PDA

View Full Version : That poor, poor, shopkeep...



AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 10:34 AM
Yes, oh, yes. It's that time of week again! Time for an alignment thread! Get out your pop corn and foam fingers everyone, it's ethics time.

I noticed a few threads below that seem to have gotten derailed into debates about what exactly the diffrence is bettween evil behavior and neutral behaviour. So, I figure, let's talk about it directly.

My take is this: self interest, the look out for number one view, CAN be evil or CAN be neutral depending upon what sorts of things the character views as ok behavior for their self interest.

Example:

Neutral: Pocketing a trinket in the general store because you can personally use it when it's just you and the shopkeep and you know they won't notice.

Evil: Slitting the shopkeepers throat, helping yourself to the till and anything else you like because no one is there to stop you.

Borderline: Going invisble, kicking the living heck out of the shopkeeper and helping yourself to the till and anything else you like.

I take the distinction thus because although all serve your self interest the amount of harm you are willing to view as ok to do to someone else is diffrent in each case.

Note, I mentioned a borderline case. There's a reason a for that. the alignments, particularly those within one step of each other, as say CE and CN or TN and NE are, are inteneded to be a little fuzzy imho.

PlatinumJester
2007-08-23, 10:46 AM
The borderline one is definately evil.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 10:51 AM
To me, the question is whether you're doing significant harm to another person for your own benefit. On the question of pocketing a trinket: If the shopkeeper is clearly wealthy and won't suffer from the loss, it's probably not an Evil act, though it's almost certainly Chaotic. If the shopkeeper is evidently poor and struggling to make ends meet, it's an Evil act, albeit not a very bad one in the grand scheme of things. If the shopkeeper's wife is a cripple, his children are on the brink of starvation, and stealing that trinket will mean Tiny Tim dies (and you know all this at the time), then it's a seriously Evil act.

Kioran
2007-08-23, 10:52 AM
They are all evil - to a certain degree. Stealing without necessisty, even if no one comes to harm, is evil, with a very small "e". You damage someone, economically, for your own gain. It could be neutral if you really need whatever your stealing (low priced food if you´re hungry or such, what germans call "Mundraub"), so that the use you have more than offsets the damage, but usually if the relation of use for you and harm for the other person is even or worse, it´s evil.
If this behaviour is consistent, I´d label the character doing it evil.

With your borderline and evil examples? Clearly evil. A Paladin would fall immediately for either of them, and so do good characters if they do such things more than once.

nagora
2007-08-23, 10:52 AM
Yes, oh, yes. It's that time of week again! Time for an alignment thread! Get out your pop corn and foam fingers everyone, it's ethics time.

Edit: actually, technically, it's morals time. :smallwink:


I noticed a few threads below that seem to have gotten derailed into debates about what exactly the diffrence is bettween evil behavior and neutral behaviour. So, I figure, let's talk about it directly.

My take is this: self interest, the look out for number one view, CAN be evil or CAN be neutral depending upon what sorts of things the character views as ok behavior for their self interest.


When I see "self-interest" my first thought is usually "chaotic". If you put your interests over the group/society then you're Chaotic. The chaotic viewpoint is that groups compromise the interests of their members, hoping for an overall improvement in collective "goal satisfaction"; that compromise is unacceptable to the Chaotic.

If you pursue your own interests by whatever means seems to work best in any given sircumstance - either helping others or harming them - you're probably CN. If you tend to look for the method that helps you AND harms someone else then you're probably CE, and if you generally try to find the method that helps you and minimises harm to others or even helps them too, then you're probably CG.

I don't think there's anything borderline about the invisible kick-boxer. Just because he didn't kill does not make the principle any different.

As with all alignments, you can just be "that sort of person" or make a conscious effort to espouse/spread your alignment but that makes no difference from a point of view of classifying you in D&D's aligment system.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-23, 10:54 AM
Neutral: Pocketing a trinket in the general store because you can personally use it when it's just you and the shopkeep and you know they won't notice.

I would call that an evil action. You are indirectly hurting the shopkeeper by relieving him of something that earns his livelihood.

Not the strongest of arguments, I know, but I wouldn't say it's really evil. It's just kinda evil. Very chaotic, but still kinda evil.

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 10:55 AM
The borderline one is definately evil.agreed. It's not borderline at all; there is nothing redeemable about it. Less evil than slitting his throat, sure, but still quite evil.

The one you list as "neutral" isn't neutral either; at best, it may be a borderline act, since it's not as bad as killing/injuring him, but you are still harming the shopkeeper. Which side of borderline if falls on is depends on how much it harms the shopkeeper.

nagora
2007-08-23, 10:56 AM
I would call that an evil action. You are indirectly hurting the shopkeeper by relieving him of something that earns his livelihood.

Not the strongest of arguments, I know, but I wouldn't say it's really evil. It's just kinda evil. Very chaotic, but still kinda evil.

Pocketing food when you have no money and the shopkeeper is not himself poor would probably be a better neutral example. A trinket makes it sound like it's not really a very vital thing to do.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-23, 11:02 AM
I'm with the easy to be evil faction. 'Borderline' is quite solidly evil, and the 'neutral' case is very possibly evil. If you really are sure that stealing the trinket won't do the shopkeep harm, then it could be put on the bad side of neutral. But most of the time, it will, and you know it will, so it's more likely to be on the mild end of evil.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 11:06 AM
When I see "self-interest" my first thought is usually "chaotic". If you put your interests over the group/society then you're Chaotic. The chaotic viewpoint is that groups compromise the interests of their members, hoping for an overall improvement in collective "goal satisfaction"; that compromise is unaccptable to the Chaotic.

If you pursue your own interests by whatever means seems to work best in any given sircumstance - either helping others or harming them - you're probably CN. If you tend to look for the method that helps you AND harms someone else then you're probably CE, and if you generally try to find the method that helps you and minimises harm to others or even helps them too, then you're probably CG.

Acting purely in pursuit of your own interests is never Good, because Good by definition is about helping others for its own sake. Helping to retrieve a treasure so you can have a share of it is neither Good nor Evil, even though it benefits others (everyone else who also gets a share). It's just acting in your own self-interest. If you murdered somebody in the process of retrieving the treasure, it's unequivocally Evil.

If you hurt others for your own gain, and you only help others when it benefits you, that puts you in the Evil camp, or the evil camp, or at least the (evil) camp, depending on how bad the hurts you inflict are and how freely you inflict them.

nagora
2007-08-23, 11:09 AM
Acting purely in pursuit of your own interests is never Good, because Good by definition is about helping others for its own sake.

That's why I said that the person who looks for the method that minimises harm to others or actually helps them is CG while the others were CN or CE.

Or are you arguing that finding the path of minimum harm is not enough and one must always avoid any harm to be good?

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 11:13 AM
I think perhaps I ought to have been clearer in the OP about the borderline. These are acts. The acts themselves are all evil. The reason I use them is that some evil acts are the sort of thing a character with a neutral alignment can do and remain neutral. Some are not. Neutral means you can do both good and evil, in little degrees.


When I see "self-interest" my first thought is usually "chaotic". If you put your interests over the group/society then you're Chaotic. The chaotic viewpoint is that groups compromise the interests of their members, hoping for an overall improvement in collective "goal satisfaction"; that compromise is unacceptable to the Chaotic.

This I very much disagree with. If you put your interests over the group or society you are either neutral or evil. It has little to do with chaotic or lawful. A LE ruler or aristocrat who follows and enforces the unjust laws of his kingdom does so because it is in his self interest. It's best for HIM that the laws be there and protect him, so he supports them. He's lawful because he follows the rules. He's evil because he doesn't care if the rules leave little children to starve.

A CE rogue who shanks the shopkeep and takes his stuff does so because he thinks it's best for him to kill the guy and make off with his stuff when no one is looking. He's chaotic because he doesn't respect the law. He's evil because he's willing to murder someone in cold blood to get what he wants.

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 11:14 AM
That's why I said that the person who looks for the method that minimises harm to others or actually helps them is CG while the others were CN or CE.

Or are you arguing that finding the path of minimum harm is not enough and one must always avoid any harm to be good?Finding the path of minimum harm is not enough and one must always avoid any harm to DO good.

Being a good person on the other hand, is a little different. You can be good if you do both evil and good things, though I'm firmly in the camp that believes that evil drags you down faster than good can lift you up.

Telonius
2007-08-23, 11:15 AM
I wouldn't call the borderline case "borderline." The borderline case can never be a Good act. At the very best it's a neutral one, and that's only if there are severe extenuating circumstances - the bad guy will kill the whole town if you don't knock the guy out, etc. Yeah, you didn't kill him. But there's a whole bunch of stuff you can do to a person, short of killing them, that's evil.

The "not evil" case is the more borderline one to me. You're doing no violence, you're just taking property. You might be stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. You might not be doing it out of malice, nor for specific personal gain. It will never be a Good act; it will probably always be a Chaotic act; but it might not be an Evil act.

Tyger
2007-08-23, 11:17 AM
Acting purely in pursuit of your own interests is never Good, because Good by definition is about helping others for its own sake. Helping to retrieve a treasure so you can have a share of it is neither Good nor Evil, even though it benefits others (everyone else who also gets a share). It's just acting in your own self-interest. If you murdered somebody in the process of retrieving the treasure, it's unequivocally Evil.

If you hurt others for your own gain, and you only help others when it benefits you, that puts you in the Evil camp, or the evil camp, or at least the (evil) camp, depending on how bad the hurts you inflict are and how freely you inflict them.

And here we see the fundamental flaw in polar opposite alignment arguments. By this definintion (the bolded portions above), almost every adventuring party I have ever played in was an evil party. We went down into a dungeon, to find something that would benefit us or our cause, and killed sentient or semi-sentient things whilst in that dungeon. Those killings were necessary in order for us to retrieve said "something" we were trying to find.

So, killing goblins to get to the treasure room makes you evil?

Not saying I disagree that murder makes you evil, but there are so many shades of grey (and yes, I am a moral relativist at heart) that attempting to apply a 9 point alignment model just doesn't work. But that's one of the things that I love about D&D... in my group, I just don't have to worry about it because we acknowledge it doesn't work and move on.

nagora
2007-08-23, 11:18 AM
This I very much disagree with. If you put your interests over the group or society you are either neutral or evil.

What a Lawful thing to say!

Let me put it this way: a Chaotic sees group goals as a fetter on individual ability and potential. They might even say that anyone that puts the rigths of group above the rights of the individual must be either neutral or evil.

People forget how hot the Law/Chaos rivalry can get. Alignment conflict isn't all Good Vs Evil.

nagora
2007-08-23, 11:21 AM
Finding the path of minimum harm is not enough and one must always avoid any harm to DO good.


Fair point. A CG would pursue their goals only if at the least they could do it without harming others and would prefer to help others too, if possible.

Saph
2007-08-23, 11:23 AM
I think perhaps I ought to have been clearer in the OP about the borderline. These are acts. The acts themselves are all evil. The reason I use them is that some evil acts are the sort of thing a character with a neutral alignment can do and remain neutral. Some are not. Neutral means you can do both good and evil, in little degrees.

I think the way you've phrased it is a bit misleading, though - it sounds as though you're saying that the acts are neutral, evil and borderline.

I'd agree that you can be neutral and do the 'neutral' one, and I'd agree you'd pretty much have to be evil to do the 'evil' one, but I'm not sure about the one you call 'borderline' - beating someone up and stealing just because you can? I'm not saying it's impossible to be N or CN and do things like that on a regular basis, but you'd have to REALLy work hard to balance it out. Remember, just because you don't kill people doesn't mean you're not evil.


And here we see the fundamental flaw in polar opposite alignment arguments. By this definintion (the bolded portions above), almost every adventuring party I have ever played in was an evil party. We went down into a dungeon, to find something that would benefit us or our cause, and killed sentient or semi-sentient things whilst in that dungeon. Those killings were necessary in order for us to retrieve said "something" we were trying to find.

So, killing goblins to get to the treasure room makes you evil?

Well . . . quite possibly, yes. :P It depends on how seriously you're playing the game, and it depends a lot on the circumstances and motivations, but if you were ONLY down there to kill things and take their stuff, and if you didn't really care what you killed as long as it earned you a good profit, then yes, that fits pretty clearly into the Evil camp. Evil can fight Evil just fine (and often does).

I'd say this says more about your group than the alignment system. :P Just because you're the PCs doesn't necessarily mean you're the good guys.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 11:24 AM
thanks for clarifying; that does make a bit more sense.


This I very much disagree with. If you put your interests over the group or society you are either neutral or evil. It has little to do with chaotic or lawful. The law-chaos axis is very much about the value of the group vs the value of the individuals in the group. Note that I say individual and not self. If you put the interests of an individual (self or otherwise, it doesn't matter) over those of the group, that's chaotic behavior. Good-evil is about others vs me/mine. If you advance your self, or your group without consideration for others, that's evil.

So self interest combines aspects of both chaos, and evil.

A lawful evil ruler is much more likely to be evil because of what he does to members outside of that society than what he does to members of his own society.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 11:26 AM
What a Lawful thing to say! .

Well, I am personally LN




Let me put it this way: a Chaotic sees group goals as a fetter on individual ability and potential.

Here is the thing you are forgetting. The chaotic (if they are good), thinks that it is better for EVERYONE that there be no fetters on individual ability and potential.



They might even say that anyone that puts the rigths of group above the rights of the individual must be either neutral or evil.


They might indeed, if they are CG or possible CN, but that would be because they view minimal to no laws as producing GOOD for everyone.

CE for example wouldn't care if having laws is best for everyone or not. It's best for them not to follow any. Everyone else is on their own.

Being against group RULES makes you chaotic. Not giving a damn about anyone else besides you, and potentially some friends, in the group is evil.

Telonius
2007-08-23, 11:27 AM
I think perhaps I ought to have been clearer in the OP about the borderline. These are acts. The acts themselves are all evil. The reason I use them is that some evil acts are the sort of thing a character with a neutral alignment can do and remain neutral. Some are not. Neutral means you can do both good and evil, in little degrees.



This I very much disagree with. If you put your interests over the group or society you are either neutral or evil. It has little to do with chaotic or lawful. A LE ruler or aristocrat who follows and enforces the unjust laws of his kingdom does so because it is in his self interest. It's best for HIM that the laws be there and protect him, so he supports them. He's lawful because he follows the rules. He's evil because he doesn't care if the rules leave little children to starve.

A CE rogue who shanks the shopkeep and takes his stuff does so because he thinks it's best for him to kill the guy and make off with his stuff when no one is looking. He's chaotic because he doesn't respect the law. He's evil because he's willing to murder someone in cold blood to get what he wants.

I agree. I'd like to leave aristocrats out of it since they have a tendency towards law anyway. A LN shopkeeper who enfores unjust laws might do so because they were written by the ancestors, and it's better for society to have consistent laws than constant upheaval. It might result in starving children, but that's not for him to question. He's lawful because he follows the laws, neutral because good or evil don't really enter into the question.

A NE shopkeeper might support unjust laws or not, depending on the situation. He'll follow the law often enough that he escapes the authorities' notice, and won't hesitate to sue the pants off somebody who he thinks has cheated him. But if he thinks he can get away with it, he'll cheat his customers. He's evil because he doesn't care if he's cheating the customers; neutral because he uses the law when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn't.

A CE shopkeeper is more of a con artist than a shopkeeper. He defies the law, and probably goes from town to town with a cartload of fake Stradivarius violins. He's chaotic because he scoffs the law, evil because he puts his own wealth above the people he's cheating.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 11:28 AM
That's why I said that the person who looks for the method that minimises harm to others or actually helps them is CG while the others were CN or CE.

Or are you arguing that finding the path of minimum harm is not enough and one must always avoid any harm to be good?

You said that "if you pursue your own interests by whatever means seems to work best in any given circumstance - either helping others or harming them - you're probably CN." I'm saying that's not the case; if you're willing to hurt others in pursuit of your own interest, that's evil, and it is not in any way balanced out by your willingness to help others when it's in your own interest to do so. It's not as evil as if you actively looked for ways to hurt other people, but it's still evil.

To be good, you need to be willing to help others even when it goes against your own personal interests.

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 11:34 AM
The acts mentioned in and of themselves represent neither good nor evil. The actions one accomplishes define Law or Chaos. Good or Evil define why you want to do something. Law and Chaos define how it is accomplished. All of the above actions are Chaotic if the regional laws view theft and/or violence as illegal, or Lawful if beating someone and taking whats rightfully mine is customary (as in most written Barbarian cultures, survival of the fittest). I think you need to state a 'because' for your borderline example and remove the action "theft from / death of the shopkeeper" from the other two.

Falrin
2007-08-23, 11:34 AM
Funny D&D thing, for some people hitting the hell out of a Innocent Shopkeeper doesn't sounds so evil. Maybe we should try it in the real world some times?

A common mistake people make hen dealing with D&D alignments is making an example and stick a Good, Neutral & Evil attitude to it.

I'll give one:

A wagon is stuck in the road. An old merchant tries to free it, but he doesn't really seem succesful.

Now people go like this:

Good: Help him
Neutral: ignore him
Evil: Kill him

This is completely wrong. A neutral and even evil person can help this man. This all depends on there Personality.

An neutral person can help this guy (and should if he's a nice person), but run away when he gets attacked by orcs. A neutral person can even help when this man is attacked by orcs when he can easely kill them. Why would a Neutral Archmage not help this man?


This is the major problem. There is a difference between what you have to do to be good/evil and what you shouldn't do.
When he's attacked by orcs:
You don't have to run away/kill the survivors to be evil, you can help him and still be evil. (Ex. You just like killing orcs, you 'defend' mankind from other races by making pacts with demons, ...)
You have to help him to be good, unless it is suicide. There's a nice difference between suicide & helpfull.

DeathQuaker
2007-08-23, 11:34 AM
What a Lawful thing to say!

Let me put it this way: a Chaotic sees group goals as a fetter on individual ability and potential. They might even say that anyone that puts the rigths of group above the rights of the individual must be either neutral or evil.

People forget how hot the Law/Chaos rivalry can get. Alignment conflict isn't all Good Vs Evil.

I think there's kinda two different arguments going on here that are being confused with each other.

A Chaotic person usually sees Individual freedom in general as more important than Society's Goals, and in fact may think Society interferes with Individual Freedom.

A Chaotic person does not necessarily put *his own individual needs* before the needs of *the many,* and doing so is not a measurement of his Chaoticness--it's a measure of his morality. And yes, there is a difference between "Society" (a structure that puts people in their place) and "the many" (referring to general community and the people who form it, but not necessarily its rules). But when you put your own needs before the needs of other people (not to be confused with the needs of a social structure, like a government), that is a selfish, potentially evil thing.

Specifically, a Chaotic Good person will probably *not* put his personal needs before the needs of the many, especially if it harms the many, because he is Good and would not want to bring harm to anyone. He may however, disregard social rules and mores if he finds them restrictive and useless, and assert his right to behave as he will--BUT, since he is also Good, he will do that only to the extent that he is harming no one else. He will also fight for another person's freedom if he sees Society oppressing them. That is both Chaotic (prizing individuality over social demands) and Good (protecting an innocent from harm).

Now, as to theft: theft is generally considered a Chaotic act because society dictates Theft is wrong -- it disrupts order, makes a mockery of trade procedures, and damages the economy, which are protected by Lawfully-minded individuals.

Whether theft is good, neutral, or evil depends upon the individual act. Usually theft is evil, because it harms someone and only benefits the thief-- someone has lost valuable property, and will lose even more property trying to re-attain or replace what he has lost. Extensive theft does mess up the economy, which results in increased poverty, which hurts people.

However, it's arguable that a "Robin Hood" like theft, where he is merely taking the taxes and returning them to the people who paid them, is a "Good" act.

There are things where events may balance each other out. A poor man stealing bread to feed his family is still harming the baker -- and therefore he is evilly harming the baker while goodly feeding his family in the way he knows how. That balances out to a neutral situation. Not that I think that neutrality ALWAYS means a balance between good and evil (sometimes it's more a simple matter of self-centeredness without intended or accepted harm to others), but it does in this case.

A person who is forced to steal may also be doing an "evil" act technically, but I probably wouldn't let it score against his alignment unless he decided he liked stealing and kept doing it.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 11:35 AM
Law and Chaos have nothing to do with laws. Not one damn thing - and I'll admit I get really testy about this, because it's seems rather apparent that those assuming they do haven't bothered to read the rules regarding this and just assume "Lawful" = Law, which isn't even close to the truth.


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Respecting Authority and kowtowing eternally to the law are different things - and regardless, the only one of the five attributes listed can even remotely be connected to the law.

Lawful people are honest and predictable, who value duty, tradition and permanence.


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Resenting being told what to do also has little to do with obeying the law. If a Chaotic person agrees with the law, they're follow it. If they disagree with the law, they won't. This also is only one of four attributes that can be related to the law.

Chaotic people are unpredictable and adaptable, who value progress, conscience and flexibility.

But this thread is supposed to be about Good and Evil, so let's get to that.


Neutral: Pocketing a trinket in the general store because you can personally use it when it's just you and the shopkeep and you know they won't notice.
Needs more information. Is the shopkeeper a stranger? A neighbour? A man known for hiking prices and showing little compassion, or a man known for his generosity and good works towards the community? Each of these answers shapes how "evil" the theft is.


Evil: Slitting the shopkeepers throat, helping yourself to the till and anything else you like because no one is there to stop you.
There's little to redeem this - because you did it simply because nothing was stopping you from doing it. If the murder was because, for instance, the shopkeeper had threatened to foreclose your house, or buy your land, or rape your daughter, or something else that would irrevocably changed your life - or that of your loved ones - for the worse, it might still fall under the heading of Neutral.


Borderline: Going invisble, kicking the living heck out of the shopkeeper and helping yourself to the till and anything else you like.
Also needs more information. Again, if the shopkeeper had in some way wronged you - seriously, not, for instance, by refusing to give you a discount or some such - this might be Neutral. In most cases, even as retribution, the punishment is likely to be much harsher than the crime being revenged, which dumps it firmly in the realm of Evil.

One prime issue here is remembering that it's easy to be neutral; the guy that makes no ripples, lives day to day normally and does, perhaps, a few good deeds and a few things he regrets over the course of his life is going to be Neutral. It's much harder to become Good - or Evil. Those take effort - sacrifice on the part of Good, and wilful harm on the part of Evil. Good folk sacrifice for the good of others, Neutral folk are generally unwilling to sacrifice, and Evil folk force others to sacrifice for them.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 11:36 AM
And here we see the fundamental flaw in polar opposite alignment arguments. By this definintion (the bolded portions above), almost every adventuring party I have ever played in was an evil party. We went down into a dungeon, to find something that would benefit us or our cause, and killed sentient or semi-sentient things whilst in that dungeon. Those killings were necessary in order for us to retrieve said "something" we were trying to find.

So, killing goblins to get to the treasure room makes you evil?

I was speaking in generalities. Certainly there are plenty of nuances to alignments, and counterexamples are easy to find. But... if you're killing the goblins purely to get to the treasure, and the only reason you want the treasure is personal benefit, and you don't care at all about whether the goblins deserve death, then yes, that's evil.

Now, in most of the games I've played, we went down into the dungeon to find something that would help us to save the lives of a whole bunch of folks, and we killed the goblins out of necessity.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 11:36 AM
I'm not sure about the one you call 'borderline' - beating someone up and stealing just because you can? I'm not saying it's impossible to be N or CN and do things like that on a regular basis, but you'd have to REALLy work hard to balance it out. Remember, just because you don't kill people doesn't mean you're not evil.


Oh I agree, but I was also viewing these as on the basis of that act, singly. If I had a PC in a game I was running that was CN and did the three I listed, I wouldn't bat an eye at the 'neutral one', I'd probably let them know that the 'borderline' one is moving them closer to being CE, and the Evil one I'd ask if they had any possible motivation for doing that which would justify them not having their alignment shifted to CE.

Dausuul
2007-08-23, 11:39 AM
This is the major problem. There is a difference between what you have to do to be good/evil and what you shouldn't do.
When he's attacked by orcs:
You don't have to run away/kill the survivors to be evil, you can help him and still be evil. (Ex. You just like killing orcs, you 'defend' mankind from other races by making pacts with demons, ...)
You have to help him to be good, unless it is suicide. There's a nice difference between suicide & helpfull.

If you're helping just to be helpful, that's a good act--a minor one to be sure, but still good. You're sacrificing your time and effort to help somebody else. And it is not evil to run away when the orcs attack (unless you are an archmage so powerful that you could save the man with essentially no effort or risk to yourself), though it isn't good either.

Furthermore, the idea that you "have to do X to be good" just isn't true. You could walk past the merchant and not help, and retain your good alignment. If you consistently refuse to help people, you'll drift into neutral, but one minor non-good (not evil, just non-good) act will not change your alignment.

Now, if you're saying that we have to examine the motivations behind the character's actions, I agree.

nagora
2007-08-23, 11:42 AM
Well, I am personally LN

I'm personally CN(G). Oh, dear...


Here is the thing you are forgetting. The chaotic (if they are good), thinks that it is better for EVERYONE that there be no fetters on individual ability and potential.

Sure, but just because I've broken those fetters doesn't mean I have to go around breaking yours too to be classed as Good. I can happily take the attitude that it's your responsibility, as an individual, to break you own trammels. I'm leading by example.



Being against group RULES makes you chaotic. Not giving a damn about anyone else besides you, and potentially some friends, in the group is evil.

I had that in mind when I canged my definition of CG to: "A CG would pursue their goals only if at the least they could do it without harming others and would prefer to help others too, if possible."

Premier
2007-08-23, 11:43 AM
I'm surprised no one seems to have taken motivation into account. The evilness of these action greatly depend on WHY you need that ring, and why you can't just buy it. If you want it just because it's shiny but you're a stingy bastard who doesn't want to pay, then even pocketing it is evil. If it's a family heirloom you're trying to recover for the rightful owner who has a serious and urgent need of it but no money, then stealing might be okay, say, if the shopkeeper's asking for an unreasonable price. If it's the only magical ring in the world that could save a dying 12 year old girl and a dozen puppies trapped in a burning house and the shopkeeper's refusing to sell it on the ground that he wants to see the girl and the puppies die, then beating him up, and possibly even killing him would be acceptable without shifting to Evil alignment.

It really depends more on the why of it, then on how rich the shopkeeper is.

nagora
2007-08-23, 11:47 AM
This is completely wrong. A neutral and even evil person can help this man. This all depends on there Personality.


Yes, almost all alignments tell you is tendencies, not the strength of the trait. A total sociopath and the school bully can both be CE.

High-Chancellor
2007-08-23, 11:54 AM
Selfless(or benevolent) vs Selfish (or malevolent) is a good way to describe the Good vs Evil side. Neutral, obviously, being neither. Fairly defined.

Law vs Chaos... generally is quite easier to see as an issue of orderly vs disorderly.

lawful liking order, organization, set plans to things, and following pattern and, if appropriate, law. (it's not always appropriate, depending on outside factors.)

chaos doesn't care much about order, and even a chaotic person sees the point in it, will leave it to other people. Chaotic people either value freedom or just don't bother recognizing authority, because "hey... those people don't REALLY have power over me... what can they do about it??" They generally have a hard time recognizing other people as position of power unless they already respect the person for some reason, or were otherwise outperformed. (you can think wolf pack on that end. I listen to that person, because they're better than me and can pwn me seriously.)

Neutral, again, obviously in between. Neutral generally wont have a problem following orders, unless there's a reason it shouldn't. A neutral shop boy might fudge things and let a small child have a candy for a little less money than normal, but wont just give it away probably like a chaotic person might. Neutral people are less likely to chaff at authority than chaotic, but are also less likely to organize and set plans to things than lawful people.


Think that decently describes my thoughts on the matter. (and I'm probably neutral good myself, so I'd like to consider myself a bit objective.)

Rumpus
2007-08-23, 11:57 AM
I think we massively overthink this. A simple version of G/N/E that has always worked for me is, "If you are willing to risk harm (physical or pecuniary)to yourself to better others when you do not benefit directly, you are good. If you are willing to harm or risk harm (physical or pecuniary) to others in order to benefit yourself, you are evil. If you won't risk yourself for others, but also won't harm somebody to benefit yourself, you are neutral." Individual acts can be similarly judged based on whether an act benefits the actor, others, or both.

Stickiness comes into this situation when you perform acts where you harm someone to benefit another (Robin Hood). At this point, it's a matter of the relative goodness of the people involved. Stealing from greedy, evil nobles to benefit deserving poor=good. Stealing from the greedy, evil nobles and keeping it=evil. Stealing from a man who has gotten rich from his own hard work and giving it to a lazy drunken slob? Ehh... ok, not so sure on this one.

Killing the evil cult leader in order to steal his treasure? Probably evil, even if you decide, "Oh, why not?" and free his soon-to-be-sacrifices in the process. Killing the evil cult leader in order to rescue those prisoners, and sticking around afterwards to loot the treasure vault? Definitely good. Killing the cult leader to free the prisoners because you've been paid to do so? Iffy, probably neutral. Bottom line on that last one is that if you would do it anyway, without the money, it's probably still a good act, just not AS good.

Lawbreaking is chaotic, but if it harms others more than it helps others, it's likely evil as well. I'd say Lawful/Chaotic is more about whether you trust "society" to dictate your actions.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 11:59 AM
Law and Chaos have nothing to do with laws. Not one damn thing - and I'll admit I get really testy about this, because it's seems rather apparent that those assuming they do haven't bothered to read the rules regarding this and just assume "Lawful" = Law, which isn't even close to the truth.


Although I agree with you generally, this is overbroad. The law IS a form of Authority. Lawful people follow the law because it is the command of an authority figure, king, parliment, mayor, whatever. They will follow other forms of authority too, like their boss, but if the only person they follow is their boss, and disregard the laws of society, then they aren't lawful.

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:01 PM
Selfless(or benevolent) vs Selfish (or malevolent) is a good way to describe the Good vs Evil side. Neutral, obviously, being neither. Fairly defined.


I see Good/Evil more in the light of Creative Vs Destructive. The Good person does not have to be selfless, although it helps, and the evil does not have to be selfish, although it helps.

LE, for example, can perfectly easily have people who lay down their life for the Fatherland or whatever. Is that selfish?

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 12:08 PM
I see Good/Evil more in the light of Creative Vs Destructive. The Good person does not have to be selfless, although it helps, and the evil does not have to be selfish, although it helps.

LE, for example, can perfectly easily have people who lay down their life for the Fatherland or whatever. Is that selfish?

Sure, it's not selfish, all three lawful alignments can do that. The reasons will be diffrent.

LG lays down his life for his fatherland because his fatherland is good.

LN lays down his life because it is his fatherland and that's just what you do for your fatherland.

LE lays down his life for his fatherland because he is serving Nerull, or his cult, or his government or some such.

Gralamin
2007-08-23, 12:09 PM
I personally blame these sort of debates on the Alignment system back in 1E (or at least the Labyrinth Lords recreation), Where Chaos was also evil, and Law was also good.

I personally like the Creative vs Destructive view nagora presents, with one exception. Being Selfless doesn't mean you must be good (as his example seems to suggest)

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:10 PM
I personally blame these sort of debates on the Alignment system back in 1E (or at least the Labyrinth Lords recreation), Where Chaos was also evil, and Law was also good.


That was original D&D, before 1e.

DeathQuaker
2007-08-23, 12:11 PM
Sure, it's not selfish, all three lawful alignments can do that. The reasons will be diffrent.

LG lays down his life for his fatherland because his fatherland is good.

LN lays down his life because it is his fatherland and that's just what you do for your fatherland.

LE lays down his life for his fatherland because he is serving Nerull, or his cult, or his government or some such.

I'd also add that the LE guy would try to avoid laying down his life for his fatherland as long as he could (while still certainly serving it in some other capacity). He would also not regret the lives lost of others who had sacrificed themselves for the homeland, considering their loss an unavoidable necessity. (Whereas the LG guy might sacrifice himself /because/ it would save the lives of his fellow countrymen)

Techonce
2007-08-23, 12:13 PM
There are things where events may balance each other out. A poor man stealing bread to feed his family is still harming the baker -- and therefore he is evilly harming the baker while goodly feeding his family in the way he knows how. That balances out to a neutral situation. Not that I think that neutrality ALWAYS means a balance between good and evil (sometimes it's more a simple matter of self-centeredness without intended or accepted harm to others), but it does in this case.

A person who is forced to steal may also be doing an "evil" act technically, but I probably wouldn't let it score against his alignment unless he decided he liked stealing and kept doing it.

based on the Above:

Poor man with starving family. Baker with bread.

Man steals food (1 point for evil), feeds his starving family (1 point for good)
Result = Neutral

Man does not steal food (0 pointsl), family starves to death (1 point for evil)
Result = Evil

Man steals food (1 for Evil), eats it himself and family starves (1 point for evil)
Result = Evil

Therefore in this situation, man can't be good. So having a starving family is evil.

Just kidding.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 12:15 PM
I'd also add that the LE guy would try to avoid laying down his life for his fatherland as long as he could (while still certainly serving it in some other capacity). He would also not regret the lives lost of others who had sacrificed themselves for the homeland, considering their loss an unavoidable necessity. (Whereas the LG guy might sacrifice himself /because/ it would save the lives of his fellow countrymen)

I agree.

Also, it's important to remember that although selfish/selfless is a good way to look at it most of the time it doesn't cover everything. An evil person can be selfish regarding everyone except say, his family, or his friends, or his cult. the fact that he is willing to wantonly kill people for the benifit of the group he associates with is what makes him evil. It's not enough just to have SOME people you won't do evil things to, or would help, to not be evil.

Gralamin
2007-08-23, 12:17 PM
That was original D&D, before 1e.

Ah thank you for correcting me. I'm bad with the D&D timeline.

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:22 PM
Sure, it's not selfish, all three lawful alignments can do that. The reasons will be diffrent.

LG lays down his life for his fatherland because his fatherland is good.

LN lays down his life because it is his fatherland and that's just what you do for your fatherland.

LE lays down his life for his fatherland because he is serving Nerull, or his cult, or his government or some such.

I don't think there's any difference between the three: they all lay down their life because they think the Fatherland as an entity in its own right must survive in order to advance what they believe is "the right way to live and think". The means by which the Fatherland's supporters go about protecting it from harm or generally pursuing the collective goals of its people/government is what makes it good or evil.



I'd also add that the LE guy would try to avoid laying down his life for his fatherland as long as he could

This is just logical and applies to any lawful character with any sense. Pointless deaths (on one's own side) do not help anyone.


He would also not regret the lives lost of others who had sacrificed themselves for the homeland, considering their loss an unavoidable necessity.

I'm not sure this is very different from a paladin's feelings about those who died in a holy war, for example.

I think the about-to-die LE character is more likely to blame themselves for being weak than the LG/N character, and if they do survive will regard the Fatherland as having been made stronger by a social Darwinism process. Much less compassion for the dead.

LG dead = celebrated as martyrs.
LE dead = brave chaff, now weeded out leaving a purer breed.

Edit:

LN dead = possibly now d6s serving Primus; I'm not sure.

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 12:29 PM
based on the Above:

Poor man with starving family. Baker with bread.

Man steals food (1 point for evil), feeds his starving family (1 point for good)
Result = Neutral

Man does not steal food (0 pointsl), family starves to death (1 point for evil)
Result = Evil

Man steals food (1 for Evil), eats it himself and family starves (1 point for evil)
Result = Evil

Therefore in this situation, man can't be good. So having a starving family is evil.

Just kidding.

So why is the theft evil? Because it is against the law? Oh, what if the culture was leanient on theft and it was the individuals responsibility to secure your own belongings? So could not the theft be Lawful and feeding his starving family be good? Or if he hates his starving family but feeds them anyway so he doesn't get beat up or killed by his wifes 24 member family, is that still good or is it neutral? Or feeding them just enough to stay alive and keeping the majority for himself be good or is it evil? The reason or "because" behind an action is more important than the action itself for determining Good or Evil.

brian c
2007-08-23, 12:30 PM
If you turn invisible and steal something, without beating up the shopkeeper, that's a non-good act. What I mean is, someone with a good alignment would not do that. Someone with an evil or neutral alignment would. There is no such thing as a neutral act, as far as I'm concerned. Neutral people make as many Good as Evil acts. A person could rob the store and still be neutral, but probably not unless they're robbing to store to give money to a good cause.

When you add in beating up the shopkeeper, that makes it more likely that the person is Evil rather than just Neutral. Causing unnecessary pain to the defenseless shopkeeper doesn't help you give money to a good cause, it's jsut sadistic.

That's how I feel.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 12:35 PM
I'm not sure this is very different from a paladin's feelings about those who died in a holy war, for example.


Sure it is. A Paladin will regret people having to die. If he could do it another way which minimzed casualities he would and may regret there not being another way. If it would save a good number of his troops, even if the battle were already won, he would lay down his life.

A LE warlord doesn't care how many of his troops die so long as he still has enough to win the battle and further whatever goals he might have. Their lives don't mean anything to him beyond their use as tools. He might die to win the battle, if he can't avoid it, be he won't just to save some flunkies.

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:37 PM
So why is the theft evil? Because it is against the law? Oh, what if the culture was leanient on theft and it was the individuals responsibility to secure your own belongings? So could not the theft be Lawful and feeding his starving family be good? Or if he hates his starving family but feeds them anyway so he doesn't get beat up or killed by his wifes 24 member family, is that still good or is it neutral? Or feeding them just enough to stay alive and keeping the majority for himself be good or is it evil? The reason or "because" behind an action is more important than the action itself for determining Good or Evil.

For the conversation to be finite I think we have to assume that there was no compulsion behind the actions. We're looking at the character's natural tendency, and that obviously can't be judged under compulsion.

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:42 PM
Sure it is. A Paladin will regret people having to die. If he could do it another way which minimzed casualities he would and may regret there not being another way. If it would save a good number of his troops, even if the battle were already won, he would lay down his life.


Assuming that the paladin is a general or something, I don't agree. S/he may well take the POV that their own survival is more important in the long run. It might be different if the battle was known to be the final one in a war, but a high-level general might be needed again soon. So might the troops, of course, and s/he might opt to save them after all, but it's not cut and dried.

I agree that there will be more regret over the deaths than the LE counterpart, but the "rational" decision may still be to sacrifice the troops.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 12:42 PM
Although I agree with you generally, this is overbroad. The law IS a form of Authority. Lawful people follow the law because it is the command of an authority figure, king, parliment, mayor, whatever. They will follow other forms of authority too, like their boss, but if the only person they follow is their boss, and disregard the laws of society, then they aren't lawful.
I somewhat disagree. A Lawful person will act pretty consistently, regardless of local laws. For instance, that person above relating a society where theft is legal claiming a Lawful person will steal there I believe is fundamentally wrong - because even if the authority has nothing to say about it (or even mandates it), tradition, honesty and likely duty all say otherwise.

It's also important to note that respecting authority is not necessarily the same as obeying authority. A Lawful and Chaotic person might both disagree with a local law - the former because it breaks tradition or is fundamentally dishonest, the latter because it represses individual expression or stifles change - but likely go about circumventing it differently. The Chaotic person will simply flaunt his disrespect, perhaps flagrantly violating the law; the fact that authority is trying to stifle him annoys him anyway. The Lawful person, on the other hand, may carefully organise support to show the unpopularity of the law, or work with the legal system to overturn the law, or go through the process required to utilise a loophole written into the law, or go through the bureaucratic process required to protest against the law - all while holding nothing but contempt for the law, but still showing respect for the authorities tasked with upholding the law.

As for the boss example, it really depends on why he follows the boss alone. If the boss is right and the law wrong, or tradition binds him to the boss, or or he swore a duty to obey the boss no matter what - and especially if he has a code of honour and duty that exists even independently of the boss, extolling the Lawful "virtues" of honesty, honour, duty, etc., he's clearly Lawful. If, on the other hand, he only obeys his boss because his boss will hurt him otherwise (be the harm via firing, physical injury, threats enacted on loved ones, etc.) or because the boss is simply that inspiring a figure, then you're right, he's not very Lawful.

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 12:52 PM
Whats needed is One Action, theft of trinket from shopkeeper, with Three Reasons or Motivations. People keep changing the action and the motivation between the evil and good selections in an attempt to help show one from the other. I feel it is distracting.

Theft from Shopkeeper because I it will help those I care about, me included.
Theft from Shopkeeper because I like shiny things.
Theft from Shopkeeper because I need it to frame him for my crime.
Theft from Shopkeeper because I have severe mental issues.
Theft from Shopkeeper because I don't feel it belongs to him.
Theft from Shopkeeper because I want his buisness to crash and burn.

Which ones are evil and which are good?

High-Chancellor
2007-08-23, 12:57 PM
I see Good/Evil more in the light of Creative Vs Destructive. The Good person does not have to be selfless, although it helps, and the evil does not have to be selfish, although it helps.

LE, for example, can perfectly easily have people who lay down their life for the Fatherland or whatever. Is that selfish?

Thus I also say OR Benevolent and Malevolent would also work. Creative vs Destructive doesn't necessarily work either.

And I highly doubt a LE person would lay down their life for the fatherland if he had any choice in the matter. If he did, it would be because he thought he was getting some reward for it in the afterlife... not because he's just that loyal to his cause.

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:58 PM
Theft from Shopkeeper because I it will help those I care about, me included.


How much damage will it do to the shopkeeper Vs how much help will it give those you care about?


Theft from Shopkeeper because I like shiny things.
Evil

Theft from Shopkeeper because I need it to frame him for my crime.

Define "need"


Theft from Shopkeeper because I have severe mental issues.
Neutral

Theft from Shopkeeper because I don't feel it belongs to him.
Probably Neutral.


Theft from Shopkeeper because I want his buisness to crash and burn.
What are your reasons? Is he a slaver? Did he murder your wife?

It's too hard. We have to assume no particular reason other than you liked it otherwise we'd be arguing motivations and still not answer the core question: what is the character's natural tendency?

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 01:03 PM
Theft from Shopkeeper because I it will help those I care about, me included.

Any alignment. Probably neutral. Possibly evil. Just because you care about people doesn't mean that you are not evil. See Burlew's example of the BBEG friends.

Theft from Shopkeeper because I like shiny things.

Evil.

Theft from Shopkeeper because I need it to frame him for my crime.

Evil.

Theft from Shopkeeper because I have severe mental issues.

Could be Evil, could be Neutral. Depends upon how you arbitrate mental disease, and what counts as one, in D&D. That is a really, really sticky subject that deserves a thread of it's own.

Theft from Shopkeeper because I don't feel it belongs to him.

Depends why. If you know it belongs to some one else and plan to return it, probably good, possibly neutral depending. If it's just because you think everything belongs to you, evil.

Theft from Shopkeeper because I want his buisness to crash and burn.

Again, depends why, by probably evil.



The Lawful person, on the other hand, may carefully organise support to show the unpopularity of the law, or work with the legal system to overturn the law, or go through the process required to utilise a loophole written into the law, or go through the bureaucratic process required to protest against the law - all while holding nothing but contempt for the law, but still showing respect for the authorities tasked with upholding the law.


I notice that none of your proposed examples involves him actually breaking the law. Here he follows the law. He doesn't like it so he uses legal means to evade it and/or attempt to change it.

nagora
2007-08-23, 01:06 PM
Thus I also say OR Benevolent and Malevolent would also work. Creative vs Destructive doesn't necessarily work either.

All generalisations are flawed. :smallwink:


And I highly doubt a LE person would lay down their life for the fatherland if he had any choice in the matter. If he did, it would be because he thought he was getting some reward for it in the afterlife... not because he's just that loyal to his cause.

I used the word Fatherland in the hope that it would spark some memories of real world LE. You are not grasping the power of the fascist idea on people's minds - and I mean from Rome (who's symbol was the Fascista) onwards. Evil people can and do die for their ideals even while owning slaves or slaughtering millions because it was a good way to rally the country against a (fictional) common enemy.

LE is by far the most dangerous form of evil because it has it's own fanatics. CE has no binding ideal beyond ganging up to grab what you can.

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 01:11 PM
So why is the theft evil? You harm the one you steal from; you may not be physically hurting them, but it still harms them.

As for your list, all are non-good acts except.

Theft from Shopkeeper because I don't feel it belongs to him. - isn't necessarily theft, now is it? Theft is taking something from it's legitimate owner.


I'm surprised no one seems to have taken motivation into account. The evilness of these action greatly depend on Nope. The ends don't justify the means. They may make a very very minor difference if at all, and it is never enough to swing an evil deed to be a non-evil deed.

It may be enough to balance out the evil deed in the end... but you've still done evil.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-23, 01:30 PM
Theft is theft is theft. Stealing a grape, or a peny, or a brick of gold is still theft. It is still causing harm to the person from whom you have removed the resource. In many cases it is also against social Mores, and goes against the rulings and laws of legitimate authority.

The only difference between the theft of the penny and the theft of the bar of gold is in the magnitude of the effect of that theft.

Now, as others have brought up, what one does with the item, once it is in their possession can be either good or bad.

If you break things down, the act of giving a bar of gold to a homeless shelter, when the bar of gold is in your position is a good one. The act of taking the bar of gold from it's previous owner is an evil one.

Now, often times an act can be both good and evil at the same time.

Killing someone, even if it is not murder, is generally held to be evil. However, removing a threat to a helpless community is a good act. So to kill a group of bandits which constantly threatens and damages a community is, at the same time, both a good act (saving someone) and an evil act (killing).

High-Chancellor
2007-08-23, 01:30 PM
All generalisations are flawed. :smallwink:



I used the word Fatherland in the hope that it would spark some memories of real world LE. You are not grasping the power of the fascist idea on people's minds - and I mean from Rome (who's symbol was the Fascista) onwards. Evil people can and do die for their ideals even while owning slaves or slaughtering millions because it was a good way to rally the country against a (fictional) common enemy.

LE is by far the most dangerous form of evil because it has it's own fanatics. CE has no binding ideal beyond ganging up to grab what you can.

I would just chalk that up to an Evil person being able to do non-evil deeds. In the "fatherland" trope, a lot of the people actually didn't support the "ideals" of the fatherland, so much as they didn't have much choice in the matter but to follow orders (or else they, and their friends and family, would end up in concentration camps.) Benevolence can never be evil, if you are a LE person giving something up... say, for the fatherland, that is still a good act, even if the evil that results from it outweighs it.

Just like the theft is pretty much always evil, but can be outshined completely by a good circumstances.


Your example of the LE person giving their life is flawed because it says more on the choice of his higherups than his individual choice.

DeathQuaker
2007-08-23, 01:34 PM
I'm not sure this is very different from a paladin's feelings about those who died in a holy war, for example.


It's nitpicking, but I chose the words "regret" thinking it would help clarify an intention, and it probably didn't. I think a "Good" person would still mourn lives lost, even if it were for a good cause; a good person would also avoid losing life for a cause if they could find another way around it. (And a "paladin" who didn't want to avoid unnecessary bloodshed is no "Good" person, in my book)

The evil person wouldn't care personally for the lives lost, and if the fastest route to achieving their goals was through some bloodshed, they would do so without regret. Even if there was a way to avoid bloodshed, they would probably prefer the bloody but more efficient method if it suited their purposes. For the LE person, the "honorable" death for king and country (or what have you) would just allow them to justify that death more easily; they don't actually care for the souls lost.

nagora
2007-08-23, 01:37 PM
I would just chalk that up to an Evil person being able to do non-evil deeds. In the "fatherland" trope, a lot of the people actually didn't support the "ideals" of the fatherland, so much as they didn't have much choice in the matter but to follow orders (or else they, and their friends and family, would end up in concentration camps.)

At the risk of running into the rules about real world politics, I think you're confusing Hitler (LE) and Stalin (CE). The ordinary German did not by and large live in fear of the government, particularly before the war started. Russians, however, did.


Benevolence can never be evil, if you are a LE person giving something up... say, for the fatherland, that is still a good act, even if the evil that results from it outweighs it.

I simply can't see that - it's just a pure Lawful act: personal sacrifice for the good of the group because the person believes in the ideals of that group. Could be a good ideal could be an evil one; makes no inherent difference.


Your example of the LE person giving their life is flawed because it says more on the choice of his higherups than his individual choice.

I think that is a naive take on Law and Evil.

nagora
2007-08-23, 01:40 PM
(And a "paladin" who didn't want to avoid unnecessary bloodshed is no "Good" person, in my book)

I don't think the person I was responding to used the word "unnecessary"; if they had I would also say that "Good" was no longer an option.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 01:45 PM
I notice that none of your proposed examples involves him actually breaking the law. Here he follows the law. He doesn't like it so he uses legal means to evade it and/or attempt to change it.
Well, I didn't want to get into specifics because of the forum's (rather ridiculous) rules on politics, but one of the issues I was thinking of in my example was civil rights, and the organised demonstration of its unpopularity would equate to civil disobedience - the wide-spread, organised, peaceful and respectful, but wilful and deliberate, violation of the law to bring attention to it - which is, in fact, breaking the law.

nagora
2007-08-23, 01:49 PM
Well, I didn't want to get into specifics because of the forum's (rather ridiculous) rules on politics, but one of the issues I was thinking of in my example was civil rights, and the organised demonstration of its unpopularity would equate to civil disobedience - the wide-spread, organised, peaceful and respectful, but wilful and deliberate, violation of the law to bring attention to it - which is, in fact, breaking the law.

Breaking the law is not a moral issue in D&D terms, as the alignment system stands above in-game laws and judges them in the same way as it does character actions. A law can be moral, in which case breaking it will probably be immoral, or it can be immoral, in which case breaking it is probably moral. The simple fact of being a law somewhere does not make any difference to the morality. This is why Good/Evil is refered to as the moral axis, and Law/Chaos the ethical axis - they are distinct and orthogonal (in D&D at least).

DeathQuaker
2007-08-23, 01:51 PM
I don't think the person I was responding to used the word "unnecessary"; if they had I would also say that "Good" was no longer an option.

"The person you were responding to" was me. :) And no, I didn't use the word "unnecessary" but my internal thought was that if the Evil person considers the loss a "necessity" (the word I did use), the Good person might not. Hence, "unnecessary."

Krellen
2007-08-23, 01:54 PM
Breaking the law is not a moral issue in D&D terms, as the alignment system stands above in-game laws and judges them in the same way as it does character actions.
That's actually exactly what I was saying. A Lawful person can break the law, because being Lawful has nothing to do with the law. I was simply pointing out examples of when a Lawful person might do so, in a manner that is wholly consistent with the Lawful alignment.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 01:58 PM
Well, I didn't want to get into specifics because of the forum's (rather ridiculous) rules on politics, but one of the issues I was thinking of in my example was civil rights, and the organised demonstration of its unpopularity would equate to civil disobedience - the wide-spread, organised, peaceful and respectful, but wilful and deliberate, violation of the law to bring attention to it - which is, in fact, breaking the law.

See, I'm not sure that would qualify as a 'lawful good' rather than 'neutral good' but we may just have a point of disagreement about the interpretation there and we certianly aren't allowed to get into specific examples in history

I would just say that it is a very rare soul indeed who respects the people who create and enforce a law they deem unjust and willfully breaks that law to show the problems with it. If you don't respect the law, that exercise of authority, for it's being a law then you are not acting lawfully. You might break it, but if you still respect it's force and authority as a law and do not shirk your punishment for breaking it.

At the very least, it is quite borderline, and to go back to the disagreement that started this, to say that laws have 'nothing' to do with being lawful is in fact overbroad.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 02:01 PM
More fodder.

THe issue is that you can't always seperate law from good. Examples:

1. The lord of Smallville in agreement with its town council enacts a law saying that you must not wear green clothes in Smallville. Greenville is the neighboring town that is having a land dispute with Smallville, and its residents wear green in support of their cause.

If you wear green is is an evil act? No. A good act? No.
Is it chaotic... definitly not lawful, since the town council is legitimatly elected and are representing the best interests of its residents.

2. Things escalate between the two towns, and it has become a greater conflict. Both towns raise a militia to secure area that they feel is rightfully theirs. Both towns have proof that the area of land in dispute belongs to them and it is worth a fair amount. There is a scirmish between you and the other militia nad you kill one of them.

Did you commit an evil act? You were working towards the betterment of your people. Was it good? The guy you killed was of a good alignment? Does that change anything?

3. Proof is given that your town was in the wrong and the whole thing was a mistake.

Is you act now evil? Can it be retroactivly evil?

I don't think there can be precise answeres to the alignment questions.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 02:07 PM
At the very least, it is quite borderline, and to go back to the disagreement that started this, to say that laws have 'nothing' to do with being lawful is in fact overbroad.
The problem I have is that you're putting far too much weight on that one virtue, when there are in fact at least five - most of which encompass a lot more behaviour - of which respecting authority is but one.

A man who is honest, dedicated to his duty, loves the traditions of his society, always keeps his word and disapproves strongly of those that do not live up to those ideals, but yet hold no respect for the law of his home and sneers at the representatives of it as puppets at best who often do more ill than good (be it from wilful neglect or well-meaning misunderstanding matters not) is still going to be Lawful, despite his complete lack of respect for or obedience to authority.

... And for that matter, a man that always respects the authority around him and obeys their every dictum, but who rarely keeps his word, is constantly trying to change things - often just to change them, and follows his conscience over any other moral source is still going to be Chaotic, despite his complete obedience to authority.

DeathQuaker
2007-08-23, 02:21 PM
More fodder.

THe issue is that you can't always seperate law from good. Examples:

1. The lord of Smallville in agreement with its town council enacts a law saying that you must not wear green clothes in Smallville. Greenville is the neighboring town that is having a land dispute with Smallville, and its residents wear green in support of their cause.

The problem with this example is that it plays into the problem a number of other posters have already brought up:

Obeying governmental "law" IS NOT the same thing as "Lawful" behavior.

"Lawful" behavior is about being orderly, honorable, and disciplined (the SRD's already been quoted on here once so I'm not doing it again), and serving the needs of society.

The fact is, petty sumptuary laws such as those you outline could be objected to in fact by a perfectly Lawful individual because the Lawful person might see them as perhaps fomenting disorder (the community will dislike the new law and rebel) or at least not encouraging an orderly society (why is the leader of Smallville wasting his time on petty laws like these when there are more important matters that need attending to?) or perhaps flying in the face of tradition (the new law seems disrespectful of old customs).

The Lawful individual might in fact foresee that the law could lead to war, and wanting to maintain the peace, do what he could to have the law repealed--all within the boundaries of "Lawful" behavior.

So the dilemma you post isn't about law vs. good and whether they're tied together.

Also, if you think killing a Greenvillian is a good thing to do for the betterment of your own people, you're still killing someone for a relatively selfish reason. That's evil. A truly good person works for the betterment of all, whether he's from your village or not.



I don't think there can be precise answeres to the alignment questions.

Of course not. Doubtlessly someone will reply to what I said above and say why what I said was evil is good and what is good is evil and they'll probably have some valid points.

That's why the book says "Alignment is not a straight jacket." It is, per the rules of a game, "a guideline." Hence we have some flexibility to interpret things as we will--though we do need to look to the guidelines in the book to remain fairly consistent.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 02:40 PM
The problem I have is that you're putting far too much weight on that one virtue, when there are in fact at least five - most of which encompass a lot more behaviour - of which respecting authority is but one.

A man who is honest, dedicated to his duty, loves the traditions of his society, always keeps his word and disapproves strongly of those that do not live up to those ideals, but yet hold no respect for the law of his home and sneers at the representatives of it as puppets at best who often do more ill than good (be it from wilful neglect or well-meaning misunderstanding matters not) is still going to be Lawful, despite his complete lack of respect for or obedience to authority.

... And for that matter, a man that always respects the authority around him and obeys their every dictum, but who rarely keeps his word, is constantly trying to change things - often just to change them, and follows his conscience over any other moral source is still going to be Chaotic, despite his complete obedience to authority.


Sigh. Neither one of those guys is lawful. The second guy is borderline chaotic and, franky, a character that makes no sense.



Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and, judge those who fall short of their duties...

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should...

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.

Emphasis mine. Especially the word and.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 02:47 PM
Yeah, you're still wrong. You don't have to demonstrate all those traits to have the alignment, and they are just guidelines. You're holding them as straight-jackets.

The first guy is Lawful. The second one I specifically set up as Chaotic.

(For the record, I hold myself as Lawful Good, and one of the classic literary conflicts is in fact between a Lawful Good and a Lawful Neutral character (Valjean and Javert).)

Fax Celestis
2007-08-23, 02:57 PM
The key difference between a good character and an evil character is remorse, while the key difference between a lawful character and a chaotic character is respect. Someone who has no guilt or respect is chaotic evil, while someone who plans their actions to avoid guilt and remorse and has respect for others is lawful good.

RAGE KING!
2007-08-23, 03:08 PM
I agree, but i'd say borderline really depends.

If you say, power attack with your huge-sized sap, and knock him out in one turn. Or cast sleep on him. Then thats neutral. (it's still not good to take all his stuff).

On the other hand, if you stab him to -8 hp, then heal him to max again (while hes still unconscious) its evil because of the pain you caused him.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-23, 03:12 PM
I think that a few things that the D&D law/chaos axis has a problem with is that it just says "obey authority" (at least in the SRD). It does not say that you respect authority, or that you obey legitimate authority. Rather, that if something is an authority, you obey it. That includes a Paladin that is currently traveling through a land of Hextoians who have brutal laws.

On the plus side, it does bring into account the fact that much of the time, lawful people take social mores to be more important than authority in a particular case.

Is it Lawful or chaotic behavior to set off fireworks on the 4th of July because it's a tradition?

Techonce
2007-08-23, 03:17 PM
OKay. Lets throw out lawful and call it organized or methodic.

It breaks away from being tied to the law. Lets look at some traits.

Orderly traits:

Organized
Punctual
Neat
Tidy
Respectful of position
Happy with a chain of command
reserved
Logical

Chaotic Traits:

Disorganized
not caring about being on time
not caring as much about the way they look
respectful of accomplishment
not aprt of the beurocracy
prone to emotional outbursts
creative

NOw a lawful or chaotic person won't fit all of the traits, but if I had a player with a lawful PC that fit more of the chaotic traits, I'd have to question the choice of alignment. I'm sure there are more traits, but I only have a little time.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 03:18 PM
Is it Lawful or chaotic behavior to set off fireworks on the 4th of July because it's a tradition?

Depends on the state? :smallsmile:

Krellen
2007-08-23, 03:22 PM
The key difference between a good character and an evil character is remorse, while the key difference between a lawful character and a chaotic character is respect. Someone who has no guilt or respect is chaotic evil, while someone who plans their actions to avoid guilt and remorse and has respect for others is lawful good.
While I think you've got the fundamental difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil right there, I'm not sure respect is the fundamental aspect of Law vs. Chaos. Lawful Evil, for instance, holds very little respect for others, but it does hold respect for tradition, hierarchy, honest and promises (both his own and those given by others). Chaotic Good, on the other hand, is very respectful of others (often holding their needs above his own, thus the Good aspect), but sees little value in a slavish devotion to tradition, bureaucracy, truthfulness and duty. It's not really "just" respect that's the difference.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-23, 03:25 PM
I suppose I should clarify: the respect I'm referring to is "respect for authority and tradition."

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 03:27 PM
Yeah, you're still wrong. You don't have to demonstrate all those traits to have the alignment, and they are just guidelines. You're holding them as straight-jackets.

The first guy is Lawful. The second one I specifically set up as Chaotic.

(For the record, I hold myself as Lawful Good, and one of the classic literary conflicts is in fact between a Lawful Good and a Lawful Neutral character (Valjean and Javert).)

I'm not sure how I misunderstand the use of the word 'and' but sure. Perhaps english grammar has failed me. I'm of the view that most humans are TN. So is RAW... it's few people who are really anything else.

I'm not holding them as straight-jackets either. They are definitions. That's all. Players can play their character any way they please. An alignment either fits the characters behavior or not. The guidlines thing is to point out

a) that you don't need to have your RP restricted by your alignment, your alignment mrerly represents how you RP and

b) characters don't ALWAYS behave according to their alignments, sometimes they stray from them if circumstances force them to make tough choices.

That doesn't mean having only some of the characteristics of an alignment and not others as a general rule of behavior (which your examples were) puts you in that alignment anyway. It means that if you usually have some of one and some of another then you are in the middle, i.e. neutral.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 03:40 PM
I agree most people are TN. We seem to disagree on how much is "most".

I think around 50% of people are TN; most people don't generally trend one way or the other on either axis of alignment, because they fluctuate between truthfulness and dishonesty, selfishness and generosity, bastardness and friendliness. But there still exists a large portion who tend towards extremes, be the extremes in predictability, truthfulness, flexibility, good-will, generosity, selfishness, cruelty, reliability, sacrifice, rapine, or, the Scrubs favourite, "Bastard-coated Bastards with Bastard filling". And those people all have non-TN alignment.

You seem to be of the opinion that alignment is more Gaussian, and 97% of people are True Neutral; only a tiny portion manage to deviate enough from the central, in the rigidly codified ways defined by the alignment definitions, to be of any other alignment. Is this more or less correct?

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 03:49 PM
I agree most people are TN. We seem to disagree on how much is "most".

I think around 50% of people are TN; most people don't generally trend one way or the other on either axis of alignment, because they fluctuate between truthfulness and dishonesty, selfishness and generosity, bastardness and friendliness. But there still exists a large portion who tend towards extremes, be the extremes in predictability, truthfulness, flexibility, good-will, generosity, selfishness, cruelty, reliability, sacrifice, rapine, or, the Scrubs favourite, "Bastard-coated Bastards with Bastard filling". And those people all have non-TN alignment.

You seem to be of the opinion that alignment is more Gaussian, and 97% of people are True Neutral; only a tiny portion manage to deviate enough from the central, in the rigidly codified ways defined by the alignment definitions, to be of any other alignment. Is this more or less correct?


Not quite. I'm not sure what you mean by large portion. But let me break it down this way (I know that 'usually' has a specific D&D definition but I don't think it's in the SRD and I don't have a monster manual in front of me):
So lets go with:
Roughly 50% are TN
Roughtly 40% are one step from that (NG, NE, CN, LN) at around 10% each.
Roughly 10% are two steps from that (LG, LE, CG, CE) are around 2.5% each.

Although, to be honest, I think TN and the one steps are probably an even larger percentage in real life. I don't know 2 in 100 people that are chaotic evil and I think they'd stand out.

leperkhaun
2007-08-23, 03:50 PM
ehhh theft isnt evil. Its against the law but it isnt evil (robin hood would be an example).

Stealing a shopkeeper blind thus meaning he cant make ends meat is evil.

Stealing something YOU know will cause harm because you stole it is evil (like the timmy will die example).

If you cannot reasonabbly know it will cause such harm then its not a evil act, just a really really stupid act (a bit of common sense goes a long way with this, releasing a bieng from an orb which radiats unspeakable evil Called the Prison of The Most Evil Demon Lord, is evil, stealing from a merchant who seems well off but actually isnt, is not evil)

Stealing a trinket from a shopkeeper who (while they wont make money on it) wont really be adversly affected is not evil, its just unlawful.

Stealing is no more evil than shooting a bow or swinging a sword. Its the circimstance and the intent that determines if its an evil act.

As such walking into a village and killing someone is evil, killing someone who is about to rape and pillage a town is not.

Ehhh the thing i dont like about DnD alignment is that its too restrictive. My group tends to use alignment as a general rule/

Krellen
2007-08-23, 04:00 PM
Although, to be honest, I think TN and the one steps are probably an even larger percentage in real life. I don't know 2 in 100 people that are chaotic evil and I think they'd stand out.
Human society favours Law and Good, honestly, so I'd think there'd be more that skewed that way than the other. That might be why you don't know many Chaotic Evils - and then there's also the fact that Chaotic Evils are rarely so callous and cold outwardly that they're immediately obvious.

Saph
2007-08-23, 04:06 PM
Not quite. I'm not sure what you mean by large portion. But let me break it down this way (I know that 'usually' has a specific D&D definition but I don't think it's in the SRD and I don't have a monster manual in front of me):
So lets go with:
Roughly 50% are TN
Roughtly 40% are one step from that (NG, NE, CN, LN) at around 10% each.
Roughly 10% are two steps from that (LG, LE, CG, CE) are around 2.5% each.

Sounds about right to me, although I'd have put it at 40% N, 40% NG/NE/LN/CN, and 20% LG/CG/CE/LE.


Although, to be honest, I think TN and the one steps are probably an even larger percentage in real life. I don't know 2 in 100 people that are chaotic evil and I think they'd stand out.

Try hanging around prisons, gangs, drug dealers, thieves, etc, and your estimates of the numbers of CE people will go way up. They're out there.

- Saph

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 04:09 PM
Human society favours Law and Good, honestly, so I'd think there'd be more that skewed that way than the other. That might be why you don't know many Chaotic Evils - and then there's also the fact that Chaotic Evils are rarely so callous and cold outwardly that they're immediately obvious.

To be honest, I'm not sure I know that many Lawful Goods or Chaotic Goods either though. I just was trying to put a positive spin on it.

Also, I'm not at all sure that human society favors law and good. It favors law, yes, good, I don't really think so. In pretty much all cultures we reward people for being competitive and stepping on others. We reward people for looking out for themselves without breaking the laws/traditions. We almost never, even in liberal democratic societies, reward people for helping others. Observe teacher pay vs. stock broker pay.

Neutrality, probably a NE mindset, is I think the most dominant of the less common ones, followed by NG but I don't really think we need to get into it that much. Even if I doubled the percentage of LG's you would still be looking at a very small percentage of the population, one in twenty, that might be LG. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you need, in general behavior, to be everything on that list to be LG.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 04:16 PM
You're American, I assume? (Most of us are.)

American society has competing memes that both support Good (many religious ones, most philosophical moral ones) and Evil/Neutrality (these belonging primarily to capitalism, consumerism and mass media). In other nations, however, the memes supporting Good far outweigh the memes supporting Evil/Neutrality - evidence the socialism prevalent in Europe vs. the American ideal of a "liberal", for instance. And when you get out of the industrialised world, the call to support neighbours and loved ones regardless of expense increases even more. Overall, human society does, in fact, favour Good.

It's just America that's a bit skewed about it.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 04:24 PM
You're American, I assume? (Most of us are.)

American society has competing memes that both support Good (many religious ones, most philosophical moral ones) and Evil/Neutrality (these belonging primarily to capitalism, consumerism and mass media). In other nations, however, the memes supporting Good far outweigh the memes supporting Evil/Neutrality - evidence the socialism prevalent in Europe vs. the American ideal of a "liberal", for instance. And when you get out of the industrialised world, the call to support neighbours and loved ones regardless of expense increases even more. Overall, human society does, in fact, favour Good.

It's just America that's a bit skewed about it.

I'm an American, from New York, as it indicates right below my little avatar. I assume you are too from the 'most of us'. I disagree with you by the way but real world politics are not an allowed topic on the boards so lets not go down that road.

The percentage of people of each alignment thing was to demonstrate that it's a rare alignment in behavior we are supposed to be used to seeing according to WotC. It should not be easy for a character to have it. Hence, I would view the examples you gave as having neutral alignments because they are missing important components of the lawful alignment as character traits, as most of us are.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 04:33 PM
[R]eal world politics are not an allowed topic on the boards so lets not go down that road.
That'd be a whole other thread, my friend. :smallbiggrin: (And probably not a pretty one, ne?)


I would view the examples you gave as having neutral alignments because they are missing important components of the lawful alignment as character traits, as most of us are.
The thing is that, from my examples, they are far more of the alignment than not. The first, for instance, demonstrates five Lawful traits - honesty, duty, trustworthiness, conservativeness (the tradition bit), and judgementalness (yes, not all aspects of Lawful are "good") - and one (or two) Chaotic trait(s) - disrespect for authority and its representatives. In my score book, that's 5 to 1 - a 4, which is more than enough to tilt fully to Lawful. A 1 or 2 I'd say is probably still Neutral, and 3 is borderline (I'd judge in favour of the extreme, generally), but with that much "Lawful" in him without much Chaos to balance, there is no other judgement I can make but to rate him firmly Lawful.

If we don't allow for degrees of variation like that, and decree only people with no Chaotic traits can be Lawful (and thus vice versa), the number of people that weren't Neutral would be minuscule - something more akin to 10% than the 50ish% you outlined.

MadMadMad
2007-08-23, 05:00 PM
Although I agree with you generally, this is overbroad. The law IS a form of Authority. Lawful people follow the law because it is the command of an authority figure, king, parliment, mayor, whatever. They will follow other forms of authority too, like their boss, but if the only person they follow is their boss, and disregard the laws of society, then they aren't lawful.

OK, I agree partly, but argue that one can break laws AND be lawful without penalty. What if, for example, a Paladin arrives in a country where the worship of his god is forbidden? As a lawful individual he must carry obey the higher authority, despite the local law.

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 05:26 PM
I've read multiple times that obeying regional Laws is not the same as Lawful Behaivior. But how does one develop Lawful Behaivior? I believe it is through observing others obey regional Laws, getting in trouble when you break said Laws, obeying Laws set down by parental figures and or people felt to know more than we do (and other ways I just can't think of at the moment). So while the Laws effective in the region after you grow up might not encompass your current Lawful Behaivior, they did originate from Laws. Take Prostitution for example (the oldest profession). While in many countries and regions this is illegal, in the rest it is a legal, controlled, and taxed profession. So while prostitution might be lawful in said regions, it is definately chaotic in the others. Does this make prostitution evil in many areas but good in the rest? No, the evil or goodness per say can't be decided on by Law or Chaos. We go back to the development of Lawful Behaivior. When one is learning to adhere to laws and learning the punishment of them, those same people also help develop the Moral Compass of good and evil. If you grow up around people that are manipulative and use Laws for their own end you learn the same moral lesson that people who manipulate Chaos for their own ends learn.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 05:37 PM
Take Prostitution for example (the oldest profession). While in many countries and regions this is illegal, in the rest it is a legal, controlled, and taxed profession. So while a prostitute might be lawful in said regions, it is definately chaotic in the others.
I cannot see a lick of sense in this. If the prostitutes act the same - regardless if that manner is Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral - they have the same alignment, and the laws where they are or where they grew up mean exactly jack and squat.

Alignment is not relative. It's absolute - it's objective. Things that are Lawful - telling the truth, keeping your word, judging others, honouring your duty - are always Lawful, regardless of regional variances. While two "Lawful" bits - respecting and upholding tradition and respecting and obeying authority - might vary a bit from location to location, this variance is insufficient to shift someone that is otherwise Lawful towards non-Lawful; even if they might not respect this place's traditions, they respect tradition in general; while they might not respect this authority, they still respect authority in general. Law and Chaos are just as objective and absolute as are Good and Evil.

And that is why Lawful has nothing to do with the law; the law can change; Lawful does not.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-23, 05:48 PM
It's important to bear in mind that alignments, good/evil or law/chaos, are supposed to describe a character and not a life. If your description of an alignment is such that a single personality is categorized differently in different contexts, it isn't working correctly.

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 06:05 PM
I cannot see a lick of sense in this. If the prostitutes act the same - regardless if that manner is Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral - they have the same alignment, and the laws where they are or where they grew up mean exactly jack and squat.

It's more defining the act, less the person. In one region the act is inherently Chaotic, while the act in the other region is inherently Lawful. I'll edit my post for clarity.


Alignment is not relative. It's absolute - it's objective. Things that are Lawful - telling the truth, keeping your word, judging others, honouring your duty - are always Lawful, regardless of regional variances. While two "Lawful" bits - respecting and upholding tradition and respecting and obeying authority - might vary a bit from location to location, this variance is insufficient to shift someone that is otherwise Lawful towards non-Lawful; even if they might not respect this place's traditions, they respect tradition in general; while they might not respect this authority, they still respect authority in general. Law and Chaos are just as objective and absolute as are Good and Evil.

And that is why Lawful has nothing to do with the law; the law can change; Lawful does not.

Wow, with your defination of Lawful I'd really like to meet that person. The truth hurts, judging others is a 2 edged sword, duties change, and not everyone can keep there word all the time. So what is it. If it's kept up 100% of the time an individual is Lawful? 75%? So 50% is Neutral, and 25% is Chaotic? So someone who skirts around the truth but still tells it, keeps to the letter but not the spirit of their word, judges others harshly, and does their duty but dishonors it at the same time is evil? So we vary this by 50% for a neutral person? Man seems like to me every player is pretty neutral to me. Tell me one Paladin that hasn't sugar coated Truth, or Mis-judged others, or failed to keep their word (not through their own fault) and I'll call him a Saint.

Nekoshodan
2007-08-23, 06:14 PM
I have had some trouble with the alignment definitions in this forum. Some have frightened me, and some have been very close to what I have come to, but I would like to offer this to the discussion.

Good:
I believe Good to be what benefits the condition of humanity (given that we are all humans in RL), yourself included.

Evil:
Evil would be what harms the condition of humanity, now here’s the clincher, yourself included. Explained further below.

Neutral:
I think that any act of true consequence is either good or evil to some degree. A person with no strong tendency toward one or the other would be neutral.


In this case, stealing a simple trinket from the shopkeeper would be evil. You now simply have a nifty trinket, but have deprived the shopkeeper of what is rightfully his and sown some amount of distrust in the community.

Stealing a loaf of bread from a well-to-do baker might even be (good), as it benefits you far more than any harm it causes to the rest of humanity.

Allowing yourself to starve for want of a superfluous loaf of bread on the other hand would be evil. In essence, it is suicide. You have done the ultimate disservice to yourself, you will never again contribute to good, and there is a rotting body in the streets.



In a similar vein, sacrificing your life to save little Jimmy’s Saturday night dinner, when he’s a normal healthy kid, would be evil. The disservice to yourself is far greater than any benefit to anyone, and if you acted all noble about it you have ALSO encouraged others to give up their lives for trivial things by your example.

Sacrificing your life to save that of many, would still be Good. You have created a severe disservice to yourself, BUT in your situation it was the only way to accomplish the great service to everyone else, which is more than enough to make up for that.

The last is generally considered the most noble, and I believe it is because the overall good that has some self-detriment is done almost exclusively for the right reasons. Also, it tends to be a pretty big Good when people do it(at least those who are remembered for it).


As for Law/Chaos:
I do not have very well formed definitions for this yet. However, I do agree with Nagora in that a very Lawful person would likely see a Chaotic person as Evil, and a very Chaotic person would likely see a Lawful person as Evil.

I also believe that similar attributes color some RL people’s definitions of good and evil as described on this board.

Krellen
2007-08-23, 06:14 PM
Two points:

Point 1) Paladins are Lawful Good, not Lawful Good or Lawful Good. They will always emphasise the Good over the Law, if there ever comes a conflict - thus the sugar-coating (the truth would cause harm, so they tell a harmless lie to prevent harm). If they don't emphasise the Good then, like Miko, they fall. Her fault was being Lawful Good.

Point 2) Failing through no fault of your own does not change your alignment. If it was up to him, the Paladin would keep his word - but was unable due to extraneous circumstances beyond his control. He's still Lawful. The Barbarian, on the other hand, could have kept his word - but simply didn't feel like it, or decided it would be easier or more profitable not to - so he's not Lawful. And yes, judging people is a two-edged sword. The "virtues" of Lawful are not all good, and the "vices" of Chaos are not all bad. Thinking one is "more good" than the other is a false dichotomy.

Oh, and this:
So someone who skirts around the truth but still tells it, keeps to the letter but not the spirit of their word, judges others harshly, and does their duty but dishonors it at the same time is evil?
is pretty much the textbook (and SRD) definition of Lawful Evil.

Nekoshodan
2007-08-23, 06:40 PM
I feel I must amend that last statement of mine.
I believe that it colors just about EVERYONE’s view of good and evil to some degree (myself included)
This could be where moral relativism comes from.

Perhaps we are unable, unwilling, or too ignorant to discern the difference between evil and the ‘wrong’ way of trying to do good, if that is indeed more than evil done out of ignorance.

Funkyodor
2007-08-24, 02:20 AM
Point 1) Paladins are Lawful Good, not Lawful Good or Lawful Good. They will always emphasise the Good over the Law, if there ever comes a conflict - thus the sugar-coating (the truth would cause harm, so they tell a harmless lie to prevent harm). If they don't emphasise the Good then, like Miko, they fall. Her fault was being Lawful Good.

Not quite true. A paladin that violates her Lawful code to adhere to Good morals will fall just as easily one that violates her Good morals to stick with her Lawful decisions. A Paladin must find a way to resolve Lawful and Good conflicts in a way that satisfies both. Or in other words Lawful Good.

On this note I think I'll bow out of this discussion thread. Some books I've read that deal heavily with Law/Chaos & Good/Evil within a Fantasy setting.

The Deed of Paksenarrion is a trilogy by Elizabeth Moon dealing with alot of moral decisions and the end of the second book is classic.

The Renshai Trilogy by Mickey Zucker Reichert is a Fantasy story involving Norse history and steeped in Law/Chaos conflict.

I felt both of these trilogys (The Deed of Packsenarrion is much shorter) to be very good.

nagora
2007-08-24, 04:10 AM
It's more defining the act, less the person. In one region the act is inherently Chaotic, while the act in the other region is inherently Lawful. I'll edit my post for clarity.

I think in the specific case of prostitution at least, the fact that it occurs in every society in every country throughout all of history shows that prostitutes where it is not illegal are not doing it through any respect for law - it would be happening anyway. It's a lucky coincidence if they happen to be in a country where it's legal and tells you nothing about the actual alignment of the person.

Merely obeying the law is not a good way to judge someone's Law/Chaos alignment - law's tend to be enforced and that goes a long way to explaining why a chaotic person might act within the law. The question is do they have respect for the law as opposed to simply fearing its enforcers?

nagora
2007-08-24, 04:17 AM
Not quite true. A paladin that violates her Lawful code to adhere to Good morals will fall just as easily one that violates her Good morals to stick with her Lawful decisions. A Paladin must find a way to resolve Lawful and Good conflicts in a way that satisfies both. Or in other words Lawful Good.


Not true, or at least not that simple. A paladin will fall for any evil act, or for a GROSS violation of their code. It has been a feature of Paladins since Good was introduced as an alignment, that the code comes second place to doing good. They should try to do both, but in a dilemma they must err on the side of Good.

Stephen_E
2007-08-24, 05:12 AM
As for Law/Chaos:
I do not have very well formed definitions for this yet. However, I do agree with Nagora in that a very Lawful person would likely see a Chaotic person as Evil, and a very Chaotic person would likely see a Lawful person as Evil.

I also believe that similar attributes color some RL people’s definitions of good and evil as described on this board.

I can understand your difficulty defining Law/Chaos.
You've made amiply clear that you have included "Chaos" in you Evil definition and "Law" in your Good definition. In fact I'd go further and suggest your Good/Evil definitions are closer to been Law/Chaos definitions than Good/Evil.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-08-24, 05:25 AM
If you wear green is is an evil act? No. A good act? No.
Is it chaotic... definitly not lawful, since the town council is legitimatly elected and are representing the best interests of its residents.



I should note that just because you think the election of the town council makes it a legitimate authority doesn't mean others do.

For example a religous person might consider legitimate authority only comes from God. Therefore no manmade authority is legitimate. Thus they can be Lawful while ignoring and disrespecting what you consider "legitimate authority".

Thus you can have "lawful" criminals, terrorists and insurgents.

Stephen

AKA_Bait
2007-08-24, 07:29 AM
If we don't allow for degrees of variation like that, and decree only people with no Chaotic traits can be Lawful (and thus vice versa), the number of people that weren't Neutral would be minuscule - something more akin to 10% than the 50ish% you outlined.

Ok, first, If you look at my outline it would be around 30%, not 50% that have a lawful or chaotic descriptor of some kind (LG, LE, LN, CN, CE, CG). Also, I'm not arguing that people can have varying degrees WITHIN the requirements. For example, if your 'lawful' fellow had been something more like this he would have made the cut:

A man who is honest, dedicated to his duty, loves the traditions of his society, almost always keeps his word and disapproves strongly of those that do not live up to those ideals, but disagrees with many of the laws of his country. He has been known to argue hotly with authority figures and can, when he loses control, occasionally be insulting, which he feels bad about afterwards and ususally apologizes. He doesn't break the law, but avoids it as far as he can when he disagrees with it and petitions for its change.

That guy would be lawful. He doesn't have a complete and total lack of respect for authority, but he's not a slave to it either. In the example you gave the person was utterly lacking one of the defining characteristics of the alignment. I know a fair number of people like this, and 15% of the poplation falling in ranges of all 4 chrarcteristics, but not utterly lacking any of them, seems plenty reasonable.

Nekoshodan
2007-08-24, 10:36 AM
You've made amiply clear that you have included "Chaos" in you Evil definition and "Law" in your Good definition. In fact I'd go further and suggest your Good/Evil definitions are closer to been Law/Chaos definitions than Good/Evil.

Stephen

I don't see that. I thrive on a certain amount of chaos(more than most like to have), and consider myself quite focused on good.


I am curious as to how you think my definition of evil targeted chaos.

Evil:
Evil would be what harms the condition of humanity, now here’s the clincher, yourself included.


----------
Edit1 and Edit2 to make less definitive statements about the meaning of other people's comments.

DeathQuaker
2007-08-24, 11:16 AM
Just brainstorming, so pardon the babble...

Some of the problems in this discussion are--as mentioned--brought up by semantics. And yes, we all let our own moral and ethical viewpoints color our interpretation of a game's guidelines for roleplaying a character. Most of us want to believe we are "good." We tend to shift definitions of "Good" to fit our views of it, often incorporating ethical views that may more technically fit "Law" or "Chaos" or "Purple" or "Monkey" or what have you. But being good -- in real life -- doesn't have to have anything to do with being "Good" as defined in the SRD (it may of course be similar, but let's not go there, shall we?).

Would it be easier to discuss alignment -- in other words, the game mechanic/guideline/system -- if we changed the words around so we didn't muddle them up with our own viewpoints of morality?

I have read interpretations (probably in Planescape related materials) that "alignment" can come to mean which Outer Plane is your character's soul most aligned. A person who behaves 'diabolically' (i.e. "Lawful Evil") is aligned with the Infernum. If we let ourselves get caught up in arguments about what one society says is right or wrong it always screws up discussions of "Lawful" behavior... but if we say, "This guy behaves like a typical Devil does" it might be clearer.

So rather than have "Lawful" and "Chaotic" etc. could we say something like

Infernal, Abyssal, Mechanical (Ordered), Limboid (or Disordered), Celestial, Arboreal (or Archonic or Angelic) .... or SOMETHING.... we could still use the combo of the concepts of law/chaos/good/evil to determine what these alignments are but if we change the words it might eliminate SOME of the alignment nitpicking. It won't get rid of it entirely (we'll just be wondering if theft is Abyssal or simply Disordered) but would it help? Or am I just making a mess?

Nekoshodan
2007-08-24, 04:51 PM
I think that kind of disassociation could indeed remove much of the heat from the discussion, but unfortunately remove much of the point of the discussion as well.

The thing is that many, I think most who bother to post on threads like this, want the system to try to model reality to a "reasonable" degree.

If you look real close, you might occasionally even see some who want reality to model the alignment system. :-P

Stephen_E
2007-08-24, 05:49 PM
Quote:Evil:
Evil would be what harms the condition of humanity, now here’s the clincher, yourself included.

I am curious as to how you think my definition of evil targeted chaos.


Your definition of "evil" appears to involve putting the general welfare of humanity ahead of the individual. You even define suicide, a profoundly individual act, as evil unless the greater part of humanity benefits from it.

These are lawful posistions. I'd also note that by default your view allows torture and murder as "good" acts so long as the greater good benefit from it.
This has always IMO been the clear mark of someone conflating "law" with "Good". Good and evil shouldn't need to be defined by calculating the overall benefit to society.

Chaos in particular judges good/evil on an individualist basis. That isn't to say they judge it on "what benefits me", but on the act itself (including the intent behind the act). Thus suicide for the purpose of harming others would be evil to a chaotic, but suicide because you find life no longer worth living is non-evil (the goodness of it requires a bit more defining).

Stephen

Nekoshodan
2007-08-24, 06:53 PM
I do see your point, particularly here.


These are lawful posistions. I'd also note that by default your view allows torture and murder as "good" acts so long as the greater good benefit from it.
This has always IMO been the clear mark of someone conflating "law" with "Good". Good and evil shouldn't need to be defined by calculating the overall benefit to society.


Though I still think that someone who flushes a large group of people down the tube for some benefit to an individual would not be good, not even chaotic good.

And I believe that except under the most extreme circumstances, suicide is doing evil unto oneself(individual), with minimal impact upon society.


I am considered rather chaotic in much of my life(by those I know), but perhaps I have a lawful view of morality.

I am beginning to wonder whether it is even possible to really separate good/evil from order/chaos.
Is having a very defined structure on the subject of morality, an inherently lawful trait?

Stephen_E
2007-08-25, 01:35 AM
Though I still think that someone who flushes a large group of people down the tube for some benefit to an individual would not be good, not even chaotic good.

If someone actively kills a bunch of people for the main purpose of gaining a personal benefit it's evil. Normally no question, although note the qualifiers I attach.
But to the chaotic the question of whether keeping those people alive was of benefit to the greater society is irrelevant. It's evil because killing people just for gain is evil (note: Killing those trying to kill you isn't "personal gain" but rather avoiding loss, assuming one doesn't want to die).


And I believe that except under the most extreme circumstances, suicide is doing evil unto oneself(individual), with minimal impact upon society.

Suicide only counts as evil under 2 approaches I'm aware of.
1) Killing for any reason is wrong. Suicide is killing your self. - This philosphy has problems that living generally involves killing something else. Food generally comes from a previously living entity. You can say lower life forms don't count, but then what logic are you using for drawing the line. This also definitely isn't practical in DnD.

2) Everyone serves society. Killing yourself is stealing your service from society. - This isn't a definition of evil. It's a definition of lawful.



I am beginning to wonder whether it is even possible to really separate good/evil from order/chaos.
Is having a very defined structure on the subject of morality, an inherently lawful trait?

Not only is it possible to seperate Good/Evil from Law/Chaos, but it's necessary. If you don't you get people trying to claim all chaotics/lawfuls are evil. It's like trying to define what constitutes attacking society while also arguing what constitutes a child. You end up with pointless statements such as "He's 15, therefore he's trying to destroy society". A ridiculous and useless statement.

If you claim a rigidly defined definition with clear cut boxes which you're either in or out of, then yes, that is a inherently lawful trait. The Chaotic approach would be more soft edged, with few if any "hard rules".
For example, A lawful approach could be to say "Torture=evil". No circumstances, flat out, it's evil. A Chaotic approach could be to say "well it isn't good, but depending on the circumstances it may or may not be evil".

Note: I said "could be". I'm not suggesting that the actual opinions I used are lawful or chaotic, but how precisely they define it.

Stephen

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-25, 01:54 AM
People keep bringing up the example of Robin Hood as a prime example of a CG theif. I'd like to re-introduce the definitions of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, as shown in the SRD.



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

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

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.


There we go.

Now, as one can read above, doing harm to another is considered evil. However concern for the dignity of others, respecting life, and altruism are good.

When Robin Hood steals from Prince John, the theft it's self is harm to another, and is Evil.

When he donates the stolen money to people, he is being altruistic, respecting life, and is showing concern for the dignity of his fellow beings.

The good that he does (keeping people from dieing from starvation, uplifting spirits, and giving things he could keep) outway the evil (stealing from a despot).

By the same token, killing a band of killing, maurauding orcs is both good, and evil. You harm them (evil) but you prevent harm to many others (good).

Now, obviously, if Robin could have convinced John to stop being a bad person, that would have been more good than stealing the money to give it to the peasants. If you could scare the orcs back to their homeland and be assured they would never go raping or pillaging again, that would be more good... because you had not done the evil.

This is why in many groups that I think truly embrace the 'good' outlook, the PCs attempt non-violent solutions when there is a glimmer of hope that it will work.

The area of theft is a CE act in my opinion. In my opinion, the act of civil disobedience against a despot, or an unjust law is a CG act, unless you are relying on a higher law (I.e. disobeying a federal law which violates the constitution).

The act of civil protest within the current laws, aiming to change a law within the system, if one views it as harmful to society is LG, while the act of using the laws as they exist to harm others and get away with it is LE.


Depends on the state? :smallsmile:

Let's assume it's illegal to have a non-licensed personal level fire works display in the given state, and yet a group of people buys such fire works and sets them off in violation of the law, but following the cultural norms, and traditions of their community, as has been done as far back as the parents of the parents in that family can remember.

Is the buying and setting off of the fire works lawful, chaotic, or neutral?

Stephen_E
2007-08-25, 03:47 AM
Let's assume it's illegal to have a non-licensed personal level fire works display in the given state, and yet a group of people buys such fire works and sets them off in violation of the law, but following the cultural norms, and traditions of their community, as has been done as far back as the parents of the parents in that family can remember.

Is the buying and setting off of the fire works lawful, chaotic, or neutral?

In this case I'd describe it as a primarily neutral act within the info given.
They're letting off the fireworks against state law, but within the traditions of their community.

You don't indicate that a fireworks display is "expected" within their community, so doing it is a matter of choice. You also make clear that fireworks aren't outright banned. That just leaves the conflicting of legitimate authority says you have to get license vs historical tradition saysit's ok for groups in this community do it without getting an actual license .

Stephen