremist's danger regarding "the greater good" is not hypocrisy or having an evil motive he's calling "the greater good" (if it were, he wouldn't be a well-intentioned extremist, but just plain selfish evil). His danger is in forgetting to consider that groups are made of individuals, and thus thinking in terms of "it's a statistic."

Those honestly only doing evil for "the greater good" will almost never actually do evil. They might do horrible things, but usually even those will be non-evil simply because the nature of the 'victim' is such that they don't qualify for the usual protections. (The most trivially obvious case being exemplified by killing an unrepentant serial killer before he can kill a pair of small children, because it was "kill him now" or "let him do it right now.") So when they're forced to the heart-wrenching choice of killing the plague-ridden child before the child can innocently walk out of the quarantine zone and spread it to the rest of the city, they really have looked as hard as they could for any alternative, and they really are doing it for genuine "greater good."

Of course, we can get into the weeds over "well, is it okay to kill a monster that only kills to survive," but that's trying to obscure the greater point, here.


Yes, "the greater good" is oft used as justification by evil men. But that doesn't mean that every use of it is an invalid justification.

hamishspence
2017-01-25, 01:31 PM
Those honestly only doing evil for "the greater good" will almost never actually do evil. They might do horrible things, but usually even those will be non-evil simply because the nature of the 'victim' is such that they don't qualify for the usual protections.

Some sources suggest certain acts (torture, casting [Evil] spells etc) carry the same Corruption rating regardless of the nature of the "victim". Indeed, an [evil] spell might not even have a victim, other than "the multiverse" (casting Protection from Good to make oneself resistant to mind control from any creature, not just Good ones).

Segev
2017-01-25, 01:40 PM
Some sources suggest certain acts (torture, casting [Evil] spells etc) carry the same Corruption rating regardless of the nature of the "victim". Indeed, an [evil] spell might not even have a victim, other than "the multiverse" (casting Protection from Good to make oneself resistant to mind control from any creature, not just Good ones).

Perhaps. But that is getting into specific acts, and not specific purpose.

Heck, on the subject of "torture" alone, you run into a problem of defining it. While we have clear activities that are definitely "torture," and clear activities that are definitely not - e.g. ripping out somebody's fingernails one by one vs. giving him a luxury spa treatment - there are plenty of "gray" areas that become debatable.

Is putting somebody in an uncomfortable cell rather than a comfortable one "torture?" Even if its purpose is to extract information?

Is giving somebody nasty-tasting food torture? What about food that's gone a little "off?" Shows some signs of rot?

I'm not trying to justify anything, here, just pointing out that "torture is always evil!" is, itself, nebulous.

hamishspence
2017-01-25, 02:06 PM
The low end "torture that does no damage" - is only a 1 pt Corrupt act, same as casting an [Evil] spell - so, in that context, if you're ok with there existing Neutral spell casters who regularly cast [evil] spells, then a Neutral torturer of this kind has just as much justification.

kyoryu
2017-01-25, 02:26 PM
In the first place, yes it does. Someone who does evil for a good end is, all other things being equal, less evil than someone who does them for an evil end. Because one person is striving to make an imperfect world a better place, while the other is working to make it a worse place. How is this even controversial?

Because not everybody is a Utilitarian?

2D8HP
2017-01-25, 03:40 PM
Your image isn't for the greater good, that was killing people to win a contest for the prettiest town if i recall....

:confused:

Not the greater good?

Nicholas Angel: [shouting] Have you ever wondered why, why the crime rate in Sandford is so low, yet the accident rate is so high?

Inspector Frank Butterman: I used to believe in the immutable word of the Law. That is until the night Mrs. Butterman was taken from me. You see no-one loved Sandford more than her - she was head of the Women's Institute, chair of the floral committee. When they started the Village of the Year contest, she worked around the clock. I've never seen such dedication. On the eve of the adjudicator's arrival, some travellers moved into Callaghan Park. Before you could say 'gypsy scum' we were knee-deep in dog muck, thieving kids and crusty jugglers. We lost the title. And Irene lost her mind. She drove her Datsun Cherry into Sandford Gorge. From that moment on, I swore that I would do her proud.

Crusty Jugglers!!!

Need I say more?

PC Doris Thatcher: [over radio] Any officers near the church?

Nicholas Angel: Go ahead, Doris.

PC Doris Thatcher: Chief, we've just gotten reports of some hippie types messing with the recycling bins at the supermarket.

Nicholas Angel: Leave it with us.

PC Doris Thatcher: Right-o.

Nicholas Angel: Sergeant Butterman? The little hand says it's time to rock and roll.

Danny Butterman: [puts on his sunglasses] Bring the noise!

[Nicholas wheels the car around, hits the siren, and floors the gas pedal]

NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!

Efrate
2017-01-25, 09:42 PM
Lord Vetinari killed at least one person in the assassins guild as he was training, I remember that from somewhere. There was something about tiger stripes providing camouflage in the jungle, and pain in the neck trainee got taken out, merely on hubris IIRC. Been ages, but there is that.

Also holding a death sentence over someone's head to compel them to do stuff for you unless you cooperate is quite evil and going postal was a thing.

Apologies for lack of specifics, I should reread discworld, its been a bit. I'll just have to put good omens down for a bit...just a bit...

hamishspence
2017-01-26, 06:20 AM
Lord Vetinari killed at least one person in the assassins guild as he was training, I remember that from somewhere. There was something about tiger stripes providing camouflage in the jungle, and pain in the neck trainee got taken out, merely on hubris IIRC.

That was Lord Downey - he wasn't killed, just knocked out and woke up to find tiger stripes painted on his face when he looked in the mirror.

Vetinari kills other people in Night Watch, but generally it's defensive (of self or others) - killing an assassin (implied to be "ordinary murderer" rather than Guild member) who was about to kill "Keel" - and later, killing four of Carcer's people when they were attacking Vimes & others toward the end.

In Raising Steam, as "Stoker Blake" he also kills defensively.

Stealth Marmot
2017-01-26, 07:42 AM
I don't know if this helps, but I have personally been the recipient of an accidentally good alignment.

I made a character I wanted to be sort of ambiguously moral, trying to shift himself around and play both sides as a wildcard. Willing to do some dirty things to get an effect he wanted. The campaign however was not too cooperative because the other sides were both rapidly shifting (the game lacked focus) and off the wall in their motivations.

I played the character instead as sort of sarcastic jerk to people, but also a reasonable person trying to get things done. In the end, he hadn't any chances to do anything truly morally dubious during most of the campaign.

Then at one point he ended up heroically sacrificing himself to save the woman he loved in a rather spectacular manner. The DM decided that I had shifted alignment from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good.

So yeah, it is possible for a character to accidentally go good.

Ursus the Grim
2017-01-26, 08:27 AM
I don't know if this helps, but I have personally been the recipient of an accidentally good alignment.

I made a character I wanted to be sort of ambiguously moral, trying to shift himself around and play both sides as a wildcard. Willing to do some dirty things to get an effect he wanted. The campaign however was not too cooperative because the other sides were both rapidly shifting (the game lacked focus) and off the wall in their motivations.

I played the character instead as sort of sarcastic jerk to people, but also a reasonable person trying to get things done. In the end, he hadn't any chances to do anything truly morally dubious during most of the campaign.

Then at one point he ended up heroically sacrificing himself to save the woman he loved in a rather spectacular manner. The DM decided that I had shifted alignment from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good.

So yeah, it is possible for a character to accidentally go good.

Its useless to me if my character has to die to manage it! :smalltongue:

Stealth Marmot
2017-01-26, 09:14 AM
Its useless to me if my character has to die to manage it! :smalltongue:

He got better.

Jay R
2017-01-26, 10:10 AM
For starters, it throws the idea of a 'balanced axis' of alignments right out the window.

Absolutely correct - it does. A necessary assumption for a 'balanced axis' is that neither side is cosmically better than the other. And therefore they aren't what our characters think of as good and evil.

So Evil is often treated as spoiled goodness, much as a bad apple is not a completely different thing from a good apple, but a good apple that has spoiled.

There is a great deal more to say on this topic, but it can't be said in this forum.

Red Fel
2017-01-26, 10:17 AM
Absolutely correct - it does. A necessary assumption for a 'balanced axis' is that neither side is cosmically better than the other. And therefore they aren't what our characters think of as good and evil.

So Evil is often treated as spoiled goodness, much as a bad apple is not a completely different thing from a good apple, but a good apple that has spoiled.

As I've often stated, I think the alignment system as embraced by D&D is rubbish. That said, one can make the argument that each of the four points of the grid has somewhat equal merit.
Good is about altruism - the goal of helping or supporting others. Intrinsically a positive thing.
Evil is about ambition - the desire to achieve something, and to do what it takes to get there. Also a positive thing.
Law is about stability - the desire for safety, consistency, and a reliable life. Positive.
Chaos is about freedom - the ability to grow, change, and define oneself from moment to moment. You get the picture.
Taken as these core values, the four alignments can theoretically form a "balanced axis" - or grid, really - because altruism is neither inherently better nor worse than ambition, nor is stability better or worse than freedom. Any of them taken to excess becomes a net negative - one who is too selfless is unable to support himself, let alone others; one who is too ambitious will devise his own ruin; one who is too stable stagnates; one who is too dynamic has no true sense of identity.

The problem is that, from the beginning, the devs had a bias. Altruism is better than ambition, stability better than freedom, because reasons. And it leaked into everything. And that, really, is what makes a "balanced axis" so difficult.

Segev
2017-01-26, 10:33 AM
As I've often stated, I think the alignment system as embraced by D&D is rubbish. That said, one can make the argument that each of the four points of the grid has somewhat equal merit.
Good is about altruism - the goal of helping or supporting others. Intrinsically a positive thing.
Evil is about ambition - the desire to achieve something, and to do what it takes to get there. Also a positive thing.
Law is about stability - the desire for safety, consistency, and a reliable life. Positive.
Chaos is about freedom - the ability to grow, change, and define oneself from moment to moment. You get the picture.
Taken as these core values, the four alignments can theoretically form a "balanced axis" - or grid, really - because altruism is neither inherently better nor worse than ambition, nor is stability better or worse than freedom. Any of them taken to excess becomes a net negative - one who is too selfless is unable to support himself, let alone others; one who is too ambitious will devise his own ruin; one who is too stable stagnates; one who is too dynamic has no true sense of identity.

The problem is that, from the beginning, the devs had a bias. Altruism is better than ambition, stability better than freedom, because reasons. And it leaked into everything. And that, really, is what makes a "balanced axis" so difficult.

To play with this a bit, it is a frequent "second-level" examination point to consider that ambition is not inherently evil; it is all-consuming ambition which leads to viewing others as expendable tools that is bad. Conversely, even the wicked will have no problem with altruism when its costs are negligible (though they may not choose to engage in it, they won't find PROBLEM with it when others do, nor with themselves if they decide to this time).

What makes a combination of these traits "evil" or "good" is who you're willing to sacrifice when it becomes non-negligible. An ambitious, but good, person is not going to be willing to sacrifice others' well-being for his ambitions. An evil person willing to give altruistically will cease to be willing to do so when it actually costs him something he cares about (or possibly even when it stops making him feel good).

When sacrifices must be made for altruism or ambition, good people look first to themselves, then seek voluntary donation from others. If both fail to provide the resources needed, they do their best, and judge whether the situation is truly dire. In extremis, they might go "for the greater good," but not easily and only as far as is minimally necessary. (LG will have rules in place requiring mandatory donations for such extreme cases; CG will tend to start going 'Robin Hood' for the same reasons.)

When sacrifices must be made for ambition or altruism, evil people look first to others - first asking, then demanding. In extremis, they will give of themselves and their substance, but only as much as they absolutely must in order to make it through. And generally aiding others only after they've assured their own status is maximized.

Stealth Marmot
2017-01-26, 11:04 AM
To play with this a bit, it is a frequent "second-level" examination point to consider that ambition is not inherently evil; it is all-consuming ambition which leads to viewing others as expendable tools that is bad. Conversely, even the wicked will have no problem with altruism when its costs are negligible (though they may not choose to engage in it, they won't find PROBLEM with it when others do, nor with themselves if they decide to this time).

What makes a combination of these traits "evil" or "good" is who you're willing to sacrifice when it becomes non-negligible. An ambitious, but good, person is not going to be willing to sacrifice others' well-being for his ambitions. An evil person willing to give altruistically will cease to be willing to do so when it actually costs him something he cares about (or possibly even when it stops making him feel good).

When sacrifices must be made for altruism or ambition, good people look first to themselves, then seek voluntary donation from others. If both fail to provide the resources needed, they do their best, and judge whether the situation is truly dire. In extremis, they might go "for the greater good," but not easily and only as far as is minimally necessary. (LG will have rules in place requiring mandatory donations for such extreme cases; CG will tend to start going 'Robin Hood' for the same reasons.)

When sacrifices must be made for ambition or altruism, evil people look first to others - first asking, then demanding. In extremis, they will give of themselves and their substance, but only as much as they absolutely must in order to make it through. And generally aiding others only after they've assured their own status is maximized.

Much as I think her mindset is one of inherently damaging philosophy, I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens in that Ayn Rand's view of Rational Selfishness is one that does bring up the concept that a certain level of selfishness is not only healthy for the person, but healthy for the community, but as Hitch pointed out, humans need no encouragement to reach such levels, and can do that without any sort of philosophy cheering them on. In fact such a philosophy will encourage dangerous and reckless selfishness that while sometimes good for the single person, will negatively affect the overall health and happiness of the society.

My point is this: Referring to evil as ambition, or vice versa, presents a much more morally ambiguous concept of good and evil in the D&D world, which can actually work to the players and people's benefit. However, ambition is not the antithesis of altruism, at least not directly. Selfishness, or self focus is the opposite of altruism. The concept of causing or allowing the detriment of others for your own benefit.

Thing is, a certain level of selfishness can be good for a society as it tends to weed out problematic elements or inefficiencies that have to be rectified. Problem is, human beings already have a tendency towards selfishness to begin with, and if given no reason to stop their simple selfishness can lead to excessive ambition and greed.

An alternative mindset of morality though, is not the dichotomy of one concept like altruism verse selfishness, but instead the very Greek philosophical concept of hubris. Basically, the concept of hubris is that ANYTHING in excess is bad. The nature of evil can be an excess in any certain vice or even any certain virtue. An excess of Justice is Oppression, Cruelty, or Ruthlessness. An Excess of Mercy is Carelessness, Recklessness, and callousness towards Justice. An Excess of Ambition is Greed or Foolish Pride and an excess of Apathy is Laziness or Callousness.

One could argue that good actions are ones that are prudent, measure the costs and benefits, and act in a way that does best for all virtues, and there is no hard and fast black or white to it.

The problem with having an actual alignment grid of good and evil is it essentially presents a morality governed by Objectivism, and I never cared for that philosophical mindset.

Segev
2017-01-26, 11:25 AM
Rand has some problematic presentation, and a few misconceptions in her basic premises, but she overall gets a bad rap from people who (sometimes, I think, deliberately) misinterpret what she says. It's important to note that her definition of altruism is not what we tend to think of, but rather what tends to be enacted by evil men who seek to engage in it. Her definition of "altruism" is getting others to give away their stuff so you can take credit for it. Paying attention to its use in her works reveals that she's objecting to the use of force or guilt to bully people into giving up their substance; it's noteworthy that those who do the bullying are the ones who take the credit for being "good, altruistic people," and those they bullied into actually parting with their stuff are still bad guys for having had the stuff in the first place.

I fear I may already be going too far into real-world philosophy, so I'll stop here and instead swerve into saying that part of the point I was making in my last post wasn't that ambition is or is not evil, but that I think the right way to examine "good" vs. "evil" is to examine who - and with what priority - the person is willing to sacrifice.

The Good will sacrifice themselves, first. They will then, if their own sacrifice would not suffice, seek sacrifice from willing others. Then, they will seek minimal compelled sacrifice from those who were not previously willing, and THEN only if the need is deemed great enough. (A further measure of how great the need and how selfish having it met is for the person can be added.)

The Evil will sacrifice others, first. They will care little for willingness, and will even be wasteful of others' sacrifices to spare themselves, if they can. They give of themselves only as a last resort. The need they consider is their own, primarily, and will have a tendency to sacrifice others' needs (even those they would have otherwise sought to make others support) in favor of their own. Exceptions exist, such that the Evil with somebody else they value higher than themselves might give of themselves before that person, but it will be very narrow and their priority will still strive to sacrifice as little of that person's substance as possible, no matter how wasteful of others' sacrifices he must be to do so.


Whether for ambition (self) or altruism (others), the Evil will take from those he deems acceptable targets and with relish. Whether for ambition (self) or altruism (others), the Good will give of himself first, and seek to take as little as possible from others (save where they willingly give aid...and even then, he will temper his acceptance with what he feels they can afford to give vs. the severity of the need).

Tanarii
2017-01-26, 11:49 AM
From Grognards.txt (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=115495):If the choices are between killing off Drizzt or killing off Hilter, I'll kill Drizzt everyday and twice on Tuesdays.

Segev
2017-01-26, 12:12 PM
If the choices are between killing off Drizzt or killing off Hilter, I'll kill Drizzt everyday and twice on Tuesdays.

What if the choice is between killing off Drizzt or killing off Dolores Umbrage?

Jay R
2017-01-26, 01:48 PM
As I've often stated, I think the alignment system as embraced by D&D is rubbish.

Absolutely. It is not compatible with any moral, ethical, philosophical, or psychological theory in the history of the world.


That said, one can make the argument that each of the four points of the grid has somewhat equal merit.
Good is about altruism - the goal of helping or supporting others. Intrinsically a positive thing.
Evil is about ambition - the desire to achieve something, and to do what it takes to get there. Also a positive thing.
Law is about stability - the desire for safety, consistency, and a reliable life. Positive.
Chaos is about freedom - the ability to grow, change, and define oneself from moment to moment. You get the picture.

And the world now has a new moral/philosophical system, also completely incompatible with D&D alignment.

The bored man with no particular goals who kills or enslaves people out of boredom is unambitious, but Evil. The paladin with a fifty year plan, committed to save the world from poverty is very ambitious, but Good.


Taken as these core values, the four alignments can theoretically form a "balanced axis" - or grid, really - because altruism is neither inherently better nor worse than ambition, nor is stability better or worse than freedom. Any of them taken to excess becomes a net negative - one who is too selfless is unable to support himself, let alone others; one who is too ambitious will devise his own ruin; one who is too stable stagnates; one who is too dynamic has no true sense of identity.

Excellent - a perfect explanation for why this idea is totally incompatible with D&D alignment

The struggle between Good and Evil has always been an important staple of fantasy stories, and the developers of a system to simulate fantasy stories had to try to include it. But they imported a system of Law and Chaos from fantasy novels, and tried to make it equivalent to Good and Evil.


The problem is that, from the beginning, the devs had a bias. Altruism is better than ambition, stability better than freedom, because reasons. And it leaked into everything. And that, really, is what makes a "balanced axis" so difficult.

The problem is the desire to build a system of good and evil that treats them as a balanced axis, which disagrees with pretty much all writings in the world about good and evil.

Since the rules don't permit documenting that statement from serious sources, I will use a comic strip:


"Good is better'n evil, because it's nicer."

--Mammy Yokum, Li'l Abner, Al Capp

The developers had no bias about altruism and ambition. They thought Good was better than Evil -- which is and must be true, by definition. Good is more good than ungood, just as strength is stronger than weakness, and green is greener than red.

They also thought that Law was better than Chaos, because in the novels that they had taken it from, it was. Building and protecting is better than destroying. So they imported it into D&D that way,

When I started playing original D&D, there were only the opposed alignments of Law and Chaos which, based on the rules, mostly meant Good and Evil. But a lot of players, myself included, complained that "Lawful" doesn't mean "Good", and "Chaotic" doesn't mean "Evil".

So the developers at TSR had three choices:
1. Admit their mistake and change the D&D terms to Good and Evil,
2. Make the rules clear by explaining the gaming jargon and spelling out that Law and Chaos were being used in a specific sense of Good and Evil, or
3. Try to hide the mistake by inventing an unrealistic and overly complicated game mechanic.

For Gygax, this was always an easy choice.

So since about 1977, we have been stuck with the inaccurate 9-way alignment system. Worse, since D&D has a huge influence on the subculture that includes fantasy, many people learn D&D first and find fantasy stories later. These people are unfortunately led to believe that the 9-way system is somehow connected to how fantasy is written, or even how people behave.

It's not. It's just an unrealistic game mechanic in the biggest fantasy RPG.

Mordar
2017-01-26, 03:56 PM
So since about 1977, we have been stuck with the inaccurate 9-way alignment system. Worse, since D&D has a huge influence on the subculture that includes fantasy, many people learn D&D first and find fantasy stories later. These people are unfortunately led to believe that the 9-way system is somehow connected to how fantasy is written, or even how people behave.

It's not. It's just an unrealistic game mechanic in the biggest fantasy RPG.

While I agree it is an artifact, it does provide me with a nice, generalized expectation of the nature of the given individual. Not a "here's how they will act in every situation" but a decent guess at their likely tendencies within the game world, and a decent perspective into their motivations after the fact. Not as useful for heady, deep games using fully realized characters, but often as good or better than descriptors like "brawny" or "sly-looking" or "draped in arcana".

YMMV.

- M

georgie_leech
2017-01-26, 04:47 PM
So, if "kills an innocent" should be able to knock you southward no further than "spares an innocent" should be able to knock you northwards.

Or, perhaps it should. "Kill an innocent" is not necessarily actually mirrored by "spare an innocent." Killing innocents is evil more, perhaps, because it's a reflection of your lack of respect for others' rights to life. So you need an equal expression of a respect for others' worth as independent beings to reflect an equal northward on the alignment chart.


If killing someone is taking someone that would be alive and making them dead, it stands to reason that the mirror would be taking someone that would have died and helping them live. That is, the mirror isn't sparing someone, it's saving someone.

Imagine a dying stranger on the road. Like, say they've been brutally maimed by some Dark Dreadlord of Death and Doom and left to die. It would be Neutral to just press on or ignore them. I'd also argue that a mercy killing, trying to spare them from pain because you don't think you could help them, would also be Neutral, albeit E-leaning. Killing them to satisfy some lust for blood or whatever would be Evil. And treating their wounds to save their life, either with magic or good old fashioned physical medicine, would be Good.

Conversely, imagine passing a perfectly healthy stranger. Any sort of killing is Evil, because you're taking a life that otherwise would have been there. Passing them by is Neutral. Because obviously passing Strangers isn't a significantly moral act. And there's really no 'Good' parallel here. I mean, there's other exactly anything you can 'save' them from. It's other like bandaging a healthy person helps them in any way. :smalltongue:

Tanarii
2017-01-26, 10:55 PM
What if the choice is between killing off Drizzt or killing off Dolores Umbrage?im not really familiar enough with the potter source material. Besides, the better equivalency would be Drizzt or Potter. I'd still go with Drizzt, because I know him (and dislike the character) more ... but if the remaining potter books are as bad as the first two, which are easily as bad as the various Drizzt books, that'd seems like it'd be a tough choice.

Stealth Marmot
2017-01-27, 07:41 AM
What if the choice is between killing off Drizzt or killing off Dolores Umbrage?

Umbrage. She would at least STAY dead.

georgie_leech
2017-01-27, 10:09 AM
im not really familiar enough with the potter source material. Besides, the better equivalency would be Drizzt or Potter. I'd still go with Drizzt, because I know him (and dislike the character) more ... but if the remaining potter books are as bad as the first two, which are easily as bad as the various Drizzt books, that'd seems like it'd be a tough choice.

Let's put it this way: She both managed to inspire, and be the image for, her own character archetype in Red Fel's LE Alignment guide.

Segev
2017-01-27, 10:16 AM
Dolores Umbrage is an excellent example of an author demonstrating good writing skill by writing a character that is utterly, completely detestable. Who practically everyone hates so much that, if you offered one bullet and a free shot between her and the big bad of the series, it's highly likely it'd be Umbrage who got the bullet. It's this that I was referencing, in fact, by putting her and Drizzt together in the choice.

Stealth Marmot
2017-01-27, 10:18 AM
Dolores Umbrage is an excellent example of an author demonstrating good writing skill by writing a character that is utterly, completely detestable. Who practically everyone hates so much that, if you offered one bullet and a free shot between her and the big bad of the series, it's highly likely it'd be Umbrage who got the bullet. It's this that I was referencing, in fact, by putting her and Drizzt together in the choice.

If Hitler, Voldemort, and Umbrage were in a room and I had a pistol with two bullets in it, I would shoot Umbrage twice.

Red Fel
2017-01-27, 11:21 AM
If Hitler, Voldemort, and Umbrage were in a room and I had a pistol with two bullets in it, I would shoot Umbrage twice.

Are we "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch"-ing Scumbridge? Because we totally can. My turn!

I wouldn't sit next to Scumbridge on an airplane if there were a seat next to Scumbridge on an airplane!

DataNinja
2017-01-27, 12:21 PM
I wouldn't sit next to Scumbridge on an airplane if there were a seat next to Scumbridge on an airplane!

...so that's what it takes to make sure no one sits next to you on an airplane? :smalltongue:

Jay R
2017-01-27, 12:25 PM
What if the choice is between killing off Drizzt or killing off Dolores Umbrage?

A philosopher would try to answer this question. A heroic adventurer would try to defeat them both.

Satinavian
2017-01-27, 12:29 PM
Dolores Umbrage is an excellent example of an author demonstrating good writing skill by writing a character that is utterly, completely detestable. Who practically everyone hates so much that, if you offered one bullet and a free shot between her and the big bad of the series, it's highly likely it'd be Umbrage who got the bullet. It's this that I was referencing, in fact, by putting her and Drizzt together in the choice.I never disliked her that much.

She is kind of mean, kind of uncompromising, kind of oldfashioned, lacks empathy and is incompetent. But considering what she actually does and what kind of atrocities happen all the time in the world, she seems not that bad at all.

hamishspence
2017-01-27, 12:48 PM
Setting Dementors on Harry & his cousin. Had Harry not been extremely advanced in DaDA skillset (having mastered the "well beyond OWL" Patronus charm) they would have been soul-sucked.

The Blood Quill.

Using Veritaserum on students (strictly controlled)

Threatening to torture students.

Keltest
2017-01-27, 12:57 PM
Setting Dementors on Harry & his cousin. Had Harry not been extremely advanced in DaDA skillset (having mastered the "well beyond OWL" Patronus charm) they would have been soul-sucked.

The Blood Quill.

Using Veritaserum on students (strictly controlled)

Threatening to torture students.

Don't forget that she actually did try torture. She was interrupted, but she was about to do so.

hamishspence
2017-01-27, 01:04 PM
And that's just the one book. Throw in her actions in Deathly Hallows, what's being done to Muggleborn wizards, with her active connivance, and it's even worse. We know anyone who shows signs of resisting, in those trials, is threatened with the Dementor's Kiss - how many have been actually Kissed offscreen?

Thialfi
2017-01-27, 01:22 PM
I can't think of too many examples of evil done right. Evil doesn't have to be evil all the time to everyone. Good requires constant vigilance to maintain. You can still be evil and have loved ones that you would willingly lay down your life for. Evil isn't about how you treat your friends, it's about how you treat strangers and your enemies. An adventurer could be a valuable team member to his party and put his life on the line to keep them safe. He could go back to his hometown and donate half of his fortune to to the orphanage he grew up in. Then he could murder the homeless man that saw him break into the rich merchant's house. That's an evil adventurer. There really is no ledger where so many good acts tip the balance on your alignment. It's all about what you are prepared to do to serve your interest.

Segev
2017-01-27, 01:29 PM
Objectively, Umbrage is just a petty evil. Definitely evil, but...not as big a threat as Voldemort or others. She's not worth the same energy and hatred, objectively speaking.

Which is why she's so brilliantly written. She's written to be that much more hatable than anybody else. The way it's made so personal, and yet so pervasive, is very well done.

Stealth Marmot
2017-01-27, 04:00 PM
Objectively, Umbrage is just a petty evil. Definitely evil, but...not as big a threat as Voldemort or others. She's not worth the same energy and hatred, objectively speaking.

Which is why she's so brilliantly written. She's written to be that much more hatable than anybody else. The way it's made so personal, and yet so pervasive, is very well done.

"The gently smiling Dolores Umbridge, with her girlish voice, toadlike face, and clutching, stubby fingers, is the greatest make-believe villain to come along since Hannibal Lecter."

-Stephen King

I repeat.

Stephen King.

georgie_leech
2017-01-27, 04:39 PM
"The gently smiling Dolores Umbridge, with her girlish voice, toadlike face, and clutching, stubby fingers, is the greatest make-believe villain to come along since Hannibal Lecter."

-Stephen King

I repeat.

Stephen King.

Voldemort, while undeniably heinous, has an element of the fantastical about him. That is, most people haven't really interacted with someone actually bent and domination and conquest via cults and murder. Umbridge is a far more personal villain. Most everyone has experienced the frustration of some jerk denying or ignoring or even outright thwarting what they want or need, solely because they can. That abuse of power, of someone abusing their position to make you feel small, and then hiding their naked cruelty behind rules and 'just doing their job,' that is far more relatable than some Dark Lord. Dark Lords exist in fantasy stories to be overthrown by the heroes. The Umbridges of the world are far more common and difficult to oppose.

Tanarii
2017-01-27, 09:04 PM
Let's put it this way: She both managed to inspire, and be the image for, her own character archetype in Red Fel's LE Alignment guide.


Dolores Umbrage is an excellent example of an author demonstrating good writing skill by writing a character that is utterly, completely detestable. Who practically everyone hates so much that, if you offered one bullet and a free shot between her and the big bad of the series, it's highly likely it'd be Umbrage who got the bullet. It's this that I was referencing, in fact, by putting her and Drizzt together in the choice.
Is that all? Then definitely Drizzt first, followed by Potter. I fracking HATE mary-sue heroes.

OTOH my favorite character of all time is Raistlin, who is a bit edgelord. So I don't really have to cast aspersions. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, speaking of unintentional goodness ... Raistlin was had a regular and frequent soft spot for the weak & despised, and he indulged in it constantly. This is a guy who very intentionally did many twisted things in his pursuit of godhood. Yet he stayed black-robed, despite those little moments of goodness.

OTOH, he eventually finally did experience the one big fall into grace eventually. Y'know ... apart from the eternity of hell being torn to shreds by the dark queen's minions. But other than that, he totally redeemed himself in a moment of soulful salvation & sacrifice.

Segev
2017-01-27, 09:12 PM
Eh... If Harry Potter fits your definition of "Mary Sue," then most main characters must. Oh, sure, he's got some of the trappings, but there's more to it than being "the chosen one" or having a tragic backstory. The major element being escaping all consequences for his actions. There is only one time I can think of where he does so, and it does admittedly happen in the first book. But other than how he gets on the Quidditch team, consequences dog his actions pretty closely.

Satinavian
2017-01-28, 04:12 AM
Setting Dementors on Harry & his cousin. Had Harry not been extremely advanced in DaDA skillset (having mastered the "well beyond OWL" Patronus charm) they would have been soul-sucked.

The Blood Quill.

Using Veritaserum on students (strictly controlled)

Threatening to torture students.Don't forget that Harry Potters mgic world is actually a pretty dystopian place. The Dementors are normal law enforcement and most wizards seem to be ok with that. And things that happen to students all the time even before Umbridge comes are are extremely dangerous, extremely nasty and would often count as bodily hrm and torture anyway. But wizards seem to think it is good for character to expose children to that.

So no, what Dolores does is not actually that bad by the standards of the wizardly world. Considering she is sent there because the ministry thinks that the school is used by Dumbledore to train a private army of child soldiers for a coup, those actions seem even less extreme.


Yes, i agree, she is written to be unlikeable with some skill. But even when i read the book i never could think of her as utterly evil instead of just petty, selfrightous, incompetent, oldfashioned and prejudiced. She didn't even have evil goals.


Now she is certainly a far better written Character than Voldemort, who while certainly utterly evil and a threat comes off as insane, erratic and planless and does not actually convince me to be able to take over anything, much less the word. Only to be able to do a lot of harm while trying.

Efrate
2017-01-28, 05:38 AM
Its been forever since I read dragonlance, but didn't Raistlin after becoming a lich(or god?) and attempting to subvert his nephew to evil still maintain his black robes? He didn't force his family to follow, but that is the closest I remember. I know he was trying to becoming the evil god but tas messed that up, but I don't ever remember him being ever redeemed. He was self motivated entirely, and just so happened to work to thwart or overthrow bigger evils than him because they were in his way, not out of any concern for the world or anything else.

Keltest
2017-01-28, 08:09 AM
Its been forever since I read dragonlance, but didn't Raistlin after becoming a lich(or god?) and attempting to subvert his nephew to evil still maintain his black robes? He didn't force his family to follow, but that is the closest I remember. I know he was trying to becoming the evil god but tas messed that up, but I don't ever remember him being ever redeemed. He was self motivated entirely, and just so happened to work to thwart or overthrow bigger evils than him because they were in his way, not out of any concern for the world or anything else.

He was self-motivated, but he had it in his mind that he was going to improve things, or at least maintain the status quo. Tas thwarts him in part by revealing that no, what he's doing will break EVERYTHING, and drive him insane. So he realizes that what he is doing isn't worth the damage it will cause and sacrifices himself to extract his family and friends from the mess he made. To my recollection he doesn't ever try to tempt his nephew, but he does watch over him and provide him some tools, like the Staff of Magius.

Tanarii
2017-01-28, 03:01 PM
Its been forever since I read dragonlance, but didn't Raistlin after becoming a lich(or god?) and attempting to subvert his nephew to evil still maintain his black robes?
The series ended with the second trilogy. ENDED YOU HEAR ME! :smallbiggrin:

Hawkstar
2017-01-30, 11:31 AM
I was looking at another alignment thread in the 5e forum, looked up some classic Skeletor moments, and found this bit of silliness. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVppuv9Pcqk) I think it's relevant to this discussion.

MarkVIIIMarc
2017-02-01, 09:59 AM
We don't need go make everything so yes or no. The world is 50 shades of gray.

Most good stories feature a swath of characters. The evil character may be decent to his family but otherwise corrupt.

The hero might be a smuggler who realizes how big of a deal the situation is and decides at the last moment to come help out.

There is probably a goody goody someplace in a convent. Over on the Priest house is there someone trying to be the best Priest possible as a way of atoning for his (ongoing) sins?

My character was probably Lawful Good before her backstory kicked in. Now she has a more than a touch of vengence in her after seeing the real world and is Chaotic Neutral we decided.

Characters in our game are allowed to be good but have a weakness. Or evil and love their kids. Neutral is a popular choice.

Arbane
2017-02-01, 07:21 PM
Excellent - a perfect explanation for why this idea is totally incompatible with D&D alignment

The struggle between Good and Evil has always been an important staple of fantasy stories, and the developers of a system to simulate fantasy stories had to try to include it. But they imported a system of Law and Chaos from fantasy novels, and tried to make it equivalent to Good and Evil.


Other way around, IIRC. D&D has Law/Chaos first, and added in the Good/Evil axis later.
(And it's funny to me that in Basic D&D and such, it was expected that sometimes even Chaotic monsters would be non-hostile and willing to negotiate, whereas now with our more 'sophisticated' versions, wandering monsters usually default to 'attack and fight to the last orc'. Only undead did that in Basic, I think...)

Segev
2017-02-02, 03:01 PM
(And it's funny to me that in Basic D&D and such, it was expected that sometimes even Chaotic monsters would be non-hostile and willing to negotiate, whereas now with our more 'sophisticated' versions, wandering monsters usually default to 'attack and fight to the last orc'. Only undead did that in Basic, I think...)

This has more to do with DMs not paying attention to the advice that this should not be the case, than it does with the sophistication (or lack thereof) of any alignment system.

tomandtish
2017-02-03, 11:01 AM
Setting Dementors on Harry & his cousin. Had Harry not been extremely advanced in DaDA skillset (having mastered the "well beyond OWL" Patronus charm) they would have been soul-sucked.

The Blood Quill.

Using Veritaserum on students (strictly controlled)

Threatening to torture students.

I'd argue the Blood Quill counts as torture. Maybe not Cruciatus, but still...

Lord Raziere
2017-02-04, 04:16 AM
If Hitler, Voldemort, and Umbrage were in a room and I had a pistol with two bullets in it, I would shoot Umbrage twice.

Softie. A bullet is too good for her. I'd shoot the other two, then beat her to death by pistol whipping.

Segev
2017-02-04, 01:02 PM
Softie. A bullet is too good for her. I'd shoot the other two, then beat her to death by pistol whipping.

I figured the bullets were for her kneecaps, myself.

Keltest
2017-02-04, 01:30 PM
This thread has taken a direction I am decidedly uncomfortable with.

yes, we all know Umbridge is a terrible person. Please stop describing ways to torture or otherwise murder people now thank you.

Segev
2017-02-04, 01:45 PM
This thread has taken a direction I am decidedly uncomfortable with.

yes, we all know Umbridge is a terrible person. Please stop describing ways to torture or otherwise murder people now thank you.

Fair request. Perhaps we're demonstrating that unintentional goodness is unlikely. Hrm.

Beleriphon
2017-02-04, 01:47 PM
Not fans of Rush, obviously. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Or Jean-Paul Sartre "RADICAL FREEDOM!"

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/17